Empirical
evidence
of
an
integrative
knowledge
competence
framework
for
ERP
systems
implementation
in
UK
industries
Uchitha
Jayawickrama
a,*
,
Shaofeng
Liu
b,
Melanie
Hudson
Smith
b aSchoolofComputing,StaffordshireUniversity,StaffordshireST42DE,UnitedKingdom b
GraduateSchoolofManagement,UniversityofPlymouth,PlymouthPL48AA,UnitedKingdom
ARTICLE INFO Articlehistory:
Received25August2015
Receivedinrevisedform29April2016 Accepted20July2016
Availableonlinexxx Keywords:
InnovativeKMapproach Knowledgecompetencewheel Knowledgenetworkmodel ERPimplementationsuccess
ABSTRACT
EnterpriseResourcePlanning(ERP)systemscangreatlyimprovebusinessproductivityandbetterserve customersbycreatingvaluesthroughintegratingbusinessprocessesandsharingcurrentinformation. KnowledgeManagement(KM)iscrucialforERPsystemsimplementation,butisparticularlydemanding task. This paper discusses ERP systems implementation in UK manufacturing and service sector organisations,focusingonempiricalevidenceofaninnovativeKMapproachforimprovingknowledge competenceforERPsuccess.Qualitativeresearchwasconducted,usingsemi-structuredinterviewswith ERPexperts.Dataanalysisusedacombinationofthematicandcomparativeanalysis.Thefindingssuggest that the integrativeknowledge competenceframework canprovide ERP practitioners withuseful guidanceonwhatthekeyknowledgedeterminantsareandhowtherelationshipsbetweenknowledge componentsshouldbebestmanagedtoachieveERPsystemsimplementationsuccessinreallifebusiness situations.
ã2016ElsevierB.V.Allrightsreserved.
1.Introduction
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems play an increasinglyimportantroleincontemporarybusinesstechnology management [47], with many organisations and industries implementing ERP systems during last two decades to gain competitiveadvantageinthedemandingbusinessenvironment. Over60%ofFortune500companieshaveadoptedanERPsystem Mishra,2008.BusinessbenefitsfromERPsystemshavebeenwell recognised, including integrating business processes, sharing business information, better communication and collaboration, improvingsupplychainandcustomerrelationshipmanagement, faster response to changing markets, reducing inventories, shortening cycle times, lowering costs, increased productivity andbettercustomerservice[45,16].Researchfurthershowsthat therearenumerousadvantagesofimplementinganoff-the-shelf ERPsystem over a bespoke ERP system [47,54]. These include: adoptingbestbusinesspracticesbyusingthestandard functional-itiesoftheERPsystem,theintegrityofinformationforaccurate and timely management decisions, bettercorporate image and improvedcustomergoodwillwitharenownedERPsysteminplace, uniform reporting based on global standards and better
information security protocols. ERP systems implementation requiresasubstantialamountoffinancial,humanandtechnical resources to succeed in business reality. As a result, ERP implementationisclassifiedasoneofthemostexpensivebusiness information technologies in the corporate world [30,26], with most resources consumed in the implementation stage, rather thanthepreandpostimplementationstages[48,1].Therefore,this studyspecificallyfocusesontheimplementationstage.
ThecomplexityofERPsystempackagesprovidedoff-the-shelf, along with the huge number of stakeholders involved in ERP systemsimplementation,createhighlevelsofuncertaintyandrisk thatcanresultinERPfailure[65].OneofthemainreasonsforERP failureisthelackofsufficientsupportfromknowledge manage-ment(KM)approachesthroughouttheERPprojectlifecycle[23]. SederaandGable[51]identifiedtheimportanceofKMinorderto achieveenterprisesystemsuccess.ERPsystemsrequirecomplex anddetailedknowledgetoimplementwithinanorganisation,in order to provide measurable business benefits. Effectively managingawiderangeofknowledge,whichresidesinmultiple stakeholders includingexperiencedimplementationconsultants andbusinessusers/representatives,hasbeenidentifiedasacrucial factor for ERP project success [66]. The implementation con-sultantsmainlypossessknowledgeofERPsystemfunctionalities andconfigurations,whereasbusinessusersholdknowledgeofthe business processes of theclient company and industry specific * Correspondingauthor.
