Selection of experts

For the purpose of this research, it was important to ensure diversity in selecting experts with a wide range of experience in both ERP and small midsize businesses. It is generally understood from the literature that even though best practice knowledge exists, it is often ignored. This causes ERP project failures (Rao, 2000; Vandaie, 2008; Tsai et al., 2012). It was important for this study to seek diverse opinions and a variety of feedback on the topic and the proposed model content. After an initial investigation into their suitability for the purposes of this study, a total of 38 experts were short-listed. Primarily, the selection criteria was based on following:

• Academic experts with teaching and/or research experience with ERP and/or ERP implementation and/or experience with midsize businesses. Research experience with ERP in midsize businesses would be advantageous.

• Professional experts with project management experience and/or ERP project management experience and/or experience with ERP implementation and/or implementation of ERP in midsize businesses.

Fortunately, the short-listed experts (researchers and professionals) had a wide range of backgrounds relevant to the criteria. Table 5.1 provides a clear picture of the experts classified within their relevant areas of expertise. The table also identifies the experts who were contacted and those who actually participated in the discussion.

The main means used to contact these experts were as follows:

• Personal contacts: Experts who were personally known to the researcher included

those with rich project management and/or ERP implementation experience. The basic criteria used to select from the personal contacts included years of experience in the field of project management and professional exposure on ERP implementation or in the relevant areas of implementation.

• Professional contacts: Experts were also selected based on their professional

knowledge and associations with the researcher. The basic criteria used to select from professional contacts included years of experience in the field of ERP implementation or project management, expertise in small and midsize businesses, academic professionals from ERP education and ERP project managers.

• Academic journal articles and conference papers: Some experts were selected

from the latest research publications on ERP implementation issues, specifically in relation to midsize businesses. It was important to include academics in the study with active involvement in ERP research, to discuss the model structure and allow for peer review of its content.

• Academic contacts: The academic contacts were selected based on their project

management methodology experience, the knowledge of ERP applications, ERP implementation and relevance of ERP applications in small to midsize businesses. The researcher presented a paper at an international conference in the United States of America (USA) in 2009, followed by another conference on ERP in Poznan, Poland. These two conferences provided an opportunity to interact with a wide range of researchers from around the world and discuss the research topic. This enabled the researcher to establish some good contacts that were later used to select experts in the area for this study. It was important to obtain an academic perspective on the model findings, so that the theoretical basis could be investigated.

• Academic contacts of the supervisor: Some of the academic contacts were suggested by the research supervisor. These were based on their contribution to academia, specifically in the areas of project management, ERP application and small and midsize businesses.

• Professional networking site (www.linkedin.com): Finally, the professional

networking website LinkedIn was used to attract experts in the area. A research brief was posted on different online forums: ERP project management, ERP applications and ERP in small and midsize business forums. The posting contained an introductory message along with an invitation to indicate their willingness to participate in the study. It was also mentioned that basic criteria needed to be met before an expert could be included in the study. The criteria identified on the LinkedIn forums included years of experience in ERP implementation, areas of expertise in ERP (e.g. technical experts, functional experts, architects and/or project managers), with small to midsize business experience listed as highly desirable.

Establishing the expert panel – the process

Three attempts were made to complete the final list of experts who eventually participated in the expert panel. The first attempt occurred in the first week of April 2010, when a total of nine experts were contacted via professional and personal contacts, requesting them to participate in the study. As a result, only two professionals and one academic accepted the request and three professionals and three academics failed to respond.

In the second attempt, a total of ten different experts with academic and/or professional backgrounds were contacted. The selection was made based on a list of authors from academic journals, conference papers and academic peer publications. As a result, only two academics responded positively and agreed to participate and the rest did not respond. In addition, the research brief was posted on the following LinkedIn communities:

• ERP project management

• SAP ERP consultants

• Project manager community

• ERP Middle East

The research brief provided baseline information on research objectives, requesting experts to provide an expression of interest, should they wish to participate in the study. It was clearly stated that their professional knowledge and experience would need to be verifiable.

Eventually, some professionals were short-listed based on their professional expertise and relevance to ERP implementation (general or specific to midsize businesses). This process provided a total of five ERP professionals from different parts of the world who were considered for the study.

In the third and final attempt, a total of seven experts were contacted based on selected from academic journals and supervisor recommendations. Three academics responded positively and agreed to participate in the study, while other four did not respond. By the end of April 2010, a potential panel of thirteen experts from different areas of expertise was developed. At the end of the informal short-listing process, all confirmed experts were formally contacted to request their participation in the study. An introductory email containing research information, describing the aim of the study and the expectation from each expert was outlined. The experts were requested to respond via email to confirm their intention to participate. Email was used as the medium of communication, given that experts were selected from different parts of the world.

A total of thirteen formal invitations were sent, but eventually only eight experts took part in the research study. One of the experts, “expert K” (see Table 5.1) suggested a few other colleagues for discussion but they could not participate due to work commitments. The two professionals, “expert A and expert L” and two academics, “expert G and expert I” did not participate in the expert panel due to personal and work commitments.

Table 5.1: A summary of experts’ selection details for this study

No. Expert

code Position/title Country

Area of Expertise ERP ERP implementation Midsize business ERP in midsize 1. A Senior project manager

– ERP applications Australia  

2. B

Head of ICT services and ERP applications national oil company

UAE   

3. C University professor info

systems and team chair USA  

4. D Software consultant,

ERP implementation Poland    

5. E Senior Lecturer of ERP

Applications Australia   

6. F

Senior ERP consultant at multinational company USA   7. G University ERP professor Germany   8. H ERP implementation consultant Argentina/ South America    

9. I Lecturer in small and

midsize business Australia   

10. J

Senior lecturer and researcher IT project management

UK   

11. K Researcher – small

business and ERP Muscat, Oman   

12. L IT manager and ERP

certified professional India  

13. M

Certified project manager and senior software engineer

Australia   

Note - Experts indicated in red did not participate, even after accepting an informal request, due to other commitments.

Expert panel execution

After having formal invitations accepted by the participants, each participant was provided with an Expert ID (to log in and be identified by). They were also requested not to divulge any personal information to identify them in the expert panel discussion forum. This was to ensure that experts did not reveal their personal identity, but could see what messages other experts were submitting to the forum. All experts were requested to must use their expert ID while submitting their response on topics of discussion. Strict privacy measures were adopted to avoid any bias or personal interest on the topic and to ensure freedom of expression to all participants while participating in the discussion. The expert panel was executed on a weekly basis, each week containing a major aspect of the research model for discussion.

The panel discussion commenced on the 3rd _{of May 2010 and was completed on the 7}th _June

2010. Each new topic was posted on a Tuesday and discussion was completed on the following Monday. At the start of each week, an email was released to initiate the discussion, followed by two reminder emails to request participation. Experts who were not able to comment during previous week(s)’ discussions were able to submit comments on the previous topics as well as on the current topic under discussion. Almost half way through each week, a friendly reminder was sent out to reiterate the significance of the experts’ involvement in the discussion and to request a timely response. It was observed that some participants posted comments on the first day of discussion and others through the week or towards the end of each discussion week. Most of the experts commented within the allocated timeframe and a few provided a collective response at the end of discussions.