Enterprise resource planning II – A review of critical success factors

Abstract

Delivering benefits from enterprise resource planning (ERP) II is challenging and the current research investigates the allocation of resources contributing towards benefits realisation. A literature review has been undertaken based on critical success factor (CSF) analysis. This research has revealed that ERP CSF change over time and that only some traditional ERP CSF are used in ERP II, as some are unnecessary whilst others are detrimental. In addition, ERP II specific CSF are also required to address extended enterprise opportunities. The use of ranked CSF is proving to be ineffective and ERP II CSF must be phased in during the implementation process, as addressing CSF retrospectively is detrimental.

Full text

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 13, No. 11, November 2015
Enterprise resource planning II – A review of critical
success factors
Dr. Andrew Lawrence Norton
Durham Business School
Durham University
Mill Hill Lane, Durham, DH1 3LB, UK
Abstract— Delivering benefits from enterprise resource planning
(ERP) II is challenging and the current research investigates the
allocation of resources contributing towards benefits realisation.
A literature review has been undertaken based on critical success
factor (CSF) analysis. This research has revealed that ERP CSF
change over time and that only some traditional ERP CSF are
used in ERP II, as some are unnecessary whilst others are
detrimental. In addition, ERP II specific CSF are also required to
address extended enterprise opportunities. The use of ranked
CSF is proving to be ineffective and ERP II CSF must be phased-
in during the implementation process, as addressing CSF
retrospectively is detrimental.
Keywords: Enterprise resource planning; ERP II
implementation; critical success factors; CSF phasing; critical
pathway steps; CRM
I. INTRODUCTION
In today’s knowledge driven economy, enterprise resource
planning (ERP) systems have become the foundation of
extended enterprise opportunities [1-5]. Termed ERP II this
provides organisations with an increased information sharing
capability, enabling services to be made available through an
enterprise portal through which different stakeholders can gain
access to integrated services. A conceptual framework for ERP
II highlights four collaborative components [6]; business to
business, business to customer, business to employee and
enterprise application integration, a platform for integration
with other internal and external systems.
ERP II is a type of cyber-infrastructure and has been
described as “an overarching concept that encompasses the
hardware, software, services, personnel, and organisations that
serve as an underlying foundation in support of collaborative
network activities” [7, p105]. Indeed, a recent report has
revealed that the main reason for adopting an ERP system is to
achieve better integration of systems across multiple locations
[8]. Extended enterprise initiatives have changed the
competitive nature of some entire industry sectors; industries
that invest more heavily in them are far more competitive in
their nature [9]. In fact, using ERP II to improve customer
satisfaction has been shown to have a direct effect on achieving
greater financial gain [10].
Organisations can either implement an ERP II system
outright, or upgrade their existing ERP system, which should
be treated the same way as an outright implementation [11].
The global ERP market grew by 3.8% in 2013 [12] and a report
by Forrester Research has shown that the demand for ERP II is
strong, with 25% of European and Asian organisations
intending to invest further in their existing ERP systems [13].
In terms of the current demographic uptake of ERP systems,
over 60% of smaller companies, 39% of large companies and
70% all of Fortune 1000 companies have already implemented
ERP in some form [14].
Implementing or upgrading an ERP system is not an easy
task and there have been many high profile accounts of
bankruptcy for organisations attempting this [15-17]. Recently,
just prior to filing for bankruptcy in 2008, the UK high street
retailer Woolworths invested in a substantial ERP II
implementation project up-grade. This group had been SAP's
first UK customer in 1989 and upgraded to SAP SCM software
in 2008; this was designed to serve its 820 stores by integrating
a new merchandising system [18]. This failure is just one high
profile account of a widespread problem facing organisations
attempting to improve their collaborative network capabilities.
In excess of 90% of ERP implementations have been found
to run past their scheduled go-live date [19] and furthermore,
only about 35% of ERP implementations have been identified
as being delivered on time and within budget [20]. For
organisations looking to embrace extended enterprise
initiatives, the “new or extra benefits that we expected have not
materialised” [21, p106]. Over the past decade a great deal of
research has been directed towards resolving issues facing ERP
implementation failures by evaluating critical success factors
(CSF). However, there are still uncertainties regarding CSF for
ERP upgrades and outright ERP II implementations.
II. METHODS
The current research has undertaken a comprehensive
review of ERP CSF to gain a greater understanding of ERP II
implementation requirements. One study reveals 24 specific
research areas within the discipline of ERP [22] and CSF have
been ranked or prioritised within each of these different areas
[23-29]. The top ranked ERP CSF are frequently used to
provide direction for empirical research in ERP
implementations [27, 30-34]. Fundamentally, CSF research is
concerned with evaluating ‘winning’ companies [35], or, in the
context of ERP implementation, achieving the goal of the
5
https://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 13, No. 11, November 2015
implementation effort [36]. Ensuring ‘critical’ tasks are
undertaken guarantees that senior management give them the
necessary attention and, as such, resources are more effectively
allocated when delivering the overall implementation objective
[37, 38]. Learning from successful implementations makes
CSF analysis an invaluable tool [39] as it can be used to clearly
diagnose problems and provide lessons learnt for future
implementations [40].
The strongest criticism towards CSF research suggests that
the identification of success factors relies heavily on the
opinion of managers, and therefore introduces unduly positive
feedback and the potential for a biased evaluation of the
implementation [41]. In addition, if researchers solely look at
pre-published success factors as a basis for undertaking
empirical research, there is a danger of these becoming a self-
fulfilling prophecy. To address the limitations of CSF analysis,
key issues identified in the current research have been
appraised in the context of the implementation lifecycle [3, 21,
42-45], which is comprised of four distinctive phases:
chartering, project, shakedown, and onward and upward [46].
In addition, key issues have been evaluated in the context of
resource based investments; resource investments made during
an ERP implementation are allocated into the areas of people,
process and technology [47], which are considered to be the
fundamental pillars of any information system.
The misalignment of resources during an implementation
has been termed technical isomorphism [48], empirical
research has highlighted that even when the technical
implementation itself has been a success, there can be
difficulties in establishing the most effective processes for
achieving the desired benefits [49]. Compounding this issue, is
the widespread underinvestment in training which is having a
significant impact on benefits being realised in an ERP II
environment [50].