E-mailaddress:[email protected](U.Jayawickrama). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2016.07.005
0166-3615/ã2016ElsevierB.V.Allrightsreserved.
ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect
Computers
in
Industry
knowledge [51]. Hence, it is important to discover innovative methods, techniques and approaches that can integrate such knowledgeamongindividualsandacrossstakeholdergroups.
For clarity, there are six definitions related to knowledge management used in this study which will be useful in understandingthecontentsofthispaper.Thesearepresentedin Table1.
Knowledgecompetenceisastrategicassetofanorganisation whichbringscompetitiveadvantage[67,4].ERPimplementations demandcomplexand detailed knowledgefor successful imple-mentation[17,24].Thisincludesaspectssuchas;knowledgeofbest business practices, ERP system functions and features, system configurations,currentbusinessprocesses,implementation meth-odology, business requirements, etc. By integrating various knowledge components such as knowledge types, knowledge layersand KMlifecycle, newknowledgecan begenerated in a particularcontextandinthiscase,inERPimplementationcontext. Therefore, knowledge competence is essential in creating, transferring,retainingandapplyingastockofERPknowledgeto therightindividuals, groupsanddepartments attherighttime duringERPimplementations[47,51].
Thepurposeofthisstudyistodeterminetheintegrativeeffects ofvariousknowledgecomponentstoachieveERPimplementation success. Knowledgecompetenceattempts tointegratedifferent knowledgecomponents together, in order to generatestock of knowledgefor ERPimplementation. Thisstudyaims toanswer threespecificresearchquestions:(1)Whatarethekeyknowledge componentsrequiredtoincreaseknowledgecompetenceinERP systemsimplementation?(2)Howcantherelationshipsbetween different knowledge components be managed to achieve ERP systemsimplementationsuccess?(3)Howcanknowledgeflows betweenvariousstakeholdersbefacilitatedtocreatecompetitive advantage?Toanswertheseresearchquestions,thereisanurgent needtoexploreinnovativeapproaches inaddressing interdisci-plinaryissuesacrosstheERPandKMdomains.KMitselfisa well-establishedareawithaclearlifecycledefinedinexistingresearch, whichincludesknowledgecreation,knowledgetransfer, knowl-edgeretention,andknowledgeapplication[2].Similarly,ERPhas alsoadvancedtobecomeasignificantareaofbusinessinformation systems.TheprospectofsynergiesbetweentheKMandERPareas makesitanattractiveareaformanyresearchers.Existingresearch hastypicallyaddressedtheissueofERPknowledgemanagement by treating different knowledge components in an isolated manner,without integratingvarious knowledgecomponents in ordertoexplore therelationshipsbetweendifferentknowledge componentsfornewknowledgegeneration[47,51].Tofillthisgap in theliterature, this paperdevelops an integrativeknowledge competenceframeworkdedicated toERP systems implementa-tion,basedonempiricalevidencefrom14UKcompaniesinboth
manufacturing and service industries. There are three key contributionstotheexistingbodyofknowledgefromthisstudy. Theyare: (1) the identification of important determinantsthat driveERPknowledgecreation,transfer,retention,andapplication during ERP systems implementation; (2) the creation of a “knowledgenetworkmodel”thatelaboratestheknowledgeflows basedontherelationshipsbetweenknowledgecomponentsand ERP project stakeholders; and (3) empirical evidence of an innovative knowledge competence framework that integrates knowledge frommultiple complementary perspectives (knowl-edgelayer, knowledgetype andknowledgelifecycle) toachieve ERPsystemsimplementationsuccess.
