Generic Critical Success Factor Implementation Models

The models considered in this section address ERP implementation without specific focus; all of the factors that could contribute to ERP success are be included. As a consequence these are related to process, people or technology and their purpose is to identify and report any factor that could represent success of failure of the ERP project in the post implementation phase. The literature review study by Nah et al (2001) sought to bring together the findings of the fragmented, and relatively rare academic research, on the post implementation phase at that time; their literature search revealed just ten studies relating to CSFs in ERP implementation. The eleven factors found were then categorised into four life cycle phases as defined by Marcus and Tannis (2000); chartering, project, shakedown and onward and upward. Chartering was described as the phase in which decision were made as to how the project was funded, comprising of activities such as idea generation, business case development, project feasibility, selecting software and project planning. The project phase was concerned with project planning and personnel, whereas shakedown referred to the period from the project going ‘live’ to the system being considered to operate normally, the

activities for which were, for instance retraining, finding inconsistences (bugs) and rectifying them; the shakedown phase could be lengthy since it continued until all of the system issues are resolved and it runs error free. The final phase, onward and upward was concerned with improving and maintaining the system until the time when it was upgraded or changed (Marcu and Tannis, 2000).

Table 2.1 Life Cycle Phases and CSFs (Nah et al. ,2001)

Life Cycle Phases and Critical Success Factors

Chartering Project

 Appropriate business and legacy systems

 ERP teamwork and composition

 Top management support

 Business plan and vision

 Effective communication

 Project management

 Project champion

 Change management programme and culture

 Business process reengineering (BPR) and minimum customisation

 Software development, testing and troubleshooting

Shakedown Onward and Upward Phase

 Monitoring and evaluation of performance  Business Vision

In this study, ERP implementation concerned all phases, including the post implementation phase, as the newly implemented EPR system, whereas shakedown would appear to represent this in other perspectives. It is evident that earlier phases will considerably influence the post implementation phase and, such a view would justify their being included, as seems to have been the approach taken by Lau et al. (2001). Although Lau et al. (2001) identified eleven factors, they appeared to consider some more important than others, for instance, ERP teamwork and composition, which should be of a cross functional nature and team should collaborate in an environment of trust. The change management programme was interdependent on there being an organisational culture, in which employees had a shared vision of the firm's objectives, were committed to its values and were change orientated. Change agents were considered to be a key element of ERP success since they were the vehicle to transform the current culture, so as to embrace the new aspects that ERP drove.

While Lau et al (2001) suggest that these are three separate factors, change management guru’s, such as Kotter (2012) would suggest that these aspects were integral to a successful change management, rather than being separated this manner. The third area of most critical importance was suggested as on-going learning and support, although this had been included within the change programme rather than specifically highlighted. The findings may not

represent a high degree of generalisability, since they resulted from ten academic studies but this many have been a consequence of lower interest in ERP implementation at that time. A similar study of 70 articles, 45 of which were considered to contain CSFs, conducted by Finney and Corbett (2007) intended to find the CSFs, but also to identify gaps in the literature. The authors identified 26 categories, although they report difficulty in describing them accurately; the factors were then divided into two main sections; strategic and tactical (Table 2.2).

Table 2.2 Critical Success Factors in ERP Implementation (Finney and Corbett, 2007) Strategic Factors Tactical Factors Seq Factor Description No of

studies

Seq Factor Description No of studies 1 Top management commitment

and support

25 14 Project team, the best and brightest 21 2 Visioning and planning 15 15 Balanced team 12 3 Build a business case 3 16 Communication plan 10 4 Project champion 10 17 Empowered decision makers 3 5 Implement strategy and time

frame

17 18 Team morale and motivation 6 6 Vanilla ERP 6 19 Project planning and management 4 7 Project Management 6 20 BPR and software configuration 23 8 Change Management 25 21 Legacy system configuration 5 9 Managing Cultural Change 7 22 IT infrastructure 8 10 Troubleshooting/crisis

management

6 23 Client Consultation 4 11 Data conversion and integrity 5 24 Selection of ERP 7 12 System testing 5 25 Consultant Selection and relationship 16 13 Post implementation evaluation 7 26 Training and job redesign 23