To accurately search for relevant journal publications,
published league tables were used and in addition, journal
databases were searched. A broad set of ‘key words’ were
established [51] and these covered a wide spectrum of issues
deemed to be relevant in the context of the current research, as
outlined in table I.
TABLE I
LITERATURE SEARCH TERMS
Key Words
ERP
ERP II
Critical success factor
Critical success factor ‘AND’ CRM
Critical success factor ‘AND’ ERP
Critical success factor ‘AND’ Enterprise resource planning
Critical success factor ‘AND’ IT
Critical success factor ‘AND’ MIS
ERP ‘AND’ Customer relationship management
ERP ‘AND’ e-commerce
ERP ‘AND’ e-service quality
ERP ‘AND’ Extended enterprise
ERP ‘AND’ Implementation
ERP ‘AND’ Knowledge sharing
ERP ‘AND’ Supply chain management
ERP ‘AND’ Training
To ensure relevant journal publications were not
overlooked in the formulation of this literature review,
publications from key journals were also evaluated; the titles
and abstracts of these publications were reviewed for relevance
over a five-year period. In sourcing key journals, a list of
leading industry-specific journals was identified through
recommendations from industry experts. In addition, other
leading journals within the field of information system research
were identified using the Aston Business School published
league table of journals [52].
In searching the body of literature covering ERP CSF, a
process of open coding was adopted which pertains specifically
to the naming and categorising of a phenomenon, involving the
breaking apart of data, delineating concepts and ultimately
qualifying concepts in terms of their properties [53]. To
validate the choices made in categorising papers, content
analysis was used [54]. This approach has been shown to be an
effective methodology in this type of research setting [55]
where the number of instances when an issue was cited within
the literature was counted to determine its relevance. If the
categories outlined are sufficiently precise [56], content
analysis has been shown to ensure a high reliability of its
measure, and as such adds validity to the decision of selecting
these ‘critical’ issues. The use of CSF genres has also been
shown to be an effective way of classifying ERP CSF [44].
III. RESULTS
A. The changing nature of ERP CSF
In the current research two of the most comprehensive ERP
CSF ranked lists, undertaken in 2001 and 2007 [55, 57], have
been compared and contrasted as outlined in table II. This
evaluation has revealed that ERP CSF change over time and
compliments our current understanding, where in the early
2000s ERP research focused on collaborative commerce,
subsequently in the mid-decade research moved towards
leveraging integration and then in the late decade research
focused on seeking better utilisation of IT infrastructures [44].
The analysis undertaken has shown that redundant CSF
disappear and are replaced by newly identified, more effective
CSF, in a process based on resource investments contributing
towards benefits realisation. Of the CSF which disappeared
over the period, i.e. are not present in the evaluation carried out
in 2007, several are related to supplier driven issues, and
include: ‘vendor partnership’, ‘architecture choices’ and
‘minimal customisation’, whilst others include ‘dedicated
resources’, ‘steering committee’, and ‘education on new
business processes’. One explanation for this is that the client is
becoming more involved in their own implementation
decisions. This point is re-enforced by the fact that CSF that
provide the supplier with decision making abilities are also
disappearing, which include: ‘vendor’s tools’ and ‘use of
consultants’. If the client organisations are becoming more
involved in their own decision making during the
implementation process, it would seem that they are more
readily dictating the implementation agenda.
6
https://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 13, No. 11, November 2015
TABLE II
RANKING COMPARISON OF ERP CSF
ERP CSF Classification
in 2001
ERP CSF Classification
in 2007
1 Top management
support (1) Top management
commitment and support
2 Project team competence (19) Change management
3 Interdepartmental
cooperation (16) BPR and software
configuration
4 Clear goals and
objectives (14) Training and
job redesign
5 Project
management (2) Project team: the best
and the brightest
6 Interdepartmental
communication (4) Implementation strategy
and timeframe
7 Management of
expectations (9) Consultant selection
and relationship
8 Project champion (7) Visioning and planning
9 Vendor support (3) Balanced team
10 Careful package
selection (8) Project
champion
11 Data analysis
and conversion (6) Communication
plan
12* Dedicated resources New IT infrastructure
13* Steering committee New Managing cultural change
14 User
training New Post-implementation
evaluation
15* Education on new
business processes (10) Selection of
ERP
16 Business process re-
engineering (BPR) New Team morale and
motivation
17* Minimal customisation New Vanilla ERP
18* Architecture choices (5) Project management
19 Change
management New Troubleshooting/
crisis management
20* Vendor partnership New Legacy system consideration
21* Vendor’s tools (11) Data conversion
22* Use of consultants New System testing
23 New Client consultation
24 New Project cost planning
and management
25 New Build a business case
26 New Empowered decision makers
KEY: ‘*’ denotes disappearing CSF,
‘NEW’ denotes new CSF and ‘( )’ denotes previous ranking
Of the newly appearing CSF, i.e. not present in the
evaluation carried out in 2001, it is clear that these are client
driven CSF, and include: ‘client consultation’, ‘build a business
case’, ‘legacy system consideration’, ‘post-implementation
evaluation’, ‘IT infrastructure’, and ‘system testing’. In
addition, the CSF which deal directly with organisational
change are also becoming more prominent, and include:
‘managing cultural change’, ‘team moral and motivation’,
‘vanilla ERP’, ‘troubleshooting/crisis management’, ‘project
cost planning and management’, and ‘empowered decision
makers’.
B. A review of the highest ranked ERP CSF
Top management support is widely acknowledged as being
the top ranked CSF for an ERP implementation and this has
been widely cited in literature [20, 24, 29-31, 43, 57]. In
regards to this, having a top down management philosophy has
been identified as being critical [21]. The exact level of
‘support’ required from top management has also attracted a
great deal of interest. The type of support offered by top
management extends widely, although the awareness of the
role they play is essential [58]. Broadly these activities include
offering their political persuasion, influential skills, providing
financial budget assurances and other resources as required [33,
59]. Research specifically suggests that having a high level
business side sponsor is needed [60], which involves top
management buying into the goals of the overall project and
having dedicated commitment to it [27, 55]. It has also been
found that strong and committed leadership at the top
management level is required throughout the entire life-cycle of
the ERP implementation [61].