Therestofthepaperisstructuredasfollows.Section2presents acriticalreviewofrelevantliteratureonKMinthecontextofERP systemsimplementationandproposesa theoreticalframework, whiletheresearchmethodologyisdiscussedinSection3.Section4 provides the main empirical findings of the research. Further discussionoftheintegrativeknowledgecompetenceframework, management implications, limitations and further research are consideredinSection5.
2.Relatedliterature
ERPsystemsisoneofthemostimportantbusinessinformation systems in the modern business world that can seamlessly integrate different business processes across departments and functional areas into a coherent system [12,33]. Many studies relatedtoERPsystemsarelargelyfocusedonERPimplementation success factors [42,53,18], failure factors [65], selection of ERP packages [9,58] and factors affecting ERP implementation in general[20,60].Therearerelativelyfewstudiesthatspecifically focusonissuesrelatingtothemanagementofknowledgeduring ERPsystemsimplementation.
Similarly,KMhasemergedasadistinctfieldofresearchand maturedgraduallybycombiningwithotherfieldssuchashuman resource,organisationalbehaviour,informationsystems,andsoon [51].Ithasonlybeeninthelasttwodecadesthatsomeresearchers havestartedtolinkKMwithERPsystems.Thenext three sub-sectionsattempttoprovideaclearviewofthepaststudiesthat havebeencarriedoutcloselyrelatedtoKMandERPdomains,with anintentiontoprovideatheoreticalfoundationfortheintegration ofKMwithERPtoachievecompetitiveadvantage.Fortheeaseof understandingandintroducingthemainaspectsof KMforERP stepbystep,thissectionclassifiesliteratureintothreestreams:(a) the concept of knowledge competence and its links with knowledge layers and KM lifecycle; (b) knowledge flows and knowledgenetworks; (c) KM influence on ERPsuccess. Finally, section2.4 presentsthetheoreticalframeworkand summarises researchgaps.
Table1
DefinitionsofKMrelatedterms.
No. Term Definition References
1 Knowledge competence
Theprocessesthatgenerateandintegrateknowledgeofaparticulardomain,thusgeneratingknowledgestockofthatparticular domain.
[34,25,46] 2 Knowledgetypes K-typesarecategoriesofknowledgepertainingtoapoolofknowledgeinaparticulardomain. [45,47,35] 3 Knowledgelayers K-layersaredifferentaspectsoftheknowledgepertainingtoacertainsubjectsuchasknow-what(declarativeknowledge),
know-how(proceduralknowledge),know-why(knowledgereasoning)andknow-with(knowledgeintegration).
[52,10,36] 4 KMlifecycle Acontinuousprocessofcreation,transfer,retentionandapplicationoftherightlevelofknowledge,attherighttime,withthe
rightpeople.
[40,22,43] 5 Knowledge
determinants
K-determinantsarethefactorsthatdriveknowledgecreation,transfer,retentionandapplicationactivities. [61,66,24] 6 Knowledge
components
Knowledgecomponentsarek-types,k-layers,KMlifecycleandk-determinantswhicharealsoknownasknowledge perspectives.
2.1.Knowledgecompetenceanditslinkswithknowledgecomponents Theconceptofknowledgecompetenceis definedas theprocesses thatgenerateandintegrateknowledgeofaparticulardomain,thus generatingknowledgestockofthatparticulardomain.Ozkayaetal. [46]usedknowledgecompetenceinthecontextofmarketing.They focusonmarketknowledgecompetencewhichcomprisescustomer and competitor knowledge competencies. Theypropose market knowledgecompetenceasamediatoroftherelationshipsbetween marketorientation andmarket-basedinnovations. Theliterature indicatesthatmarketknowledgecompetencehasadirectpositive effectonorganisationalperformance[34,25].Marketknowledge competence has been used in new product development [4]. Knowledgeaboutmarketsanditsbehaviourareessentialinorder todevelopgoodsandservicestosatisfycustomerrequirements[67]. Itisevidentthatfromdesigntoproductionofaproduct,market knowledge competence is vital. These studies have mainly investigatedmarketknowledgecompetence,butnotERP-related knowledgecompetence.
