Critical success factors for ERP implementations in Belgian SMEs

Critical success factors for ERPimplementations in Belgian SMEsClaude Doom, Koen Milis, Stephan Poelmans and Eric Bloemen

Hogeschool Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

AbstractPurpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the critical success factors of ERPimplementations in Belgian SMEs and to identify those success factors that are specific to a SMEenvironment.

Design/methodology/approach – The authors survey the literature to discover and classifycritical success factors that are potentially applicable to small and medium-sized enterprises. Througha survey and a multiple case study within four Belgian companies, the authors investigate which ofthese critical success factors apply to SMEs.

Findings – The results show that most of the success factors found in the literature apply to SMEs.Nevertheless, distinct differences were found as well. Some factors, such as a clear scope definition anda standardised infrastructure, are not regarded as critical success factors for SMEs. Moreover, SMEstend to rely relatively heavily on the input of consultants, who they use as a source of knowledge andexperience. Moreover, SMEs need to be able to adjust their businesses quickly to be able to exploittheir niche to the fullest extent.

Research limitations/implications – The research is limited to Belgian enterprises.

Originality/value – For SMEs, it is particularly important to recognise the elements for a successfulERP implementation. This paper examines the critical success factors of ERP implementations insmall and medium-sized enterprises, while the existing literature on critical success factors of ERPimplementations focuses on large enterprises.

KeywordsManufacturing resource planning,Critical success factors, Small tomedium-sized enterprises,Belgium

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionERP systems are extensive, integrated software systems supporting the internaloperations of an enterprise. They bring about enormous investments in software and inpackage customisation. Many cases are known of ERP implementations failing todeliver the promised functionality and even endangering the future of theimplementing company. The best-known example is probably the ERP projectcarried out by the American company FoxMeyer, which supposedly led to thebankruptcy of the company in 1996 (Scott, 1999). The company claims to have suffereddamages of $500 million because of the malfunction of the ERP system, implemented in1993.

However, a survey in the USA revealed that 70 per cent of companies implementingERP consider the project successful (Mabert et al., 2000). More than 55 per cent ofcompanies admit that the planned budget was exceeded, by an average of 60.6 per cent.When these budget overflows are counted as failures, the success rate of ERPimplementations does not reach 50 per cent.

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

www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0398.htm

JEIM23,3

378

Received January 2009Revised April 2009November 2009Accepted December 2009

Journal of Enterprise InformationManagementVol. 23 No. 3, 2010pp. 378-406q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1741-0398DOI 10.1108/17410391011036120

In view of these alarming figures, researchers and companies have been looking forways of improving the chances of success of ERP implementations. Research into ERPimplementations around the globe has revealed some of the critical ERP successfactors (Al-Mashari et al., 2003; Arnold, 2006; Bradley, 2008; Bingi et al., 1999; Changet al., 2008; Mabert et al., 2000; Olhager and Selldin, 2003; Parr and Shanks, 2000a, b).Previous research in this area has focused predominantly on the implementation ofERP systems in large organisations. This comes as no surprise, since the ERP market– which was primarily focused at the high-end spectrum – only changed its focustowards SMEs at the end of the 1990s, due to a saturation of the high-end marketcombined with a decrease in hardware costs (Kremers and van Dissel, 2000).

Critical success factors for the implementation of ERP in a SME environment maydiffer substantially from ERP implementations in large enterprises: it is by no meansobvious that the critical success factors of ERP implementations can be extrapolated toSMEs. Indeed, the factors influencing SMEs’ adoption of enterprise systems(technological and organisational factors) are substantially different from those of alarge companies, which focus more on environmental factors (Ramdani et al., 2009).Moreover, here we focusing on one particular region: Belgium. As Shanks et al. (2000)and Chwen et al. (2004) showed, the approach to ERP implementation should not becopied from one country to another.

In this paper, we develop a view of critical success factors of ERP implementationsin small and medium-sized companies. In a first instance, we search the literature forcritical success factors of ERP implementations. This leads to a general classificationframework for ERP success factors. We then study four medium-sized companies withsuccessful ERP implementations. Through a detailed survey and interviews with keyplayers within these companies, we verify whether the ERP success factors discoveredin the literature are relevant for these companies.

In the next section we present the literature search and the overall classification ofERP critical success factors. Then, we describe the case study of four companies,followed by a comparison, between the results of the case study and the literaturereview. Finally, conclusions are presented for the critical success factors of ERPimplementations in SMEs.

Critical success factors for ERP implementationA critical success factor (CSF) is a factor which, if addressed, significantly improvesthe changes of successful project implementation (Pinto and Slevin, 1987). There is nogeneral consensus on the critical success factors of an ERP implementation. In theliterature, the number of CSFs varies from nine to 16 (Arnold, 2006; Bradley, 2008;Chang et al., 2008; Ernst & Young, 2006; Holland and Light, 1999; Loh and Koh, 2004;Nah et al., 2001; Parr and Shanks, 2000a, b; Shanks et al., 2000; Sumner, 2005; Umbleet al., 2003; Ngai et al., 2008; Somers and Nelson, 2001; Zang et al., 2003; Soja, 2006).Some of the critical success factors for ERP implementations are in line with the moregeneral CSFs for IT projects (Milis and Mercken, 2002; Ugwu et al., 2003), although allstudies on CSFs in ERP implementations mention CSFs specifically related to ERPimplementations. Most studies on CSFs in ERP implementations consider only largecompanies, although some limited studies exist that consider enterprise size and itsrelation to ERP implementation factors (Laukkanen et al., 2007).

Critical successfactors for ERP

379

The merging of the lists of CSFs for ERP implementations found in the literatureleads to a list of over 40 candidate CSFs. In order to structure these candidate CSFs, wedivide them into five groups according to the following themes:

(1) vision, scope, and goals;

(2) culture, communication, and support;

(3) infrastructure;

(4) approach; and

(5) project management.

Below, we review these groups of CSFs and we discuss their meaning.

Vision, scope, and goalsThis group contains CSFs relating to the vision of the enterprise, the scope of the ERPproject and the goals of the implementation. The critical success factors of this groupare:

. vision;

. strategic goals; and

. business plan.

Vision, strategic goals and business plan. These items occur as CSF in several studies.According to Ernst & Young (2006) the presence of clear strategic goals is the fourthmost important CSF out of nine. However, Umble et al. (2003) reduce this factor to aclear understanding of the strategic goals. Holland and Light (1999) identify “having aclear business vision” as a CSF. Nah et al. (2001) expand this factor to the business planand the vision.

Summarising, the following elements are considered to be important:. a clear and motivating overall business vision (Holland and Light, 1999; Nah

et al., 2001; Umble et al., 2003; Ngai et al., 2008);. a clear project mission, related to the business needs (Nah et al., 2001);. clear definition of strategic goals of the project, i.e. identification of project

expectations, results and benefits (Ernst & Young, 2006; Holland and Light,1999; Nah et al., 2001; Umble et al., 2003);

. a clear business plan, describing strategic and tangible benefits, the projectresources and timing, the costs and the risks (Nah et al., 2001; Ngai et al., 2008;Loh and Koh, 2004); and

. a clear model of the target business after the implementation of the project(Holland and Light, 1999, Nah et al., 2001).

Scope. Which includes the need for a clear scope definition (Parr and Shanks (2000a, b)define two CSFs related to scope: the definition of the project scope before project startand the limitation of the scope. In this respect, Ernst & Young (2006) also mentionscope, limited to the essentials as a CSF).

In summary, the following elements pertaining to scope are considered important:

JEIM23,3

380

. a clear definition of the ERP project scope (Parr and Shanks, 2000a, b; Shankset al., 2000); and

. the limitation of the scope to essential business functions (Parr and Shanks,2000a, b; Ernst & Young, 2006).

Efficient management reporting. Sumner (2005) mentions the inclusion of managementreporting into the ERP project requirements as a CSF.

Culture, communication, and supportThis group includes CSFs related to the corporate culture, the internal communicationand the project support by the stakeholders. The critical success factors given below.