Project team competence is a highly ranked CSF [31, 57]
and an important aspect of this is the careful selection of
acquisition team members [28]. Selection of the project team
leader is particularly important and this person must be a
veteran [24], and able to assert clear and unambiguous
authority for the implementation to be a success [28]. The
formulation of a great implementation team is necessary [27]
and one key issue in achieving this is evaluating the level of
education of the project team members, as selecting the best
and the brightest candidates has been found to be a critical
factor [55]. When selecting project team members, it is
necessary to seconder members from affected departments to
guarantee relevant experience is incorporated into the project
team [29] and utilise members with former implementation
experience [33]. Achieving a balanced team is required [55]
since the tasks the project team members perform are wide and
varied, and often relate specifically to the duty of the specialist
appointed. Some critical aspects noted in literature reveal that it
is important to ensure that project team members are capable
of: undertaking mapping exercises, having technology fixing
capabilities and undertaking cost management exercises [30,
60, 62]. It is also important that project team members are
decision makers [24]. Ensuring project team competence
revolves around ensuring the team is able to work together
[43], and as such the moral and motivational skills of the
project team members is a key factor [55]. However, this must
be tackled during the early stages of the implementation [63].
7
https://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 13, No. 11, November 2015
Interdepartmental communication is a highly ranked CSF
for ERP implementations [31, 57] and involves ‘business
systems thinking’ [60]. In addition, the establishment of a
communication plan has been identified as being essential [55],
in conjunction with the use of a communications matrix [29].
Findings show that having open and honest communications
during the implementation process is necessary [30] and
bridging and bonding between internal staff groups is required
for successful interdepartmental communications [63].
Preparing an inter-organisational plan is a critical task [64] and
ensuring that there is an IT readiness to facilitate this change is
required [55]. The MIS department has been found to play an
important role in the implementation process [65], with
effective portal governance being an important aspect of
connecting departments [61]. Interdepartmental cooperation is
important [31, 57] and includes dealing with multi-site issues in
large implementations [27]. A partnership approach has been
advocated [28], whereby a relationship building exercise is
required in establishing an understanding between departments
[60]. An essential task is to engage with the heads of
departments directly [30], as this leads to the adequate support
required from functional units [16], particularly in their
contribution towards system testing [55].
Having clear goals and objectives is a well-founded CSF
[27, 31, 57] and it is important that these are aligned with
current processes or linked with the intended overall business
strategy [30, 33, 62]. In addition, incorporating the ERP
implementation into a wider shared and clear vision is
necessary in achieving a successful implementation [22, 55,
59], as is the concept of linking with a wider change
programme [66] and recognising the need for change [59]. For
achieving clear goals and objectives it is important that there is
clarity at the chartering phase [46] and this must involve senior
management [21] and to have a realistic estimate of value-
adding processes [67]. Here, it has been found that essential
architecture choices must be made [57] where IT leadership has
been found to be critical [60]. Deciding on the initial approach
is necessary, be that a comprehensive ‘big bang’ approach, a
middle-of-the-road option or one that is more incremental in
nature, such as the ‘vanilla approach’ [68]. Whichever
approach is decided upon, it is essential that this approach
should focus on performance measures [27], and that these
measures are aligned by all stakeholders [30]. However, in
order to achieve a sound management of expectations,
performance indicators must be aligned with the overall
implementation objectives [69].
Project management is a highly ranked ERP CSF and this
has been widely cited in literature [27, 31, 43, 55, 57, 65].
Critical steps for the project team are: establishment of an
implementation strategy [55], architecture planning [60],
undertaking regular workshops [30] and setting key milestones
[29]. In setting key milestones it has been shown that the use of
a time box philosophy is needed [60], which supports findings
regarding the criticality of time management [70]. In addition,
other specific critical tasks have been identified as being:
planning, budgeting, scheduling and management [55, 70, 71],
which involve having empowered decision makers [55]. It is
important to establish a road map of tasks [59] and the
undertaking of these must be guided by the establishment of a
steering committee [57, 72]. Gaining senior management
support is necessary in tackling the issue of resistance to
change [29], as senior management establish coalitions of
interest groups [21] for performing troubleshooting and crisis
management exercises [55].
Change management has been well cited in literature as
being one of the highest ranking CSF for ERP implementations
[24, 27, 43, 55, 57], which is not surprising as most
organisations need to restructure their operational procedures in
order to accommodate this type of system [66]. Important
aspects of this include developing a culture of accepting change
[46], managing cultural change [55] and instilling a readiness
for change [73]. These are all aspects which lead to the
achievement of an appropriate implementation climate, which
is important [74]. The managers at an operational level will not
support a new system if their information needs are not
addressed and this often requires business process re-
engineering to be undertaken. Tackling the resistance of users
[16] is also an essential part of dealing with change and
achieving user buy-in has been found to be needed in tackling
this [28]. One approach in resolving this is the use of super
users [72]; however, this can also be dealt with organisationally
by the utilisation of the HR function [16, 32, 63]. HR also deal
with any compensation packages which may need modifying
due to the implementation [75]. The HR department can be
used to instill a common sense of urgency [59] until a
‘satisfying’ mindset prevails [24], which have both been found
to be important factors. In tackling the important aspect of
resistance to change, achieving a harmonious implementation
[65] and delivering a philosophy of transparency and social
integration during the implementation process [76] are
necessary.