[51] are the only authors to investigate on ERP knowledge competence in-depth based on a quantitative survey. They integrateknowledgetypesandtheKMlifecycle(creation,transfer, retention and application) in order toenhance the knowledge competenceof ERPimplementation. They discoverthepositive influenceof ERPknowledgecompetencetoachieve ERP imple-mentationsuccess.However,thisstudywasunabletoexplainhow, why and with-what (knowledge layers) specific types of ERP knowledgeneedtobecreated,transferred,retainedandre-used duringERPimplementations.
2.1.1.Knowledgelayers
Generally,theliteraturehasdefinedfourknowledgelayersto investigateKM.Theyaretermedasknow-what,know-how, know-whyandknow-with.“Know-what”arefactsaboutproblemsand solutionsinaparticularknowledgeorienteddomain.Thisisalso referredtoasdeclarativeknowledge[59].“Know-how”concerns thewaysknowledgeiscreated,transferred,retained,usedand re-used using various methods and is also known as procedural knowledge[52].“Know-why”relatestoknowledgereasoning[14]; whydifferenttypesofknowledgeneedtobecreated,transferred, retainedandappliedinacertaindomain.Understandingof“ know-why”isimportantforbusinessmanagerstojustifytheirdecisions. “Know-with”helpstoidentifyinter-relationshipsbetween differ-enttypesofknowledgeonthesubjectbeinginvestigated[2].The conceptoftheseknowledgelayershavebeenexploredin other areasoutsidetheERPcontext.Forexample,Chen[10]usesthese fourknowledgelayersforhisstudywithinformationtechnology sectoringeneral.Liuetal.[36]haveusedthesametermsofthe fourknowledgelayers(butwithnewdefinitionsofthemeanings) inordertoinvestigatetheknowledgerequiredforsupplychain management in the automotive industry. However, knowledge layershavenotbeendiscussedinconjunctionwithKMlifecycle phases or knowledge types (k-types) related to ERP systems implementationintheliterature.
2.1.2.Knowledgelifecycleandstages
Knowledge creation and knowledge transfer have been recognisedas distinctivestages during theKMprocess [32,43]. Maditinos et al. [38] present a conceptual framework that investigatesthewaythathumaninputsarelinkedto communica-tioneffectiveness,conflict resolutionand knowledgetransfer.A studycarriedoutbyXuandMa[66]revealedfoursetsoffactors (characteristicsofknowledgetobetransferred,source,recipient and context) which have different effects on ERP knowledge transferfromimplementationconsultantstokeyusersandvice versa. Hung et al. [22] investigate the factors that produce a
positiveknowledgetransferclimateduringERPimplementation. They identified that top management supportand the internal incentives of the client organisationhave a positive impacton knowledge transfer. These studies have only concentrated on knowledge transfer without considering other phases of KM lifecycle.
Jonesetal.[26]examinedeightdimensionsofcultureandtheir impact onhow the ERP implementationteam is able to share knowledgeeffectivelyduringimplementation.Thisstudyshows waystoovercometheculturalbarrierstoknowledgesharing.Ina later study, Vandaie [61] identifies two majorareasof concern regardingthemanagementofknowledgeinERPprojectsthrough thedevelopedframework;managingtacitknowledge,andissues concerningtheprocess-basednatureoforganisationalknowledge. Jeng and Dunk [24] investigate knowledge creation and its relationshiptoERPsuccessparticularlyin footwearandapparel industries.Theempiricalfindingsindicatethatknowledgecreation hasanimpactonERPsuccess.However,thesestudieshaveonly consideredasingleKMphasei.e.knowledgetransferinfirstthree studiesandknowledgecreationinlatterthreestudies,andlackthe integrationofdifferentknowledgedimensionssuchas knowledge-layers,knowledge-typesandmultipleKMphases.