Senior management support. This CSF appears frequently in the literature. Ernst &Young (2006), Chang et al. (2008) and Holland and Light (1999) consider seniormanagement support as a particularly crucial element for success. Others mentionseveral senior management support factors (Arnold, 2006; Loh and Koh, 2004; Nahet al., 2001; Parr and Shanks, 2000a, b; Shanks et al., 2000; Umble et al., 2003; Ngai et al.,2008; Somers and Nelson, 2001), including:

. project approval;

. identifying the project as top priority;

. senior management participation;

. defending and supporting the project;

. mediating between parties in times of conflict;

. involvement with corporate strategy;

. understanding of ERP technology and issues; and

. proper assignment of resources to the project.

In addition, Nah et al. (2001) mention that top management should initiate changes tothe organisational structure and culture:

. identify and support new goals and objectives;

. communicate the shared organisational vision and the role of the new system tothe staff;

. identify and approve new organisational structures, roles and responsibilities;and

. approve codes of conduct for the use of the new system.

Senior management support is instrumental during the whole projectimplementation. It may be encouraged by an appropriate corporate compensationpolicy (Nah et al., 2001). Strong leadership is important for major projects. It maytherefore be advisable to have a senior manager take responsibility for the ERPproject (Umble et al., 2003).

User involvement. Although this factor is not generally mentioned in the ERP CSFliterature, it is considered the second most important success factor by Ernst & Young(2006). Loh and Koh (2004) also consider this to be an important success criterion.


381

Effective change management. It is vital to manage and control the changesoccurring during the implementation of ERP systems (Nah et al., 2001; Shanks et al.,2000; Sumner, 2005; Umble et al., 2003; Ngai et al., 2008; Somers and Nelson, 2001).Some company-specific attributes may impact the ease of acceptance:

. a corporate culture with shared values and common goals (Nah et al., 2001);

. a culture that encourages open communication (Sumner, 2005);

. a strong corporate identity (Nah et al., 2001);

. a flexible organisation that is open to change (Nah et al., 2001, Umble et al., 2003);

. an emphasis on quality (Nah et al., 2001);

. strong information technology capabilities (Nah et al., 2001);

. determination to accept and use new technologies (Nah et al., 2001); and

. determination to overcome implementation problems (Parr and Shanks, 2000a, b).

Internal communication. Holland and Light (1999), Nah et al. (2001) and Ngai et al. 2008consider communication to be a critical success factor. This includes:

. communication of expectations at all company levels;

. formal presentations by the project teams and announcement of the projectresults within the company; and

. announcement of the project scope, objectives and activities before the projectonset.

Supplier management. Sumner (2005) mentions supplier management as an importantcritical success factor. According to Sumner, successful ERP projects have a“vendor-accelerated implementation strategy” ensuring timely implementation of thesystems.

InfrastructureThis group contains critical success factors related to the IT infrastructure. It containstwo critical success factors.

A standardised IT infrastructure. This factor is mentioned by Ernst & Young (2006)but is not considered to be very important. However, Ross et al. (2006) considerstandardisation in IT infrastructure to be an important success factor for all ITimplementations.

Suitable business and IT legacy systems. Holland and Light (1999), Nah et al. (2001)and Ngai et al. (2008) consider the impact of existing corporate IT systems. They arguethat a stable and successful business- and IT context is essential for an ERPimplementation. Holland and Light (1999) consider existing business processes,organisational structure, culture and IT systems as legacy systems. Nah et al. (2001)make an explicit difference between business and IT legacy systems.

ApproachThis group contains critical success factors related to the overall approach to the ERPimplementation. The critical success factors of this group are as follows.

A formalised project approach and methodology. Ernst & Young (2006) argue thatthe use of a formalised methodology is essential. Holland and Light (1999) state that a

JEIM23,3

382

suitable methodology is vital to the implementation success. They propose three basicmethodological approaches:

(1) the skeleton approach, where the project starts with implementing the core ofthe ERP or only a limited number of functionalities, which are expanded insubsequent versions;

(2) the single module approach, where the ERP system is implemented module permodule; and

(3) the big bang approach, where a complete system is implemented.

Focus on user requirements. This critical success factor is mentioned by Sumner (2005).Use of external consultants. This CSF is mentioned by Shanks et al. (2000), Sumner

(2005) and Somers and Nelson, 2001. Many ERP implementations make extensive useof ERP consultants, bringing useful expertise in cross-functional business processes,system configuration and specific module customisation. The proper use andmanagement of external consultants is a critical factor for a successful implementation.

User training. Shanks et al. (2000) and Sumner (2005) argue that the emphasis in usertraining should be on the business processes, not on the technical aspects. Umble et al.(2003) propose that 10-15 per cent of the total budget be reserved for training in order toobtain an overall implementation success rate of 80 per cent. Arnold (2006), Bradley(2008) and Somers and Nelson (2001) also emphasise the importance of user training.

Data accuracy. Shanks et al. (2000), Umble et al. (2003) and Zang et al. (2003)recognise the importance of data accuracy. The input of erroneous data into the newERP system may have a devastating effect, because of the integrated nature of ERPsoftware. Two factors are of importance here:

(1) the data quality of the input from legacy systems into the ERP system should beguaranteed; and

(2) the absolute need to input correct data into the ERP system, supported by theproper data entry procedures, is recognised.

Alignment with business processes. Holland and Light (1999) and Nah et al. (2001) arguethat the ERP software should be properly aligned with the business processes in orderto come to a successful ERP implementation. This requires that a software package ischosen that closely matches the existing business processes (Parr and Shanks, 2000a,b). On the other hand, companies should be willing to modify their business processes(Nah et al., 2001).

Project managementMany authors consider project management related factors to be critical for asuccessful ERP implementation. The main critical success factors from this group areas follows.

Proper project planning, phasing and follow-up. Proper project planning is widelyrecognised as a critical success factor for a successful ERP implementation (Hollandand Light, 1999; Nah et al., 2001; Shanks et al., 2000; Sumner, 2005; Umble et al., 2003).ERP project planning should contain at least the following elements:

. Description of the project goals. The goals should be realistic in terms of requiredquality, time and money (Ernst & Young, 2006; Parr and Shanks, 2000a, b).


383

. The project scope. This includes the identification of the business processesaffected by the ERP implementation, the choice of ERP modules and theidentification of the changes to the standard ERP packages. It is essential thatthese choices are made correctly.

. The project plan with phasing and the critical path.

. The milestones and deadlines

. The resources plan.

. The organisation of the project follow-up.

. Contingency measures.

Proper project management. Ernst & Young (2006) and Sumner (2005) emphasise thecritical importance of a good project manager. Both cite experience as the mostimportant quality for the project manager. Also, the presence of a project champion, adedicated advocate of the project, is considered to be a critical success factor as well(Nah et al., 2001; Parr and Shanks, 2000a, b; Shanks et al., 2000; Sumner, 2005; Ngaiet al., 2008; Somers and Nelson, 2001).

Good project teams. . Attention should be paid to the composition of the projectteam, containing both business and technical team members (Nah et al., 2001; Parr andShanks, 2000a, b; Shanks et al., 2000). Parr and Shanks (2000a, b) and Umble et al.(2003) also mention project team empowerment as a critical success factor. Givingproject teams the necessary decision power will improve the project implementation.Somers and Nelson (2001) emphasise the importance of team competence. Nah et al.(2001) also mention the importance of good collaboration between project teammembers, whereas Chang et al. (2008) emphasise the necessity of collaboration betweendifferent departments and parties involved. Some of the specific issues they mentionare:

. collaboration in a single physical location;

. incentives for teams delivering within time and budget;

. regular meetings managing partnerships; and

. incentives and risk-sharing agreements between partners.

MethodologyIn order to discover whether the critical success factors found in the literature are alsovalid for ERP implementations within Belgian SMEs, we selected 76 SMEs with knownsuccessful ERP implementations. In this selection, we considered companies with anumber of employees from ten up to 250 and with yearly revenue of less than e50m or abalance total of less than e43m to be small to medium-sized enterprises. The number ofemployees, the revenue and balance total were verified in the Trends Top 100,000 ofBelgian companies (Biblo-Roularta, 2007). Information on ERP implementations inthese companies was obtained from company websites, websites of ERP vendors,partners and via personal contacts with ERP consulting firms.