Undertaking business process re-engineering and software
configuration improvements has been identified as being a
highly ranked ERP CSF [16, 57, 58, 72], and research shows
that this must involve the establishment of a planned, structured
and rigorous process [28]. To achieve this, business process re-
engineering and software configuration is essential [55], which
involves the key aspect of understanding the existing legacy
systems [55]. It is important for process adaptations to be made
[65] and to achieve this it has been found that introducing an
‘as is’ ‘to be’ evaluation is most effective [28, 77]. Business
process re-engineering is required when undertaking an ERP
implementation and it has been suggested that this should begin
by undertaking a cost-benefits analysis [1], as only by
understanding the pros and cons can a clear picture be revealed
regarding the processes that need re-engineering. It is also
necessary at this point to identify and build on key in-house IT
capabilities [60], which may require changing current business
processes. Here it has been found that a critical task is ensuring
the project team utilises the knowledge of system users when
defining the new functionality [21]. Job mapping in the process
mapping phase is necessary [78] in order to address the
technical specifications and customisations required [65]. A
case study was undertaken to demonstrate that an ERP system
can successfully replace old legacy databases [79], noting
specifically that overcoming dirty data migration problems and
identifying key customer data sets are essential aspects.
Acquiring accurate and reliable information has also been
8
https://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 13, No. 11, November 2015
found to be important [27, 28] as is the process of identifying
any data misfits [80], which are both used for achieving data
conversion [55, 57]. Establishing a knowledge formulation
phase has been identified as being necessary [81] and involving
internal staff throughout this knowledge formulation phase is
important [65]. One critical application of this phase is utilising
end users to advise on job linking activities [82]. Indeed, a
testing strategy is needed as it can reveal ‘show stoppers’ in
terms of their essential data requirements [11]. User
involvement in change management situations has been found
to be important [74] particularly in informing users of any job
redesign issues concerning the nature of their work. Knowledge
management during the implementation process is important
and initially an evaluation and integration of legacy systems
must be undertaken [65]. An important consequence of using
end users in the knowledge formulation phase is that internal
staffs’ professional management knowledge of the system will
be heightened post-implementation [34]. Ultimately,
knowledge management relies upon the organisation’s
flexibility for further learning [60] and the user’s maturity for
the application of new technology [65], which have both been
cited as being critical.
Training and job redesign has been identified as being a
highly ranked ERP CSF. It is important to undertake an
extensive amount of employee education and training [27, 65].
During the implementation it is essential to train the end user
about the concept of ERP for the full benefits of the system to
be realised [34] and to educate users on new business processes
[57]. Business process re-engineering is completed post-
deployment by the task of real-world testing and evaluation
[55, 59], especially where the system is open for the use of the
general public, where anxiety may preside [59]. Senior
management must decide on a number of issues regarding the
training delivery, one finding is that training should be
outsourced [29]. Establishing training intervention is necessary
[72, 83] and it has been found that delivering hands-on training
works best [81]. Indeed, ensuring all users receive training is
necessary [57]. The client organisation must make provision of
dedicated resources to the training programme [57], and user
participation is needed in the training process [28]. Making
decisions on possible ways for restructuring personnel post-
implementation is important [84] as is utilising training to
inform users of any job redesign issues concerning the nature
of work which enables them to fulfill their job description [55].
One important way to evaluate the progress of the training has
been found to be undertaking performance evaluations [65].
Vendor support has been identified as being a highly ranked
ERP CSF. Incorporating expert opinion is important, be that
through the vendor itself or through other external partners who
can also add value. Supplier development, for example, has
been found to be an important aspect [11, 55]. This can be
achieved by incorporating a support element into the contract
and is particularly important for facilitation and monitoring
purposes which have both been found to be critical [60].
Having positive relations with external partners is naturally
important; however, it is important that the relationship with
the vendor is a good one [57], even to the extent that this
relationship must be harmonious [62]. Aligning the needs of
the organisation and the software requires particular attention,
only here can mismatches be appraised. Fully understanding
the similarities that exist between the organisation and the ERP
package is a key aspect of vendor support [48]. It is important
to perform a cost and benefits analysis prior to any outsourcing,
for example the use of an application service provider [85].
Here the support of the vendor is extremely important, as only
they have the tools to achieve this [57]. An important aspect of
vendor support is that they must allocate more time explaining
embedded data requirements to the client [80], and their
expertise must be used for signing off process maps [30].
Achieving knowledge transfer is imperative [24, 86] and this
relates to having an exemplary level of vendor support and
upgrading the level of training support provided [11].
Careful package selection has been identified as being a
highly ranked ERP CSF [31, 57]. Vendors sell particular
packages or ‘brands’ of ERP, and the package selection has
been found to be an essential factor. In fact, choosing the
correct brand is important as minimal customisation has been
found to be a necessity [55, 57, 87]. Selecting the right vendor
is important, since if the strategic needs of the organisation are
not positively exploited, the benefits realisation will be
overlooked [88], and as such the client organisation must
consider their system specifications beforehand [65]. Informed
buying (of vendor package) by the client is key [60] and this
can be achieved by utilising a team-based selection, which has
been found to be an effective approach [67]. The utilisation of
stakeholder/sub group evaluations in the adoption process is
necessary [89] since this approach maximises the business
alignment choice [30]. Ultimately, a competent client side
negotiating team is needed [90], and it has been found that the
establishment of selection and evaluation criteria is an
important aspect of the vendor selection process [28]. Indeed
one essential selection criterion has been found to be the
amount of expertise the vendor has in their particular field, be
that the industry sector or strategic application of the ERP
system [91]. However, a client appraise of customer needs
should be undertaken pre vendor selection [92].
C. What are the implications for ERP II CSF?
The collaborative capability provided by ERP II requires
customer-facing processes to be incorporated into the system
design, and having a clear understanding of the principles of
customer relationship management (CRM) prior to any ERP II
implementation is essential; the integration between ERP and
CRM systems has been termed E-CRM [93]. Little research
exists to bridge the gap between ERP and CRM
implementation requirements and yet this has a significant
impact on ERP II implementations, which encompass elements
of both during its implementation. A comparison between the
top five highest ranked ERP and CRM CSF reveals that there is
a significant difference in the way that traditional ERP and
CRM implementations are managed [57, 94], indeed of the
highest ranked CSF for both, only one matched, and this was
‘top management support’, as outlined below:
ERP implementations are managed as projects; usually a
project team is allocated and a clear implementation framework
is established. Indeed, one of the primary measures of success
attributed to ERP projects is completion on time and within
budget [19, 20, 71]. The top ranked ERP CSF identified re-
9
https://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 13, No. 11, November 2015
enforce this point, as both ‘project management’ and ‘project
team competence’ are identified as being among the highest
ranked CSF for this type of implementation. In addition,
‘interdepartmental cooperation’ and ‘clear goals and
objectives’ are also listed in the highest ranked CSF, which are
both essential elements of project based tasks.