Many scholars believe that KM is a continuous process of creation,transfer,retentionand applicationoftherightlevelof knowledgeattherighttimewiththerightpeople[19].Mostofthe studies have consideredthe KM lifecyclewith thefour phases [55,2]. The four-phase KM lifecycle model has been widely explored,includingingeneralKM[63,19],processimprovement [56,5] and organisational learning [21,3]. There are very few studiesthat specificallyexploreKMlifecyclewithERPsystems. [51]discoveredthesignificantandpositiverelationshipbetween knowledgecompetenceandenterprisesuccess.
2.2.Knowledgeflowsandknowledgenetworks
Knowledgenetworksshowknowledgeflowsbetweenvarious stakeholdersofanorganisation,grouporsetofindividuals[49]. Knowledge flows are comprised of different knowledge types pertaining to a particular domain. [31] discusses managerial knowledge flows relatedto a health-caresystemand identifies threemaincategoriesofknowledgeflows:(1)national informa-tionsteering, (2)regionalinformationsteering, and(3) internal controlinformation.Fromthis,hedevelopsaknowledgenetwork structureinordertodemonstratetheknowledgeflowsbetween numerous stakeholders such as health-care administrators, specialists, electedofficials, etc. Williams and Lee [64] develop andtest anewnetworkmodelofknowledgeflowsinemerging market multinational corporations (MNC), based on the way peoplearemanagedinitsforeignsubsidiaries.Theyfoundhuman resourcemanagementpracticesbasedonformalisedprocedures weakentheeffectofsocialisation,butstrengthenthatofhuman capital,whileempoweringpracticeswithinthesubsidiaryweaken theeffectof humancapital, butstrengthen theeffectof social-isation.KaminskaandBorzillo[27]exploredknowledgecreation and integration through effective knowledge flows within and betweenthedifferentorganisationalcommunities;drawingona longitudinal case study of a large firmoperating in the highly competitiveSpecialtyChemicalsindustry.However,thesestudies have not discussed knowledge flows and knowledge networks related toERPimplementations. Thisis a newconceptfor ERP implementation.
2.3.KnowledgecompetenceanditsimpactonERPsuccess
Knowledge competence is broadly considered as the core expertise,skills,know-how,abilitiesandpersonalqualitiesneeded
toperformaparticulartasksuccessfully[51].Subsequently, ERP-relatedknowledgecompetenceis defined astheprocesses that generateandintegrateknowledgeof ERPimplementation, thus generatingERPknowledgestock.ThemodelproposedbySedera and Gable[51] demonstrates theequal importance of thefour phases for knowledge competence. In addition, information quality, system quality, individual impact and organisational impactweredefined asvariables tomeasureenterprisesystem success(Sedera etal, 2003; Gable et al,2008). Thehigher the organisation’slevelofknowledgecompetence;thehigherthelevel ofsuccessoftheenterprisesystems[51].Theyexplainalmosthalf of the variance in enterprise systems success, identifying knowledgecompetenceaspossiblythemostimportantantecedent ofsuccess.ParryandGraves[47]discusstheimportanceofKMfor ERPsystemswiththeuseofKMphasessuchasknowledgesharing, transfer, retention and re-use. However, there is less specific evidenceintermsofwhattypesofknowledgeneedtobemanaged and how they could be managed. The study also lacks the integrationofdifferentaspectsofKM.Liu[35]revealstheinfluence ofcriticalsuccessfactorsonERPKM,butthestudyonlyexamines oneknowledgetypewhichisERPpackageknowledge,similarto Newelletal. [44].Metaxiotis[40] proposesamodel witha KM lifecyclewhich also comprises of four phases but uses slightly different terms, i.e. creation, organising, share and re-use. It attempts to integrate KM and ERP in order to fill knowledge requirementsinsmallandmediumscaleenterprises.Candra[8] introduces a research model to investigate the relationship betweenKMandERPimplementationsuccesswiththeinfluence of innovation culture of the organisation. KM comprises the absorptivecapacityandknowledgecapabilityoftheorganisation. Acquisition,assimilation,transformationandexploitationarethe dimensionsforabsorptivecapacity.Knowledgecreation,transfer, retentionandapplicationaretheKMlifecyclephasesselectedto investigateknowledge capability.The aspects used toexamine innovation culture are; innovation intention, innovation infra-structure,innovationinfluence,andinnovationimplementation. However,thestudystillisintheconceptualstageandthemodel has not been empirically tested. Furthermore, O’Leary [45] investigates theuse of KMto support ERP systems acrossthe entire lifecycle, with particular interest in case-based KM. However,allof thesestudies lackthe dimensionofknowledge layersthatrevealhow,why,andwithwhatthedifferenttypesof knowledgehavebeencreated,transferred,retainedandappliedto achieveERPimplementationsuccess.