The 76 companies were provided with a list of questions on their implementation(see the Appendix). This list of questions was designed to obtain as much formation aspossible on the company, the profile of their employees, the ERP implementation andthe use of the system. This information enabled us to select four representative

JEIM23,3

384

companies for further study. A polar sampling technique was used to limit bias: caseswith very diverse characteristics were selected (different sectors, single versusmulti-site, local versus international, different ERP vendors, etc.). Moreover, we optedfor cases that were expected to maximise return in terms of insights gained. In all fourcases, information on the company and the ERP implementation was retrieved fromdatabases and press articles, enabling us to improve data triangulation and partlyvalidate the data collected during the interviews. General information on the fourstudied companies is given in Table I.

A multiple case research methodology was chosen, due to the fact that a holisticview was deemed necessary to grasp the complex phenomenon of ERP systemsimplementations. For each company, the answers of the initial survey were examined,the information from the company websites, vendors, partners etc. were thoroughlyanalysed and a key player in the ERP implementation project was interviewed to verifythe information found and to allow more in-depth analyses of the ERP implementation.

A structured interview technique was applied (Saunders et al., 2007). Intervieweeswere presented a total of 76 questions. Of these, 21 questions related to their company,the position of the interviewee in the company and to the general circumstances of theERP implementation. The other 55 questions related to the critical success factors ofthe ERP implementation. In order to obtain standardised answers that may becompared between the different cases studied, all possible answers to the questionswere predefined, although interviewees were given the opportunity to deviate from thepredefined answers (Healey and Rawlinson, 1994).

Case study in four Belgian companiesF-COF-Co is a leading European manufacturer of latex foam products. The company hasproduction sites in Belgium and the Czech Republic and has sales offices in Portugal,Spain, Italy, Greece, the USA, Canada, China, South Korea, Japan and Australia. From2001 to 2004 the company restructured its production lines and closed down two sites,moving part of its production from Belgium to the Czech Republic. After three years oflosses, the company has been profitable since 2005.

F-Co implemented the SAP ERP system, including modules supporting purchasing,order entry, materials management, production planning, financial accounting,distribution and logistics and asset management. According to F-Co, 10 per cent ofeach of the implemented modules needed to be modified to suit the needs of thecompany. In addition, F-Co implemented a datawarehouse/business intelligence

Companya Activity Number of employees Revenueb Balance totalb Profit (loss)b

F-Co Latex foam 1,123 34.1 24.5 1.0M-Co Process engineering 57 14.5 8.2 (0.2)O-Co Vegetable oils 87 84.0 43.3 0.3W-Co Tyres and wheels 51 40.5 79.2 4.6

Notes: aThe names of the companies have been changed for reasons of confidentiality; bfigures aremillions of euros

Table I.Properties of the four

companies considered inthe multiple case study


385

system and an advanced planning system, and the company is considering theintegration of its customer information system with its ERP system.Before the introduction of the ERP system, the ICT infrastructure of F-Co was ratherlimited. The ERP system was implemented at one single site (Belgium). Theimplementation project was divided into several small sub-projects, each with its owndeliverables. However, the ERP system was introduced operationally using a “bigbang” approach (Sumner, 2005).

F-Co spent ample effort to manage the ERP implementation project and to keep itunder control. The duration of the project was initially estimated at six months, but theproject took between seven and 12 months to complete. The total cost of the cost waswithin the planned budget of e1-1.5m. The company aims at a lifetime of ten years forthe ERP system. The division of the total expenditures over different components isgiven in Table II.

The users were heavily involved in the implementation of the ERP system. Beforeinitiating the project, users were informed. Users could participate in the project byoffering suggestions and advice. They were also involved in the identification of therequirements. Although no formalised acceptance procedure was developed for theusers, acceptance appeared to be high and the attitude of users towards the new systemwas largely positive. Several actions were undertaken to help users to get accustomedto the ERP system. Users were specifically trained in correct data entry, emphasisingthe importance of correct data in the ERP system. To ensure correct data entry, dataquality control procedures were set up.

Senior management at F-Co had a pivotal role in the ERP implementation. Seniormanagement approved the project. They also assumed final responsibility for theproject and gave the project top priority, defending the project whenever necessary.This proved to be of the utmost importance, as the ERP project led to majorreorganisations within the company. Openness to change and an organisationalculture of open communication were important factors in the final success of the ERPproject. Other aspects that were considered of importance were a strong corporateidentity, a commitment to new technology and a strong will to overcome operationalproblems.

F-Co appointed a project champion. This person, from middle management, becamethe promoter and facilitator of the ERP project, defending the project n all occasionsand resolving internal and external project conflicts.

A quarter of the ERP implementation project team was composed of externalconsultants (see Table III). The project manager was chosen based on the person’scompetences and experience, with reputation and flexibility being the secondaryfactors. Team members were selected among the top performing staff of the company.Some team members, being involved in several projects, were only involved part-time

Component Percentage of total cost

Hardware 10Software 60Consulting 5Implementation team 5Training 20

Table II.The division of the totalcost of the ERPimplementation of F-Co

JEIM23,3

386

in the ERP project. The project team did not have the authorisation to take criticaldecisions independently. These decisions were taken by the company management, inclose consultation with the project team. The project team was motivated by offeringadditional compensation for delivering on time and within budget.

M-CoM-Co is the Belgian branch of a major worldwide provider of specialised products andtechnologies for separation, heat transfer and fluid handling. M-Co constructs newmachinery and modifies and upgrades existing installations. M-Co is divided into twodivisions: one for the development and implementation of equipment for complexprocesses and another providing products and services for high-performanceengineering.

M-Co implemented the Intentia ERP suite by Lawson. It supports purchasing, orderentry, materials management, financial accounting, distribution and logistics andfinancial management. The Intentia system has interfaces with a data warehouse andwith third-party query and reporting tools. The Intentia system was chosen because itcovered the required functionalities, offered appropriate support and because ofexperiences with previous implementations. M-Co is considering extending the systemwith advanced planning tools.

M-Co reported considerable improvement in performance after the ERPimplementation. Information is more readily available, business processes are betterintegrated, and supply and financial management have improved. The company has abetter customer order management and a shorter order-to-delivery cycle. Moredeliveries are on time, the level of supplies stock is lower, and cash management hasimproved. However, M-Co reports that staff management processes and supplierrelationships have not improved after the introduction of ERP.

The vanilla ERP system covered about 80 per cent of the business processes ofM-Co. To close the gap, both the business processes and the ERP software weremodified. To modify the business processes, M-Co used business processre-engineering and process modelling tools. Most of the modifications were in thedistribution and logistics module, where 30 per cent of the module needed modification.About 20 per cent of the financial modules needed modification, as did about 5 per centof the purchasing module. The order entry and materials management modules werenot modified.

The ERP project was divided into several subprojects. Of particular importancewere the multi-site issues, as the ERP system needed to be rolled out at several sites,within the framework of a standardised infrastructure.

The overall ERP project, including the division into subprojects, was planned inadvance. No contingency planning and no overall new business architecture weredeveloped.

Percentage of project staff

Users 50Business analysts 15Technical experts 10External consultants 25

Table III.The composition of the

ERP implementationteam at F-Co


387

The ERP project received a higher priority on time, budget and staffing than otherprojects at M-Co. The project overran slightly in budget and staff and had a majoroverrun in time, taking between seven and 12 months to complete. The total projectcost was between e1m and e1.5m. The allocation of the costs over different categoriesis shown in Table IV. The progress and performance of the project was only measuredby project management related criteria. Operational criteria were not considered,although user feedback was taken into account.

Users were informed in good time about the project, but were not actively involved.Only management participated actively in the project by offering requirements, adviceand feedback. However, the project was positively accepted by the users. Probably, theappointment of job helpers was instrumental for user acceptance. Users receivedextensive training – both technical- and business-oriented training – to understandthe business processes behind the ERP software. Data accuracy was emphasisedduring training sessions.

The participation of M-Co’s top management was crucial for the success of the ERPproject. Top management approved the project and assumed responsibility. Theypublicly characterised the project as top priority and supported throughout theorganisation. The corporate culture of flexibility, open communication, shared valuesand common goals had a positive effect as well. The top management also selected aproject champion from the middle management, although it remained unclear how thisperson contributed effectively to the success of the ERP implementation.

