Change Management Model for ERP Implementation

The importance of the Change Management Process as a success factor in ERP implementation has led to a few models based on this factor alone, for instance Francoise et al. (2009) proposed one that incorporated culture and had a number of specified steps:

 Opinion leaders should be lobbied to support the change  Commitment of senior personnel must be secured

 The organisation should be assessed as being capable of accepting the change  Training should be completed for the whole organisations

 Risk management and actions to mitigate risk should be completed  Scope of change evaluated to meet the challenge of its impact and risks  Communication to all of the benefits and limitations

 Ensure organisational readiness prior to implementation  Regular communication sessions to review progress

 Pilot systems available in large conference type areas so that personnel can learn about system

 Project leader receives specific training on handling problems of change effectively

This list is comprehensive but appears to give little detail or rationale for cultural aspects, which are important those implementing to understand, to organisational and individuals beliefs and values (Schein, 1986; Kotter 2012). Since these activities could be processed without considering the softer change side related

The change management model suggested by Kemp and Low (2008) was based on an innovation model devised by Klein et al. (2001) and was a consequence of the findings of research into a large Australian multinational firm. Two hypotheses were devised to discover whether specified change management activities (figure 2.1) influence the environment in which the ERP system was being implemented, and that the environment was therefore positively influenced in terms of feelings, awareness and intention to adopt the system. The methodology employed surveys, interviews and organisational documents.

The findings confirmed the important nature of the change management process on the environment and hence the success of the ERP implementation process. The key activities were: communicating information about the system to users; ensuring that user skills were appropriately developed; the involvement of personnel in the change. In cases in which this process did not occur there was a more negative attitude to the change. However the shortcomings were found to be cases, in which managers publicly supported the change but were not convinced of the benefits of the system to the company, that users did not understand the reasons why the change was required, since they considered the new system less efficient and offered lower functionality than the previous system. Additionally, the new system did not meet their expectations, indicating low levels of communication and employee involvement. Hence Kemp and Low (2008) highlight an important aspect of the process, that managers must be better informed of the corporate purpose and objectives of the new system. Another aspect of the change process that had an unexpected outcome for the organisation,

was the activities allocated by the change management team; this team chose different activities for each department, based on their assessment of what was required, and with the purpose of providing the best outcome for reasonable effort. The consequence was that, contrary to the team's belief that all employees would experience the same feeling/climate during the process, there was wide variation; the lower the number of activities provided for a group, the greater the resistance to change. Although generalizability is limited, since only one organisation was studied, the results are likely to be generalisable to many large corporates, in which teams for managing change or similar decisions may be made, to decide on what activities should be conducted in each department, owing to size factor of total employee involvement (Momoh, 2011).

A similar model was found to be appropriate, according to the findings of the survey study conducted by Ahmed et al (2006), in which 69 Malaysian manufacturing companies participated. The research particularly focused on the resistance to change, and findings strongly suggested this resistance should be acknowledged and maximum attention given to interventions that were designed to minimise employee concerns; participation in the change by all employees, regular, open communication and development of knowledge and skills. The study outcomes emphasise the soft factors that were neglected by Francoise et al. (2009), that the resistance is a consequence of anxiety of the unknown such as loss of pay, status and habitual working patterns with which they feel secure.

A three stage model for the specific involvement of users to minimise resistance to change was proposed by Aldwani (2001):

 the first stage was identify and appraise the attitudes to the change of individual users and influential groups, by asking specific questions;

 then in the second implementation phase predetermined strategies can be included that build awareness, influence feelings by interventions such as training and gaining support of those whose opinion is most influential;

 the third stage is an evaluation of the change management efforts in which feedback from users enable the senior management to appraise the degree of resistance remaining and to then to adapt activities as necessary

In the second phase the authors emphasise the soft factor of feelings, and therefore the need of group leaders to have significant involvement in the ERP implementation planning.

These studies all focus on managing the change through employment of a planned process, but the degree to which there is practically based attention to the reasons for employee resistance based on the anxieties experienced, is somewhat varied but generally acknowledged as the core issue. As a group of perspectives there is significant practical perspective that aids leveraging the change management process in ERP implementation.