CRM implementations adopt a different approach to ERP
implementations, one where cultural change is the highest issue
on the implementation agenda. This is a philosophy where
‘communication of CRM strategy’ is the most important issue,
which is a highly ranking CRM CSF, possibly due to the
complex nature of the customer-facing processes involved.
Cultural change is achieved by having ‘knowledge
management capabilities’, which is also a highly ranked CRM
CSF as end-user feedback is obtained prior to the system being
designed. In facilitating the new system, these organisations
adopt a ‘willingness to share data’, which inherently leads to a
‘willingness to change processes’, which are both highly
ranked CRM CSF, as collectively the people involved
recognise that they do not operate alone, but as part of a wider
network with a common goal.
ERP II implementations require an entirely new
philosophical approach compared with its predecessor as it
incorporates elements of both ERP and CRM in its design.
Whilst the implementation of ERP II relies heavily upon many
of the same principles of traditional ERP systems, not all of
these resource-based investments contribute towards benefits
realisation in a customer-facing environment, indeed some
ERP resource investments have been found to be
counterproductive [95] and furthermore, additional ERP II
specific resource-based investments are required in order to
improve collaborative capabilities.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
This research presents a holistic overview of the CSF
required to achieve a successful ERP II implementation. There
is strong evidence to suggest that the traditional ways of
undertaking ERP implementations are evolving, which is
reflected in the newly identified and disappearing CSF. It
appears that the ERP market is rapidly changing, with supplier
organisations modifying their software solutions to meet the
requirements of the current market demands, which are driven
by their clients’ needs to have a better utilisation of their IT
infrastructures. The collaborative capability provided by ERP II
requires customer-facing processes to be incorporated into the
system design, as such having a clear understanding of the
principles of CRM prior to an ERP II implementation is
essential.
This literature review has revealed that there are currently
27 ERP II CSF that contribute towards benefits realisation, as
outlined in table III. Of these 17 traditional ERP CSF are
recommended for usage in ERP II implementations [42, 95].
Building upon the ERP CSF brought forward, this research has
also revealed that there are 10 newly identified ERP II specific
CSF [42, 95], which play crucial roles in achieving benefits
realisation from the new customer-facing capabilities.
TABLE III
TAXONOMY OF ERP II CSF
ERP II
CSF
Lifecycle
phase
Resource
base
Balanced team Shakedown
b
Process
b
Business process
re-engineering
Projecta,
Charteringb Processb
Change management
programme
Shakedowna,
Onward and Upwardb Peopleb
Clear
vision
Charteringa,
Projectb Processb
Communication plan Shakedown
b
Process
b
Data accuracy/integrity Shakedowna
Implementation strategy
and timeframe Projectb Peopleb
Management,
Ownership and drive Charteringa
Managing cultural change Onward and Upward
b
People
b
Organisational resources Charteringa
Performance monitoring
and evaluation
Onward and Upwarda,
Shakedownb Peopleb
Proactive
culture
Shakedowna,
Charteringb Peopleb
Project champion Onward and Upward
b
People
b
Project management Charteringa
Robust planning Charteringa
Training Shakedowna, b People
b
Training strategy Chartering
b
People
b
Collaborative
partner support* Charteringa, b Technologyb
Common partner goals* Charteringa,
b
Process
b
Data standard
consistency*
Shakedowna,
Onward and Upwardb Technologyb
Efficient legacy
enterprise system*
Charteringa,
Projectb Technologyb
Extended enterprise
understanding* Charteringa, b Technologyb
Operational efficiency* Charteringa
Partner culture similarity* Charteringa, Project
b
Technology
b
Partner trust* Charteringa
Relationship
change management*
Shakedowna,
Onward and Upwardb Peopleb
Similar partner priorities* Charteringa
Key: Source ‘a’ [42], source ‘b’ [95] and ‘*’ ERP II specific CSF
10
https://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 13, No. 11, November 2015
Research has shown that “Participants of the
implementation projects do not appreciate the significance of
particular factors which have an important influence on
project success” [33, p430]. These findings emphasise the
importance of having a clearly defined taxonomy of ERP II
CSF. This concept was first outlined over two decades over
ago [96], which successfully led to a culture of prioritising
and ranking ERP CSF.
A. The phasing of CSF in an ERP II implementation
Many authors agree that setting a clear strategic pathway
is key in defining new processes [97-99]. However, problems
can arise at any stage of an ERP II implementation lifecycle
[46] and there are shortcomings if factors are not realised or
corrected in a timely or logical manner [5], as such the need
for critical pathway steps has been outlined [100]. Often
resource-investments cannot easily be addressed
retrospectively in this type of implementation. Only by
allocating CSF at specific implementation lifecycle phases
and against resource-investment areas can we hope to
provide a clear taxonomy of the CSF required for ERP II
implementations.
REFERENCES
[1] H. M. Beheshti, "What managers should know
about ERP/ERP II," Management Research News,
vol. 29, pp. 184-193, 2006.
[2] A. A. Ndede-Amadi, "What strategic alignment,
process redesign, enterprise resource planning, and
e-commerce have in common: enterprise-wide
computing," Business Process Management
Journal, vol. 10, pp. 184 - 199, 2004.
[3] J. Peppard and J. Ward, "Unlocking Sustained
Business Value from IT Investments," California
Management Review, vol. 48, pp. 52-70, 2005.
[4] M. E. Porter, "Strategy and the Internet," Harvard
Business Review, vol. March, pp. 62-78, 2001.
[5] A. M. Sharif and Z. Irani, "Emergence of ERPII
Characteristics within an ERP integration context,"
in Proceedings of the Eleventh Americas
Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS),
Omaha, NE, USA, available (CD ROM), 2005.
[6] C. Møller, "ERP II: a conceptual framework for
next-generation enterprise systems?," Journal of
Enterprise Information Management, vol. 18, pp.