The project manager was selected because of his capabilities and flexibility.Another selection criterion was reputation. Experience was not taken into account. Thecomposition of the project team is shown in Table V. Not all project team memberswere assigned full-time to the project. The project team needed to consult with themanagement to make critical decisions. There was no extra compensation forcompleting the project on time and within budget.

O-CoO-Co is the European division of a global player in the development and production ofvegetable oils and fats, used in food and snacks, especially in chocolates, cookies and



Table V.The composition of theERP implementationteam at M-Co



Table IV.The division of the totalcost of the ERPimplementation of M-Co

JEIM23,3

388

ice creams. These products are also used in the baby-food industry, and for theproduction of margarines and deep-fried snacks.

O-Co implemented the SAP ERP system to support purchasing, order entry,materials management, production planning, financial accounting, distribution andlogistics and financial management. Other business functions are implemented withspecific software interfaced with the SAP system. In addition, the ERP system containsa data warehouse module, management query and reporting tools and advancedplanning facilities. O-Co is considering opening up the system to its customers.

The functionalities offered, combined with the level of vendor support offered, werethe prime factors in the selection of the ERP software. O-Co estimates the usefullifetime of the ERP system to be five years. The ERP system was implemented toreplace existing specifically developed systems. Simplification, standardisation andthe improvement of relationships with customers and suppliers were other factorsinfluencing the transition to ERP.

The major benefit of the ERP implementation at O-Co was the improved integrationof business processes. Other benefits were improved quality and availability ofinformation, a better financial management and – to a lesser extent – improvedmaterials management. O-Co also registered slightly improved interaction withcustomers and suppliers and slightly better cash management.

About 70 per cent of the existing business processes were directly supported by theERP software. The implementation required significant modifications to the ERPpackage. To close the gap, business processes were modified and modifications to theERP software were implemented. Special attention was paid to keep modifications tobusiness processes and software to a strictminimum.Beforemigration from the existingsystems to ERP, the existing data was monitored extensively for errors. In addition,users were made aware of the importance of entering correct data into the ERP system.

Project management and follow-up posed no significant problems. The project wasaccorded very high priority, so budget, time and staff were allocated with priority tothis project. The project was completed within time and budget and showed a slightstaff overrun. The total cost of the ERP project was between e1m and e1.5m. Theproject took between seven and 12 months to complete. The breakdown of the total costin categories is shown in Table VI.

The project was evaluated against project management criteria only, ignoringoperational criteria. No particular extra compensation was provided for completing theproject within budget or within time.

During the implementation, particular attentionwas paid to the involvement of users.Users were informed in good time on the ERP project. In addition, their requirements,remarks, reactions and feedback were thoroughly scrutinised and taken into account.The project team considered it important to actively seek the approval of users. Another



Table VI.The division of the total

cost of the ERPimplementation of O-Co


389

important factor was the active involvement of the top management, who gave theproject all possible support, i.e. approval, identification as top priority, conflictresolution, advocating, commitment and active participation. However, O-Co’s topmanagement did not assume final responsibility for the project; this was theresponsibility of the operational management team. The adoption of the ERP systemwas further enabled by a corporate culture of open communication, openness to change,a commitment to new technology and a strong will to overcome operational problems.

To further aid the adoption of the ERP system, change agents were appointed. O-Coalso appointed a project champion, selected from middle management. The tasks ofthis person included presenting the advantages of the system, defending the projectagainst critics, resolve conflicts, keeping contact with users, and detecting problems.

The project team was composed of the best staff members from within O-Co. Thecomposition of the team is shown in Table VII. It is remarkable that half of the projectteam consisted of end users. The remainder of the project team largely consisted ofexternal consultants, with limited participation by internal business analysts. Themost important factors in the selection of the project manager were capabilities,experience, reputation and flexibility. All critical decisions in the project were taken bythe corporate management.

W-CoPart of a global industrial corporation, W-Co is a provider of industrial and agriculturaltyres and complete wheels. These are used in agricultural machines, but also inforklifts and other industrial machines. W-Co has three sites:

(1) a sales office;

(2) a distribution centre; and

(3) a site dedicated to agricultural tyres.

Since the restructuring of the company, production no longer takes place in Belgium,having being relocated to Sri Lanka and Spain.

W-Co implemented the Intentia ERP software by Lawson. The functions supportedare purchasing, order entry, materials management, production planning, financialaccounting, distribution and logistics and financial management. The ERP system alsocontains e-business functionalities and management query and reporting tools. Aninterface is made to a data warehouse.

The ERP system was implemented to simplify and standardise the ICT proceduresand to improve interaction and communication with suppliers and customers. TheIntentia ERP software was selected based on the functionalities offered, vendorsupport and references.



Table VII.The composition of theERP implementation teaat O-Co

JEIM23,3

390

Up to 95 per cent of the existing business processes were covered by the ERP software.The remaining gap was closed by modifying the ERP software. Business processesremained unchanged or were at most marginally modified. The production planning,distribution and logistics modules required a 5 per cent modification. The order entrymodule required a 10 per cent modification. The ERP system was rolled out in a singleoperation.

The ERP project was only loosely planned: there were no critical paths defined andthere was no room for contingency. However, the project was spilt into subprojects anda complete model of the future business was elaborated. The project completed withintime and budget and with the allocated staff. There was a small budget overrun. Thecost of the ERP implementation was e1.5m. The project took between seven and 12months to complete. The cost was between e1m and e1.5m. The breakdown of theproject cost is shown in Table VIII.

The project was evaluated using project management criteria only. The return oninvestment of the project was estimated at 5 per cent, the useful lifetime beingestimated at three to five years. No specific extra compensation was provided forproject completion within budget or within time.

At the onset and during the project, user input was solicited. Their initialrequirements and feedback on the final implementation were taken into account,although users were not asked for formal approval. Users were represented by a fewpeers, although the complete user community was timely informed about the project.Users were trained extensively and well in advance, emphasising data accuracy. Mostof the training concentrated on practice with the new system Additionally, job helperswere appointed. Globally, users played a major role in the ERP implementation atW-Co.

Several changes in the structure and culture of the organisation were necessary atW-Co. Top management was instrumental, clarifying the role of the ERP system andthe required changes in corporate culture. Top management participated actively inthis project: approving the project, alignment with corporate strategy, publicidentification as top priority and conflict mediation. In addition, top managementprovided a project champion and took final responsibility for the project.

The composition of the project team at W-Co is shown in Table IX. The projectmembers were selected among the best available staff. Not all project team memberswere assigned full-time to the project. The principal criteria for the selection of theproject manager were the person’s reputation and flexibility. The project team wasauthorised to take quick, critical decisions autonomously, although propercommunication with the management was considered important.



Table VIII.Division of the total cost

of the ERPimplementation of W-Co


391

Discussion: a comparison of critical success factorsIn this section, we elaborate on the level of success of the ERP implementationpresented in the previous section. We then compare the results of the four cases withthe theoretical CSF framework elaborated in section 2.

Success criteriaTable X gives an overview of the criteria used to evaluate the success of the four ERPprojects. These are largely equivalent to the general success criteria of projects(Rosenau, 1998; Atkinson, 1999; DeLone and McLean, 1992, 2003). Table X also showshow the four implementations under examination fulfil these criteria. Table X showsthat completion within time was generally a problem. However, the time overruns didnot affect the quality of the final system. On the other hand, user satisfaction and therealisation of tangible benefits were largely fulfilled for all four implementations. Wetherefore conclude that all four ERP implementations were successful.

Comparison of the observed CSFsIn this section, we compare the observed critical success factors of the four cases withthe theoretical framework, developed in the literature review.

(1) Vision, scope and goals:. Vision, strategic goals and business plan – Most of these factors were

observed. The cases confirm the importance of vision, strategic goals andbusiness plan as a CSF.

. Scope – The scope was properly defined in the four cases. However, thecases show that an explicit limitation of the scope is less important for SMEsthan for large enterprises. A SME has a limited number of businessprocesses, naturally limiting the scope of an ERP implementation.