Many of these factors are similar to those mentioned by Lau et al. (2009), as might be expected in a literature review study that does include that earlier research; the categorisation into strategic and tactical suggests a broader view over the length of the project, rather than a phase based one, which has some merit as a stage by stage approach to CSFs could lead to reducing focus on some areas that remain critical, such as on-going organisational learning after implementation, and post implementation evaluation to assess return on investment (ROI), as well as the system’s effectiveness regarding all elements of the business activity. The authors purpose in categorising in this was that the factors listed under strategic were the ‘larger picture’ elements but broken down into 'do-able’ parts whilst the tactical factors were the elements that required skills and finer detail (Finney and Corbett, 2007, p 335).

The factors identified that appear to be additional to those of Lau et al (2001), include Vanilla ERP, although this actually refers to software with minimum customisation as was included in the earlier study, and empowered decision-making, a factor not often cited separately in

many research findings but one that Finney and Corbett (2007) justify, on the basis that unless this is the case, implementation can be severely hindered. A particularly useful aspect of the findings of this review was the regularity with which each of these factors had been cited in the literature, which suggests a potential hierarchy. The study also provides some additional detail about key aspects for instance job re-design is partnered with training, and is a separate factor, whereas it was included in change management by Lau et al. (2001). The requirement to examine how the ERP implementation will change the work task emphasis and job description is stressed, as well as IT development training, in addition to user training and project team training; training of the project team is the aspect most frequently mentioned. The complementary aspect of Finney and Corbett’s (2007) study was their critical approach to the aspects that the studies omitted, for instance, the lack of depth about what tactics change management should embrace and how it should be implemented, were highlighted. This omission is surprising considering that this is the most frequently cited CSF in the studies that were reviewed. The authors commented on the diversity of the definitions used regarding change as well as how rarely the stakeholder perspective was considered; the comment about stakeholders presumably referring to client consultation in just four studies. However the need for cultural change could also be inferred in stakeholder perspective, since this is a critical aspect of change management programmes (Kotter, 2012).

The studies examined were stated to have generally explored just one CSF in detail, very few even considered the most critical ones as a group and no major research was found that considered ERP implementation from the perspectives of key stakeholders. The study’s conclusion stated that it was evident that general CSF frameworks for ERP implementation had been derived from reviews of the prior published literature or limited numbers of case studies and therefore significant duplication of factors occurred.

The research conducted by Francoise et al. (2009) had the stated purpose of narrowing the gaps in the general CSF literature mentioned by Finney and Corbett (2007). Initially a review of the relevant literature was conducted and 13 major CSFs reported, which are suggested as factors to guide project managers to the types of intervention needed to enhance the chances of project success, but also emphasising that, without the practical means to implement them, there would be little effect. Hence the study continued by attempting to identify and record the practical solutions to these issues from other academic research findings that focused on

the difficulties actually encountered, and found a total of 107 of those. Two methods were employed to suggest the practical steps needed to enable the CSFs to be supported, in a way that would enhance outcomes, firstly previous studies directly or indirectly focused on ERP systems, and secondly professional texts and journals; 73 activities were identified, which were then validated by carrying out a Dephi Survey with those professionals that had experienced ERP implementation. The survey revealed that the detailed list of activities was not carried out to solve the known key issues with ERP implementation. As a part of the model of generic CSF factors, this study provides a useful and practical support to implementing the accomplishment of the CSF factors cited.

The quantitative research by Sun et al. (2005) focused on five CSFs in six organisations, contrary to the customary single focus identified by Nah et al. (2001); the findings reinforced the relative importance of some factors above others, inferred by the frequency of those factors in the Nah et al. (2001). The five factors, which represented 22 sub factors, were derived from a previous study by Cantu (1999) who had described the main factors as: management/organisation, people, data, process and technology, no mention of culture or change management in this framework. The findings were that people factors should be given the highest priority followed by data and technology; the high priority of people aligns with Lau et al (2001).

The models of generic CSF factors cited tend to complement each other providing the opportunity for a researcher to use the findings to create a more holistic model from these as appropriate to the specific ERP implementation system concerned