483-497, 2005.
[7] P. E. Carter and G. Green, "Networks of
Contextualized Data: A Framework for
Cyberinfrastructure Data Management,"
Communications of the ACM, vol. 52, pp. 105-109,
2009.
[8] Panorama Consulting Solutions, "The 2014
Manufacturing ERP Report," http://panorama-
consulting.com/resource-center/erp-industry-
reports/the-2014-manufacturing-erp-report/,
Denver, CO2014.
[9] A. MacAfee and E. Brynjolfsson, "Investing in the
IT that makes a competitive difference," Harvard
Business Review, vol. 86, pp. 99-107, 2008.
[10] V. Tsamantanis and H. Kogetsidis,
"Implementation of enterprise resource planning
systems in the Cypriot brewing industry," British
Food Journal, vol. 108, pp. 118-126, 2006.
[11] R. C. Beatty and C. D. Williams, "ERP II: Best
Practices for Successfully Implementing an ERP
Upgrade," Communications of the ACM, vol. 49,
pp. 105-109, 2006.
[12] Gartner, "Forecast Overview: ERP Software,
Worldwide, 2014." vol. 2014: Gartner, Inc., 2014.
[13] P. D. Hamerman, C. Moore, and A. Margarie,
"Trends 2011: ERP Customers Demand Better
Flexibility, Cost Transparency, And Mobility." vol.
2011: Forrester Research, 2011.
[14] D. C. Yen, D. C. Chou, and J. Chang, "A synergic
analysis for Web-based enterprise resources
planning systems," Computer Standards &
Interfaces, vol. 24, pp. 337-346, Sep 2002.
[15] T. H. Davernport, "Putting the enterprise into the
enterprise system," Harvard Business Review, vol.
76 pp. 121-131, 1998.
[16] Y. Kim, Z. Lee, and S. Gosain, "Impediments to
successful ERP implementation process," Business
Process Management Journal, vol. 11, pp. 158-
170, 2005.
[17] A. Ragowsky and T. M. Somers, "Special Section:
Enterprise Resource Planning," Journal of
Management Information Systems, vol. 19, pp. 11-
15, 2002.
[18] T. Ferguson, "Woolworths slashes costs with
supply chain tech. Case study: SAP helps
warehouse processes get slick ". vol. 2010: CBS
Interactive Limited, 2008.
[19] J. E. Scott and I. Vessey, "Managing risks in
enterprise systems implementations,"
Communications of the ACM, vol. 45, pp. 74-81,
2002.
[20] L. Dong, D. Neufeld, and C. Higgins, "Top
management support of enterprise systems
implementations," Journal of Information
Technology, vol. 24, pp. 55-80, 2009.
[21] J. Ward, C. Hemmingway, and E. Daniel, "A
framework for addressing the organisational issues
of enterprise systems implementation," Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, vol. 14, pp. 97-119,
2005.
[22] M. Al-Mashari, "Enterprise resource planning
(ERP) systems: a research agenda," Industrial
Management & Data Systems, vol. 102, pp. 22 -
27, 2003.
[23] O. Alaskari, M. Ahmad, M., N. Dhafr, and R.
Pinedo-Cuenca, "Critical Successful Factors
(CSFs) for Successful Implementation of Lean
Tools and ERP Systems," in Proceedings of the
11
https://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 13, No. 11, November 2015
World Congress on Engineering, London, U.K.,
2012.
[24] C. V. Brown and I. Vessey, "Managing the next
wave of enterprise systems - leveraging lessons
from ERP," MIS Quarterly, vol. 2, pp. 65-77, 2003.
[25] F. Rahnavard and N. Bozorgkhou, "Key factors in
the successful implementation of enterprise
resource planning system," Management Science
Letters, vol. 4, pp. 747-752, 2014.
[26] E. M. Shehab, M. W. Sharp, L. Supramaniam, and
T. A. Spendding, "Enterprise resource planning -
An integrated review," Business Process
Management Journal, vol. 10, pp. 359 - 386, 2004.
[27] E. J. Umble, R. R. Haft, and M. M. Umble,
"Enterprise resource planning: Implementation
procedures and critical success factors," European
Journal of Operational Research, vol. 146, pp.
241-257, 2003.
[28] J. Verville and C. Bernadas, "So you're thinking of
buying an ERP? Ten critical factors for successful
acquisitions," Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, vol. 18, pp. 665-677, 2005.
[29] H. S. Woo, "Critical success factors for
implementing ERP: the case of a Chinese
electronics manufacturer," Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, vol. 18,
pp. 431-442, 2007.
[30] H. Akkermans and K. Van Helden, "Vicious and
virtuous cycles in ERP implementation: a case
study of interrelations between critical success
factors," European Journal of Information Systems,
vol. 11, pp. 35-46, 2002.
[31] S. F. King and T. F. Burgess, "Understanding
success and failure in customer relationship
management," Industrial Marketing Management,
vol. 37, pp. 421-31, 2008.
[32] C. Shepherd, C. Clegg, and C. Stride, "Opening the
black box: A multi-method analysis of an
enterprise resource planning implementation,"
Journal of Information Technology, vol. 24, pp. 81-
102, 2009.
[33] P. Soja, "Success factors in ERP systems
implementations - Lessons from practice," Journal
of Enterprise Information Management, vol. 19,
pp. 418-433, 2006.
[34] C.-S. Yu, "Causes influencing the effectiveness of
the post-implementation ERP system," Industrial
Management & Data Systems, vol. 105, pp. 115-
132, 2005.
[35] A. C. Boynton and R. W. Zmud, "An Assessment
of Critical Success Factors.," Sloan Management
Review, vol. 25, pp. 17-27, 1984.
[36] M. Markus and D. Robey, "The organisational
validity of management information systems.,"
Human Relations, vol. 36, pp. 203-226., 1983.
[37] J. F. Rockart, "Chief executives define their own
data needs.," Harvard Business Review, vol. 57, pp.
81-93, 1979.
[38] J. F. Rockart and L. S. Flannery, "The Management
of End-User Computing," Communications of the
ACM, vol. 26, pp. 776-784, 1983.