. Efficient management reporting – All four companies have implementedquery- and reporting tools for management reporting. However, it is notpossible to determine to what extent these reporting tools contributed to the

Criterion F-Co M-Co O-Co W-Co

Completed within time 2 2 ! !Completed within budget ^ ^ ! !User satisfaction !! !! !! !!Tangible benefits !! !! !! !!Notes: 2 , insufficient; ^ , partly fulfilled; ! , largely fulfilled; ++, completely fulfilled

Table X.Success criteria for ERPprojects



Table IX.Composition of the ERPimplementation team atW-Co

JEIM23,3

392

success of the ERP implementation, although there is no doubt about theimportance of the tools for the overall business.

(2) Culture, communication and support:. Senior management support – The study of the four cases shows that senior

management support was an important factor for the success of all the ERPimplementation examined, confirming the importance of this CSF. However,only two out of four had additional compensation schemes in place,rewarding successful project completion.

. User involvement – Three of the four implementations actively involved theusers. At O-Co users even had a primary role in the implementation. Userapproval of thefinal systemwas less pronounced, butwas also present in threecases.

. Effective change management – Only one of the companies, O-Co, performeda business process re-engineering. However, all of the companies studied hadthe necessary corporate culture to embrace change. This leads to theconclusion that active change management is not an important factor forSMEs, provided that the company has a suitable corporate culture, withsufficient openness for change.

. Internal communication – This factor was considered important by all fourstudied ERP implementations.

. Supplier management – Three of the four companies collaborated closelywith their supplier to ensure ERP implementation success.

(3) Infrastructure:. A standardised IT infrastructure – F-Co and W-Co had rather standardised

IT infrastructures while the two other companies did not. This appears tosuggest that a standardised IT infrastructure is not an important CSF forERP implementation in SMEs.

. Suitable business and IT legacy systems – The situation in the four studiedcompanies is varied, so we cannot draw any conclusions regarding this CSF.

(4) Approach:. A formalised project approach and methodology – The four implementations

used a formalised project approach.. Focus on user requirements – Three of the four studied implementations

emphasise the need to focus on user requirements and considered this to be aCSF.

. Use of external consultants – All studied companies used externalconsultants. Three companies stated that this was done to tap into expertiseof business processes, systems configuration and module customisation.Although none of the four companies outsourced its project completely toexternal consultants.

. User training –. Three out of four studied companies cite user training to bea critical factor. The companies offered both technical and functionaltraining to the users, although the fraction of technical training varies from30 per cent technical training (O-Co) to 75 per cent technical training (W-Co).


393

. Data accuracy – Although all four cases took measures to ensure dataaccuracy, both during conversion and during the use of ERP, it is not clearthat this is actually a critical success factor for a successful ERPimplementation.

. Alignment with business processes – In all four cases, there was goodalignment between existing business processes and the ERP software,reducing the necessary modification and programming effort. As SMEsnormally have a more limited number of business processes than largeenterprises, we conclude that alignment is a less important CSF for SMEsthan for large enterprises.

(5) Project management:. Proper project planning, phasing and follow-up – The ERP projects were all

properly planned, although W-Co did not cater for contingency and did notanalyse the critical paths of the project planning. Follow-up was foreseen inall project plans. Three companies divided the project into subprojects,although only F-Co defined expected benefits per subproject. The fourcompanies confirmed the importance of project planning for the success oftheir project.

. Proper project management – Good project management is strongly relatedwith proper project planning. The four studied ERP projects reported goodproject management.

. Good project teams – This includes the choice of a good project leader, theappointment of a project champion and the proper staffing of project teams.Three out of four companies mention capabilities and experience as majorfactors to select a project leader. Reputation and flexibility were generallyconsidered less important. All four companies appointed a project champion,although the contribution of theproject champion to thefinal result is not clear.The composition of the project teams, being a mix between externalconsultants, internal business- and technical analysts and users, varies fromone project to the other.

Conclusions, limitations and suggestions for further researchThe largest fraction of the critical success factors found in the literature applies to thefour implementations studied. This indicates that a majority of critical success factorsthat are valid for large companies are also applicable to SMEs. The most importantcritical success factors for SMEs identified in this study are:

. a clear vision of the strategic goals of the ERP implementation;

. senior management support;

. active user involvement;

. a suitable corporate culture that is open to change;

. internal communication on the ERP project, both before and during the project;

. proper management of the ERP supplier;

. a formalised project approach and methodology;

. a focus on user requirements;

JEIM23,3

394

. the use of external consultants;

. user training, both on technical aspects and on business aspects, orientedtowards practice;

. proper project planning, phasing and follow-up;

. proper project management; and

. a project team, composed of a mix of users, i.e. internal technical and businessexperts and external consultant.

When we compare the critical success factors we find in this study to those found in theliterature (see the section on literature review above), we find that most of theimportant critical success factors found in studies of ERP implementations in largeenterprises also occur in SMEs. This is particularly true for the list of the mostimportant critical success factors in SMEs given above. However, there are a fewcritical success factors of ERP implementations found in large enterprises that arenotoriously absent in the SMEs we examined:

The explicit limitation of the scope appears to be no issue for SMEs. Possibly, thiscould be explained by the high level of top management involvement and theinvolvement of senior people in the project teams. Close monitoring by the seniormanagement prevents projects from running out of control.

In contrast to large companies, having a standardised IT infrastructure appears notto be a success factor either. The IT infrastructure of SMEs is in average far lesscomplex than the infrastructure of large companies and as such does not provide anunsolvable problem.

In addition, the specificity of SMEs and the role they play in the economicenvironment lead to a number of specific issues that differentiates the set of criticalsuccess factors in comparison to large companies:

. There is a relatively high reliance on the input of consultants. By hiringconsultants, SMEs tap into an important source of knowledge and experiencethat is often missing in their organisation due to the limited number of IT staffmembers.

. Belgium has an economy that is rather small and open in nature. Consequently,most Belgian SMEs rely heavily on exports. This makes them vulnerable to thepressures of fast-changing international markets. They need to be able to adjusttheir businesses quickly to be able to exploit their niche to the fullest extent.Hence, most Belgian SMEs have a corporate culture that embraces change. Assuch, employees are accustomed to change, making change management a farless important issue.

Although the sets of critical success factors of SMEs and large companies are similar toa large extent, they are not completely interchangeable. This study demonstrates thatcritical success factors for the implementation of ERP systems in SMEs may differsubstantially on some specific factors.

We are able to point out the differences in the sets of critical success factors for ERPimplementations, although the number of cases examined is too limited to make anin-depth analysis of the differences found. Hence, future research should focus on eachof these differences and study them to discover the mechanisms behind them.


395

Moreover, similar studies should be executed in different countries to gain a betterunderstanding of the impact of culture on critical success factors for ERPimplementations in SMEs. Hence, the results of this research should be interpretedtaking into account that we studied only Belgian companies.

References

Al-Mashari, M., Al-Mudimigh, A. and Zairi, M. (2003), “Enterprise resource planning: a taxonomyof critical factors”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 146, pp. 352-64.

Arnold, V. (2006), “Behavioral research opportunities: understanding the impact of enterprisesystems”, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Vol. 7, pp. 7-17.

Atkinson, R. (1999), “Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and aphenomenon, it’s time to accept other success criteria”, International Journal of ProjectManagement, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 337-42.

Biblo-Roularta (2007), Trends Top 100,000, available at: www.trendstop.be (accessed 18 July2007).

Bingi, P., Sharma, M.K. and Godla, J.K. (1999), “Critical issues affecting an ERP implementation”,Information Systems Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 7-14.

Bradley, J. (2008), “Management based critical success factors in the implementation of enterpriseresource planning systems”, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems,Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 205-25.

Chang, M.K., Cheung, W., Cheng, C.H. and Yeung, J.H.Y. (2008), “Understanding ERP systemadoption from the user’s perspective”, International Journal of Production Economics,Vol. 113 No. 2, pp. 928-42.

Chwen, S., Bongsug, C. and Yang, C.L. (2004), “National differences and ERP implementation:issues and challenges”, Omega, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 361-71.

DeLone, W. and McLean, E. (1992), “Information systems success: the quest for the dependentvariable”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 60-95.

DeLone, W. and McLean, E. (2003), “The DeLone and McLean model of information systemssuccess: a ten year update”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 19 No. 4,pp. 9-30.

Ernst & Young (2006), “Een ERP in een KMO: een utopia of realiteit?”, Ernst & Young studieover ERP-oplossingen voor KMO’s, available at: www.ey.com/global/download.nsf/Belgium_D/pdf_ERP_FOR_PME2006_NL/$file/ERP_FOR_PME_NL.pdf (accessed 23 March2007).

Healey, M.J. and Rawlinson, M.B. (1994), “Interviewing techniques in business and managementresearch”, in Wass, V.J. and Wells, P.E. (Eds), Principles and Practice in Business andManagement Research, Dartmouth Publishing, Aldershot, pp. 123-46.

Holland, C.P. and Light, B. (1999), “A critical success factors model for ERP implementation”,IEEE Software, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 30-6.

Kremers, M. and van Dissel, H. (2000), “ERP system migrations”, Communications of the ACM,Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 53-6.

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

Loh, T.C. and Koh, S.C.L. (2004), “Critical elements for a successful enterprise resource planningimplementation in small and medium sized enterprises”, International Journal ofProduction Research, Vol. 42 No. 17, pp. 3433-55.

Mabert, V.M., Soni, A. and Venkataramanan, M.A. (2000), “Enterprise resource planning surveyof US manufacturing firms”, Production and Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 2,pp. 52-88.

JEIM23,3

396

Milis, K. and Mercken, R. (2002), “Success factors regarding the implementation of ICTinvestment projects”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 80, pp. 105-17.

Nah, G.F.H., Lau, J.L.S. and Kuang, J. (2001), “Critical factors for successful integration ofenterprise systems”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 285-96.

Ngai, E.W.T., Law, C.C.H. and Wat, F.K.T. (2008), “Examining the critical success factors in theadoption of enterprise resource planning”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 59, pp. 548-64.

Olhager, J. and Selldin, E. (2003), “Enterprise resource planning survey of Swedishmanufacturing firms”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 146 No. 2,pp. 365-73.

Parr, A.N. and Shanks, G. (2000), “A taxonomy of ERP implementation approaches”, Proceedingsof the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI, 4-7 January,Vol. 7, IEEE Computer Society, Piscataway, NJ, p. 7018.

Parr, A.N. and Shanks, G. (2000), “A model of ERP project implementation”, Journal ofInformation Technology, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 289-303.

Pinto, J.K. and Slevin, D.P. (1987), “Critical factors in successful project implementation”, IEEETransactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 22-7.

Ramdani, B., Kawalek, P. and Lorenzo, O. (2009), “Predicting SMEs’ adoption of enterprisesystems”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 10-24.

Rosenau, M.D. (1998), Successful Project Management: A Step-by-Step Approach with PracticalExamples, 3rd ed., Wiley, New York, NY.

Ross, J.W., Weill, P. and Robertson, D.C. (2006), Enterprise Architecture as Strategy, HarvardBusiness School Press, Boston, MA.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2007), Research Methods for Business Students, 4th ed.,Pearson Education, Harlow.

Soja, P. (2006), “Success factors in ERP systems implementations: lessons from practice”, Journalof Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 646-61.

Somers, T.M. and Nelson, K. (2001), “The impact of critical success factors across the stages ofenterprise resource planning implementations”, Proceedings of the 34th Annual HawaiiInternational Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI, 3-6 January, Vol. 8, IEEEComputer Society, Piscataway, NJ, p. 8016.

Scott, J.E. (1999), “The FoxMeyer Drugs bankruptcy: was it a failure of ERP?”, paper presented atThe 5th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), Milwaukee, WI.

Shanks, G., Parr, A., Hu, B., Corbitt, B., Thanasankit, T. and Seddon, P. (2000), “Differences incritical success factors in ERP systems implementation in Australia and China: a culturalanalysis”, Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2000), Vienna, 3-5 July, pp. 537-44.

Sumner, M. (2005), Enterprise Resource Planning, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Ugwu, O.O., Kumaraswamy, M.M.T.S. and Lee, P.K.K. (2003), “Agent-based collaborativeworking in construction: understanding and modelling design knowledge, constructionmanagement practice and activities for process automation”, HKIE Transactions, Vol. 10No. 4, pp. 81-7.

Umble, E.J., Haft, R.R. and Umble, M.M. (2003), “Enterprise resource planning: implementationprocedures and critical success factors”, European Journal of Operational Research,Vol. 146 No. 2, pp. 241-57.

Zang, L., Lee, M., Zang, Z. and Banerjee, P. (2003), “Critical success factors of Enterprise ResourcePlanning systems implementation success in China”, Proceedings of the 36th HawaiiInternational Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, HI, 6-9 January, IEEE ComputerSociety, Piscataway, NJ, pp. 236-45.


397

Appendix: QuestionnaireThe questions used in the structured interviews are given below. For most questions, theinterviewees could answer by indicating one of the predefined options. Questions are indicatedby “Q”. The predefined answers are indicated by “A”, the options being separated bysemicolons.

Part I: Company parameters

1. Q: What is the position of the interviewee in the company? Indicate one answer.A: Board member; Logistics manager; Manufacturing; IT manager; Operationsmanager; Purchasing; Other.

2. Q: What is the yearly turnover of the company? Indicate one answer.A: Less than e2m; Between e2m and e10m; Between e10m and e50m; Between e50mand e100m; Larger than e2m.

3. Q: What is the number of employees in the company? Indicate one answer.A: Less than 10; Between 10 and 50; Between 50 and 250; Between 250 and 500; Largerthan 500.

4. Q: What is the current situation of ERP in the company? Indicate one answer.A: The ERP system is installed; Installation is in progress; We plan to implement in thecoming 18 months; No ERP is planned.

Part II: Pre-implementation activities

5. Q: What are the motivations to implement ERP? Evaluate each motivation on a scalefrom 1 (not important) to 5 (very important).A: To replace existing systems (scale of 1 to 5).To simplify and standardise the systems (scale of 1 to 5).To obtain a strategic advantage (scale of 1 to 5).To improve the interaction and communication with suppliers and customers (scale of1 to 5).To ease the regular update of systems (scale of 1 to 5).To solve the year-2000 problem (scale of 1 to 5).To catch up with competitors (scale of 1 to 5)

6. Q: What was the strategic approach in the ERP implementation? Indicate one answer.A: One single ERP package; One single ERP package in combination with othersystems; Several ERP packages in combination with other systems; A “best of breed”of several ERP packages; In-house development; In-house development, supplementedwith specific package functionality.

7. Q: Has there been a formal internal evaluation of the ERP project beforeimplementation? Indicate one answer.A: Yes; No.

8. Q: If a formal evaluation has been made, what evaluation methods were used? Indicateall methods used.A: Payback period; Return on investment; Net present value; Internal rate of return;Total cost of ownership; Other.

JEIM23,3

398

9. Q: If a formal evaluation has been made, what was the expected return on investment?Indicate one answer.A: Less than 5 per cent; Between 5 per cent and 15 per cent; Between 15 per cent and 25per cent; Between 25 per cent and 50 per cent; Larger than 50 per cent.

Part III: Implementation experiences

10. Q: What was the planned duration of the project? Indicate one answer.A: Less than six months; Between six months and 12 months; Between 13 months and18 months; Between 19 months and 24 months; Between 25 months and 36 months;Between 27 months and 48 months; larger than 48 months.

11. Q: What was the real duration of the project? Indicate one answer.A: Less than six months; Between six months and 12 months; Between 13 months and18 months; Between 19 months and 24 months; Between 25 months and 36 months;Between 27 months and 48 months; larger than 48 months.

12. Q: What was the adopted implementation strategy? Indicate one answer.A: “Big Bang” (full implementation in one roll-out); Skeleton approach (first a limitedversion, adding functionality later); Single module approach (one module at a time);Phased approach per site (complete functionality per physical location).

13. Q: What was the total budgeted cost of the ERP implementation? Indicate one answer.A: Less than e0.5m; Between e0.5m and e1.5m; Between e1.5m and e5m; more thane5m.

14. Q: What was the total actual cost of the ERP implementation? Indicate one answer.A: Less than e0.5m; Between e0.5m and e1.5m; Between e1.5m and e5m; more thane5m.