[39] K. Lyytinen and L. Mathiassen, "Attention Shaping
and Software Risk--A Categorical Analysis of Four
Classical Risk Management Approaches.,"
Information Systems Research, vol. 9, pp. 233-255,
1998.
[40] K. Lyytinen and D. Robey, "Learning failure in
information systems development.," Information
Systems Journal, vol. 9, pp. 85-101, 1999.
[41] G. B. Davis, "From Our Readers.," MIS Quarterly,
vol. 4, pp. 69-70, 1980.
[42] S. C. L. Koh, A. Gunasekaran, and T. Goodman,
"Drivers, barriers and critical success factors for
ERPII implementation in supply chains: A critical
analysis," Journal of Strategic Information
Systems, vol. 20, pp. 385-402, Dec 2011.
[43] F. Nah, J. Lau, and J. Kuang, "Critical factors for
successful implementation of enterprise systems,"
Business Process Management Journal, vol. 7, pp.
258-96, 2001.
[44] L. Shaul and D. Tauber, "Critical success factors in
enterprise resource planning systems: Review of
the last decade," ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR),
vol. 45, p. 39, 2013.
[45] T. Srivardhana and S. D. Pawlowski, "ERP systems
as an enabler of sustained business process
innovation: A knowledge-based view," Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, vol. 16, pp. 51-69,
2007.
[46] M. L. Markus, S. Axline, D. Petrie, and C. Tanis,
"Learning from adopters’ experiences with ERP:
problems encountered and successes achieved,"
Journal of Information Technology, vol. 15, pp.
245-265, 2000.
[47] N. Mehta, S. Oswald, and A. Mehta, "Infosys
Technologies: improving organizational knowledge
flows," Journal of Information Technology, vol.
22, pp. 456-464, 2007.
[48] R. Batenburg, J. Benders, and H. Blonk, van der,
"Technical isomorphism at work: ERP-embedded
similarity-enhancing mechanisms," Industrial
Management & Data Systems, vol. 108, pp. 60-69,
2008.
[49] M. Al-Mashari and A. Al-Mudimigh, "ERP
Implementation: lessons learned from a case
study," Information Technology & People, vol. 16,
pp. 21-33, 2003.
[50] A. L. Norton, Y. M. Coulson-Thomas, C. J.
Coulson-Thomas, and C. Ashurst, "Evaluating the
training requirements of ERPII implementations,"
in Proceedings of UK Academy for Information
Systems (UKAIS) Oxford, UK, 2012a.
12
https://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 13, No. 11, November 2015
[51] J. T. Knippen and B. G. Thad, "Problem Solving,"
Journal of Workplace Learning, vol. 9, pp. 98-99,
1997.
[52] Aston Business School, "Journal League Table."
vol. 2009, 2006.
[53] J. Corbin and A. Strauss, Basics of Qualitative
Research 3ed. California: Sage, 2008.
[54] D. Silverman, Interpreting Qualitative Data:
Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text and Interaction.
3rd ed., 3 ed. London: Sage, 2006.
[55] S. Finney and M. Corbett, "ERP implementation: a
compilation and analysis of critical success
factors," Business Process Management Journal,
vol. 13, pp. 329-347, 2007.
[56] B. Berelson, Content Analysis in communicative
Research. New York: Free Press, 1952.
[57] T. M. Somers and K. Nelson, "The impact of
critical success factors across the stages of
enterprise resource planning implementation," in
Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-3), Maui
Hawaii, available (CD ROM), 2001.
[58] C. C. H. Law and E. W. T. Ngai, "An investigation
of the relationships between organisational factors,
business process improvement, and ERP success,"
Benchmarking: An International Journal, vol. 14,
pp. 387-406, 2007.
[59] J. Sutanto, A. Kankanhalli, J. Tay, K. S. Raman,
and B. C. Y. Tan, "Change Management in
Interorganizational Systems for the Public,"
Journal of Management Information Systems, vol.
25, pp. 133-175, 2009.
[60] L. P. Willcocks and R. Sykes, "The role of the CIO
and IT function in ERP," Communications of the
ACM, vol. 43, pp. 32-38, 2000.
[61] S. Sarker and A. S. Lee, "Using a case study to test
the role of three key social enablers in ERP
implementation," Information and Management,
vol. 40, pp. 813-29, 2003.
[62] M. Themistocleous, Z. Irani, and R. M. O'Keefe,
"ERP and application integration - Exploratory
survey," Business Process Management Journal,
vol. 7, pp. 195-204, 2001.
[63] S. Newell, C. Tansley, and J. Huang, "Social
Capital and Knowledge Integration in an ERP
Project Team: The Importance of Bridging AND
Bonding," British Journal of Management, vol. 15,
pp. S43-S57, 2004.
[64] S. C. L. Koh, S. Saad, and S. Arunachalam,
"Competing in the 21st century supply chain
through supply chain management and enterprise
resource planning integration," International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, vol. 36, pp. 455-465, 2006.
[65] C.-F. Ho, W.-H. Wu, and Y.-M. Tai, "Strategies for
the adaption of ERP systems," Industrial
Management & Data Systems, vol. 104, pp. 234-
251, 2004.
[66] R. McAdam and A. Galloway, "Enterprise resource
planning and organisational innovation: a
management perspective," Industrial Management
& Data Systems, vol. 105, pp. 280 - 290, 2005.
[67] A. Deep, P. Guttridge, S. Dani, and N. Burns,
"Investigating factors affecting ERP selection in
made-to-order SME sector," Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, vol. 19,
pp. 430-446, 2008.
[68] A. N. Parr and G. Shanks, "A Taxonomy of ERP
Implementation Approaches," in Proceedings of
the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences (HICSS-3), Maui Hawaii (CD
ROM), January, 2000.
[69] C.-C. Wei, T.-S. Liou, and K.-L. Lee, "An ERP
performance measurement framework using a
fuzzy integral approach," Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, vol. 19,
pp. 607-626, 2008.
[70] A. R. Peslak, "Enterprise resource planning success
- An exploratory study of the financial executive
perspective," Industrial Management & Data
Systems, vol. 106, pp. 1288 - 1303, 2006.
[71] S. Laukkanen, S. Sarpola, and P. Hallikainen,
"Enterprise size matters: objectives and constraints
of ERP adoption," Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, vol. 20, pp. 319 - 34,
2007.
[72] J. R. Muscatello, M. H. Small, and I. J. Chen,
"Implementing enterprise resource planning (ERP)
systems in small and midsize manufacturing
firms," International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, vol. 23, pp. 850-871,
2003.
[73] K. Y. Kwahk and J. N. Lee, "The role of readiness
for change in ERP implementation: Theoretical
bases and empirical validation," Information and
Management, vol. 45, pp. 474-81, 2008.
[74] M. J. Kemp and G. C. Low, "ERP innovation
implementation model incorporating change
management," Business Process Management
Journal of Enterprise Information Management,
vol. 14, pp. 228-242, 2008.
[75] S. Cliffe, D. Champion, J. T. Landry, and E.
Roche, "Briefings From the Editors.," Harvard
Business Review, vol. 77, pp. 16-24, 1999.
[76] A. R. Elbanna, "Implementing an integrated system
in a socially dis-integrated enterprise. A critical
view of ERP enabled integration.," Information
Technology & People, vol. 20, pp. 121-139, 2007.
[77] M. D. Okrent and R. J. Vokurka, "Process mapping
in successful ERP implementations," Industrial
Management & Data Systems, vol. 104, pp. 637-
643, 2004.
13
https://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500

(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,
Vol. 13, No. 11, November 2015
[78] B. Arinze and M. Anandarajan, "A Framwork for
Using OO Mapping Methods to rapidly configure
ERP Systems," COMMUNICATIONS OF THE
ACM, vol. 46, pp. 61-5, 2003.
[79] J. Vosburg and A. Kumar, "Managing dirty data in
organizations using ERP: lessons from a case
study," Industrial management and data systems,
vol. 101, pp. 21-31, 2001.
[80] C. Soh, S. S. Kien, and J. Tay-Yap, "Cultural Fits
and Misfits: Is ERP A Universal Solution?,"
Communications of the ACM, vol. 43, pp. 47-51,
2000.
[81] A. M. Aladwani, "Change management strategies
for successful ERP implementation," Business
Process Management Journal, vol. 7, pp. 266-275,
2001.
[82] C. Bozarth, "ERP implementation efforts at three
firms Integrating lessons from the SISP and IT-
enabled change literature," International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, vol. 26,
pp. 1223-1239, 2006.
[83] A. L. Norton, Y. M. Coulson-Thomas, C. J.
Coulson-Thomas, and C. Ashurst, "Delivering
training for highly demanding information
systems," European Journal of Training and
Development, vol. 36, pp. 646-662, 2012b.
[84] P. Mandal and A. Gunasekaran, "Issues in
implementing ERP: A case study," European
Journal of Operational Research, vol. 146, pp.
274-283, 2003.
[85] D. L. Olson, "Evaluation of ERP outsourcing,"
Computers & Operations Research, vol. 34, pp.
3715-3724, 2007.
[86] E. T. G. Wang, C. C. Lin, J. J. Jiang, and G. Klein,
"Improving enterprise resource planning (ERP) fit
to organizational process through knowledge
transfer," International Journal of Information
Management, vol. 27, pp. 200-212, 2007.
[87] S. C. L. Koh, M. Simpson, and J. Padmore, "An
exploratory study of enterprise resource planning
adoption in Greek companies," Industrial
Management & Data Systems, vol. 106, pp. 1033 -
1059, 2006.
[88] A. Teltumbde, "A framework for evaluating ERP
projects.," International Journal of Production
Research, vol. 38, pp. 4507-4520, 2000.
[89] R. Willis and M. Chiasson, "Do the ends justify the
means? A Gramscian critique of the processes of
consent during an ERP implimentation,"
Information Technology & People, vol. 20, pp.
212-234, 2007.
[90] L. Elbertsen, J. Benders, and E. Nijssen, "ERP use:
exclusive or complemented?," Industrial
Management & Data, vol. 106, pp. 811-824, 2006.
[91] H. Taylor, "The Move To Outsourced IT Projects:
Key Risks from the Provider Perspective," in
Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGMIS SPR
conference on Computer personnel research, 2005,
pp. 149-154.
[92] E. E. Karsak and O. C. Özogul, "An integrated
decision making approach for ERP system
selection," Expert Systems with Applications, vol.
36, pp. 660-7, 2009.
[93] S. L. Pan and J. N. Lee, "Using e-CRM for a
unified view of the customer," Communications of
the ACM, vol. 46, pp. 95-99, 2003.
[94] H. Wilson, E. Daniel, and M. McDonald, "Factors
for success in Customer Relationship Management
(CRM) systems," Journal of Marketing
Management, vol. 18, pp. 193-219, 2002.
[95] A. L. Norton, Y. M. Coulson-Thomas, C. J.
Coulson-Thomas, and C. Ashurst, "Ensuring
benefits realisation from ERP II: the CSF phasing
model," Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, vol. 26, pp. 218-234, 2013.
[96] J. J. Williams and A. Ramaprasad, "A taxonomy of
critical success factors," European Journal of
Information Systems, vol. 5, pp. 250-60, 1996.
[97] N. E. Landrum and C. L. Gardner, "Using integral
theory to effect strategic change," Journal of
Organizational Change Management, vol. 18, pp.
247-258, 2005.
[98] A. Presley, "ERP investment analysis using the
strategic alignment model," Management Research
News, vol. 29, pp. 273-284, 2006.
[99] J. M. Ward and J. Peppard, Strategic Planning for
Information Systems. Chichester: John Wiley &
Sons (3ED), 2002.
[100] A. L. Norton, Y. M. Coulson-Thomas, C. J.
Coulson-Thomas, and C. Ashurst, "Establishing a
critical ERPII implementation pathway for
customer facing organisations," in Proceedings of
UK Academy for Information Systems (UKAIS)
Oxford, UK, available (CD ROM), 2011.
14
https://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/
ISSN 1947-5500