15. Q: How is the actual cost spread over the following categories? Indicate a percentagefor each category with a total of 100 per cent.A: Software (0-100 per cent); Hardware (0-100 per cent); Consultancy (0-100 per cent);Training (0-100 per cent); Implementation team (0-100 per cent); Other (0-100 per cent).

Part IV: ERP package and customisation

16. Q: What is the most important ERP package implemented? Indicate one answer.A: SAP; Oracle; Peoplesoft; Microsoft Dynamics; Baan (Invensys); IBS; IFS; Intentia; JDEdwards; Solid Data; Systemat Popsy; CCS; Aktiv; Briljant; TopPower; Other.

17. Q: How do you estimate the amount of required customisation? Indicate one answer.A: Large; Significant; Small; No customisation.

Part V: Implemented modules and level of customisation

18. Q: What ERP modules were implemented and what percentage of each implementedmodule was modified? Indicate all modules implemented and give a percentage foreach implemented module.A: Purchasing (modified: 0-100 per cent); Order entry (modified: 0-100 per cent);Materials management (modified: 0-100 per cent); Production planning (modified: 0-100


399

per cent); Accounting (modified: 0-100 per cent); Distribution and logistics (modified:0-100 per cent); Financial management (modified: 0-100 per cent); Asset management(modified: 0-100 per cent); Human resources (modified: 0-100 per cent); Qualitymanagement (modified: 0-100 per cent); Maintenance (modified: 0-100 per cent);Research and development (modified: 0-100 per cent).

19. Q: Which of the following extensions to the ERP system are being implemented (I),Planned (P), Considered (C) or not planned (N)? Indicate for each extension: I, P, C or N.A: Customer access to the ERP system (I, P, C or N).Data warehouse, business intelligence (I, P, C or N).E-business and e-commerce (I, P, C or N).Supplier access to the ERP system (I, P, C or N).Supply chain integration (I, P, C or N).CRM (I, P, C or N).Advanced planning tools (I, P, C or N).

Part VI: Benefits

20. Q: What were the benefits of the ERP implementation? Score each benefit from 1 (nobenefit) to 5 (large benefit).A: Information is available faster (scale of 1 to 5).More interaction between employees (internally) (scale of 1 to 5).Better control over orders/Better order processing (scale of 1 to 5).Better financial management (scale of 1 to 5).Better customer intimacy (scale of 1 to 5).Fewer delays in deliveries (scale of 1 to 5).Better supplier intimacy (scale of 1 to 5).Less operational costs (scale of 1 to 5).Lower inventory (scale of 1 to 5).Better cash management (scale of 1 to 5)

21. Q: To what extent were benefits realised in the following domains? Score each domainfrom 1 (no benefit) to 5 (large benefit).A: Information availability (scale of 1 to 5).Business processes integration (scale of 1 to 5).Information quality (scale of 1 to 5).Inventory management (scale of 1 to 5).Financial management (scale of 1 to 5).Flexibility towards customers (scale of 1 to 5).Supplier management (scale of 1 to 5).Human resources management (scale of 1 to 5).IT cost improvement (scale of 1 to 5).

Part VII: Critical success factors: vision, scope and goals

22. Q: Which of the following aspects were thoroughly considered before the project andwere followed-up during the project? For each aspect, indicate whether it wasconsidered (C), Followed-up (F) or both (CF).A: A vision on the ERP project (C, F or CF).Strategic goals (C, F or CF).

JEIM23,3

400

A new business model (C, F or CF).A business plan, spelling out the:benefits (C, F or CF);resources (C, F or CF);costs (C, F or CF);risks (C, F or CF);time line (C, F or CF).

23. Q: Was the project mission clearly articulated? Indicate one answer.A: Yes; No.

24. Was the project mission related to the business needs? Indicate one answer.A: Yes; No.

25. Q: How many modules (functionalities), business processes, users and sites wereincluded in the project? For each, answer with one (1), a limited number (L) or All (A).A: Modules (1, L or A); Business processes (1, L or A), Users (1, L or A), Sites (1, L or A).

26. Q: How would you describe the level of the basic requirements? Indicate one answer.A: Low; Rather low; Average; Rather high; High.

27. Q: How were management query and reporting tools considered? Indicate one answer.A: They were part of the required ERP functionality; They were purchased from athird party; Neither.

Part VIII: Critical success factors: culture, communication and support

28. Q: Were the following groups informed about the project? Did they provide input? Didthey actively participate in the implementation process? Did they have a facilitatingrole in the project? For each group, indicate whether they were not informed (1),informed but not actively participating (2), provided input (3), actively participated (4)or had an active facilitating role (5).A: Top management (1-5); Senior management (1-5); IT management (1-5); IT staff(1-5); Line management (1-5); Operational staff (1-5).

29. Q: Indicate which of these statements applies to top management during the ERPimplementation process. For each statement, indicate whether it applies (Y) or not (N).A: Top management . . .approves the project (Y or N).. . . publicly supports the project and calls it a top priority (Y or N).. . . mediates in conflicts, arising in the project (Y or N).. . . actively engages and participates in the project (Y or N).. . . is concerned with the integration of the ERP project in the enterprise (Y or N).. . . understands ERP (Y or N).

30. Q: What changes in organisational structure and culture were communicated by thetop management? Indicate all changes that apply.A: Guidelines for the introduction of the new system.A shared vision on the organisation and the role of the new system.New organisation goals.New organisational structures, roles and responsibilities.Other (please specify).


401

31. Q: What priority did the ERP project receive in comparison to other large IT projects inthe domains of staffing, budget and time? For each factor, give a score of 1 (much less),2 (less), 3 (equal amount), 4 (more) or 5 (much more).A: Personnel (1-5); Budget (1-5); Time (1-5).

32. Q: To what extent did the approved means suffice to implement the project? For eachfactor, give a score of 1 (much less), 2 (less), 3 (equal amount), 4 (more) or 5 (much more).A: Personnel (1-5); Budget (1-5); Time (1-5).

33. Q: How was the project budget determined? Indicate one answer.A: The budget was fixed before the project start; The budget was somewhat flexible,but a payback period was imposed; There was no budget control.

34. Q: Which of the following properties does your organisation have and wasinstrumental for the ERP project? Indicate all that apply.A: A culture with shared values and common goals; A culture of open communication;A strong corporate identity; A flexible organisation, open to change; An emphasis onquality; Strong IT capabilities; The will to accept new technologies; Perseverance withrespect to implementation problems.

35. Q: Which measures were taken to improve the integration of ERP into theorganisation? Indicate all that apply.A: User training; Regular communication; Use of “change agents”; Referral to thecorporate culture; On-the-job user assistance; Conflict management; Other (pleasespecify).

36. Q: What kind of information was solicited from the users before, during and after theproject? Indicate all that apply.A: Requirements (before); Remarks (during); Feedback (afterwards); Approval(throughout).

37. Q: What kind of user information was taken into account? Indicate with 1 (not takeninto account) to 5 (fully taken into account).A: Requirements (before); Remarks (during); Feedback (afterwards); Approval(throughout).

38. Q: What is the general level of acceptance of the ERP system by the users? Indicate one.A: Very positive (enthusiasm); Positive (acceptance); Neutral; Negative (no acceptance);Very negative (resistance).

39. Q: When were the users informed about the following aspects of the ERP project? Foreach aspect, indicate B if users were informed before the start, D if they were informedduring the project or A if they were informed after the project. Indicate N if users werenot informed about this aspect.A: The project existence (B, D, A or N).The project importance (B, D, A or N).The project scope (B, D, A or N).The project goals (B, D, A or N).The performance expectations (B, D, A or N).The time frame (B, D, A or N).The project activities (B, D, A or N).Project updates (B, D, A or N).

JEIM23,3

402

40. Q: How is the relation with the ERP software supplier? Indicate one.A: The ERP supplier is only the seller of the system; The supplier also providesimplementation consultants; The supplier is a partner.

Part IX: Critical success factors: Infrastructure

41. Q: How would you qualify the IT infrastructure at the start of the ERP project? Indicateone answer.A: Standardised; Rather standardised; Rather proprietary; Proprietary

42. Q: How complex would you call these aspects of your organisation before the ERPimplementation? Score each aspect with 1 (simple), 2 (rather simple), 3 (average), 4(rather complex) or 5 (complex).A: Business processes (1-5); Organisational structure (1-5); IT (1-5).

43. Q: How varied would you call these aspects of your organisation before the ERPimplementation? Score each aspect with 1 (simple), 2 (rather simple), 3 (average), 4(rather complex) or 5 (complex).A: Business processes; IT platforms; IT applications.

Part X: Critical success factors: General approach

44. Q: How was the implementation organised? Indicate one answer.A: Phased approach per product line; Phased approach per location; Simultaneousintroduction for all products and all locations.

45. Q: What was the major goal of the implementation? Indicate one answer.A: Standardisation of processes over all locations; Local optimisation of processes.

46. Q: How important were these arguments in the choice of the ERP package? Score eachargument from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important).A: Vendor support (1-5); References (number of previous implementations of thepackage) (1-5); Functionality match (1-5).

47. Q: To what extent was there a match between the existing business processes and thebusiness processes, supported by the chosen ERP package? Give a percentage.

48. Q: How was the gap between required and supported functionality closed? Indicate oneanswer.A: The ERP system was adjusted to the business processes; The business processeswere adjusted to the ERP system; Both were modified.

49. Q: To what extent was the ERP system modified? Indicate one answer.A:Nomodification; Simpleparameterisation, noorminimal codemodifications;Complexparameterisation, no or minimal code modifications; Extensive code modifications.

50. Q: To what extent were business processes modified? Indicate one answer.A:Nomodifications;Minormodifications;Businessprocesseswere redesigned (Businessprocess re-engineering).

51. Q: If business processes were re-engineered, which ones of the following statements aretrue? Indicate all that apply.


403

A: Processmodelling toolswere used; The re-engineeringwas started before the onset ofthe ERP project; The re-engineering was iterative.

52. Q: Rank the following factors in order of emphasis during the project. Indicate the factorwith the most emphasis as 1.A: New technology; Business benefits; User requirements; Other (please specify).

53. Q: What percentage of the ERP implementation budget was allocated to user training?Give a percentage.

54: Q:Whatpercentageof theuser trainingwasdedicated to the followingsubjects. Indicateapercentage for each subject, with a total of 100 per cent.A: Technical knowledge of the ERP system with its reference models (0-100 per cent).User technical training (how to use the software) (0-100 per cent).User business training (how to support business processes) (0-100 per cent).Other (please specify) (0-100 per cent).

55. Q: When were the users trained? Indicate one answer.A: Long before the system was rolled-out; At system roll-out; After roll-out.

56. Q: Were external consultants used in the ERP implementation? Indicate one answer.A: Yes; No.

57. If consultants were used, for what purpose? Indicate all that apply.A: Expertise in cross-functional business processes; Expertise in system configuration;Expertise in application-specificmodules; Knowledge transfer to internal IT staff; Other(please specify).

58. Q:What happens/happened to the existing systems, replaced by theERP system, atERProll-out? Indicate one answer.A: Existing systems were made unavailable to the users; Existing systems are onlyavailable in case of emergency; Existing systems run in parallel with ERP systems.

59. Q: What measures were taken to ensure data accuracy in the new system? Indicate allanswers that apply.A: None; Quality control before migration from the existing systems; Usercommunication of the importance of data accuracy; Training on correct data entryduring user training; Other (please specify).

Part XI: Critical success factors: Project planning & control

60. Q: Which of the following plans were defined before the onset of the project and werefollowed-up during the project? For each plan, indicate D for defined before the onsetand F for followed-up during the project.A: Project plan (D, F); Project goals (D, F); Scope delimitation (D, F); Activity plan (D,F), Milestones (D, F); Resources plan (D, F); Follow-up plan (D, F); Continuity plan (D,F).

61. Q: Was the ERP project divided into smaller subprojects? Indicate one answer.A: Yes; No.

62. Q: If the project was divided into subprojects, did each of these subprojects have itsown goals in terms of business benefits? Indicate one answer.A: Yes; No.

JEIM23,3

404

63. Q: What criteria were used to evaluate the project progress and performance? Indicateall that apply.A: Project management based criteria (e.g. milestones, delivery times, resource usage);Business-related performance criteria.

64. Q: Was user feedback taken into account during the project? Indicate one answer.A: Yes; No.

65. Q: How long after the roll-out will the performance of the ERP system be monitored?Indicate one answer.A: No monitoring; one month; six months; one year; two years; as long as the system isoperational.

Part XII: Critical success factors: project team

66. Q: Give the composition of the project team. For each kind of participant, give apercentage, totalling 100 per cent.A: Technical IT experts (0-100 per cent); Business analysts (0-100 per cent); Users(0-100 per cent); External consultants (0-100 per cent); Other (please specify) (0-100 percent).

67. Q: Was the project team created specifically for this project? Indicate one answer.A: Yes; No.

68. Q: Are/were all team members full-time assigned to the project? Indicate one answer.A: Yes; No.

69. Q: How broad is the authority of the team? Indicate one answer.A: The team is authorised to take decisions autonomously, whereby management isinformed;The teamcontinuously communicateswith themanagement, but is authorisedto take urgent decisions; All important decisions are taken by the management.

70. Q: Does the project team receive special compensation for completion of the ERP projectwithin time and within budget? Indicate one answer.A: Yes; No.

71. Q: Does the top management receive special compensation for completion of the ERPproject within time and within budget? Indicate one answer.A: Yes; No.

72. Q: Does the project team receive special compensation if the ERP system performsaccording to or exceeding expectations? Indicate one answer.A: Yes; No.

73. Q: Does the top management receive special compensation if the ERP system performsaccording to or exceeding expectations? Indicate one answer.A: Yes; No.

74. Q: How important were the following criteria in the choice of a project manager? Scoreeach criterion from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important).A: Skills (1-5); Experience (1-5); Reputation (1-5); Flexibility (1-5); Other (please specify)(1-5).


405

75. Q: Was a project champion appointed? Indicate one answer.A: Yes; No.

76. Q: What are the main characteristics of the project champion? Indicate all that apply.A: The project champion . . .. . . is part of the business;. . . is a top manager;. . . is a middle manager;. . . is the internal promoter of the project;. . . has a clear vision on the future;. . . inspires others to share a common vision;. . . emphasises the benefits of the project;. . . defends the ERP system at all times;. . . manages resistance to change;. . . solves conflicts;. . . keeps in touch with the users;. . . supervises the use of the new system.

About the authorsAn astronomer by education, Claude Doom has 15 years of experience as a networking planner,ICT strategist and architect. He worked for major industrial companies, the government and forinternational consulting organisations. Since 2001 he has been Professor of Business Informationsystems at the Hogeschool Universiteit Brussel, where he teaches IT strategy and architectureand IT governance and management. Claude Doom is the corresponding author and can becontacted at: [email protected]

Koen Milis is currently Assistant Professor at the Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, where heteaches MIS and ERP courses. He obtained a Master’s in Applied Economics, a postgraduatedegree in MIS and a postgraduate degree in Statistics. He wrote his PhD at Hasselt University onthe management of enterprise wide systems and he still pursues research in this area.

Stephen Poelmans is a Researcher and Lecturer in the Business Information Managementgroup at the Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel (Department of Business Economics). His teachingsfocus on business intelligence, data modelling and information management. Professor Poelmansis also affiliated with the Catholic University of Leuven and has conducted research on thedeployment and evaluation of business process management and ERP systems, IS usability(with a focus on e-learning systems) and service-oriented architectures (service design and itsarchitectural impact).

Eric Bloemen is a Researcher and Lecturer in the Business Information Management group atthe Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel (Department of Business Economics). His teaching focuseson project management, telecommunications, systems development and advanced strategies inICT. Prior to this, Professor Bloemen worked for 15 years in the private (telecommunications)sector with Alcatel, where he was mainly responsible for small and medium-sized computeroffice systems and new developing ICT technologies.

JEIM23,3

406

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Critical success factors for ERP implementations in Belgian SMEs

Documents

Transcript of Critical success factors for ERP implementations in Belgian SMEs