2.4.Theoreticalframeworkandresearchgaps
A theoretical framework has been proposed based on the literature reviewed in section two. Fig. 1 demonstrates the relationship between knowledge competence and ERP
implementationsuccessinthetheoreticalframework.Knowledge networkfacilitatesknowledgeflowsamongvariousstakeholders byenhancingknowledgecompetencetoachieveERP implemen-tation success. In this context, stakeholders could be any individual, group or organisation involved in ERP project implementations.
Therearethreeknowledgecomponentstoenhanceknowledge competenceasshowninthetheoreticalframework;knowledge types,knowledgelayersandKMlifecycle.ERPsuccessismeasured throughinformationquality,systemquality,individualimpactand organisationalimpact.Basedontheabovediscussionoftherelated literature(sectiontwo),researchgapsinthecontextofKMforERP havebeenidentifiedandsummarisedinTable2.Thisisthebasisof the theoretical framework for knowledge competence in ERP success. The table focuses on the usage of key knowledge componentsinthecontextofERPimplementation.Existingwork hasbeenclassifiedtopicallyintosixclustersinordertorevealthe keyresearchgaps.The“X”symbolinTableclearlyindicatesthe gapsintheliterature.
Cluster1literaturehasusedknowledgelayerstoinvestigateKM in information technology in general, business information systems and supply chains. This literature has not discussed managingknowledgethroughKMlifecyclephases.Theyhavealso notusedknowledgetypesrelatedtotheERPsystemcontext.The studiesinCluster2aretheonlystudiesthatinvestigateKMforERP domain by taking two ERP related knowledge-types and four phases of the KM lifecycle into consideration. However, a limitationofthesestudiesis thattheyhavenotexaminedhow, whyandwith-what(k-layers)differentknowledgetypesshouldbe created, transferred, retained and applied during ERP systems implementation. The studiesin Cluster 3 haveinvestigated the importanceofKMfororganisationsingeneral,business informa-tion systems, and specifically for ERP systems using four KM lifecyclephases.Thereislessspecificevidenceaboutthetypesof knowledge that need to bemanaged and how this knowledge needstobemanagedusingKMphases.Cluster4comprisesstudies thathaveonlyexaminedoneknowledgetype,namelyERPpackage knowledge,andlacktheintegrationofknowledge-layersandthe KMlifecycleinorder toinvestigateKMfor theERPdomain in-depth.ThestudiesinClusters5and6havefocusedononesingle phaseoftheKMlifecycleinisolation,forERPsystems implemen-tation(Cluster5coversknowledgetransferandCluster6covers knowledgecreation).Thelimitationsofallthestudiesthathave beencarriedoutonKM-ERPdomainsharethecommonissueofnot being able to examine the impact of integrating multiple perspectivesofKMintheirstudies.
Itcanbeseenthatthestudiesdiscussedinthissectionhave exploredalimitednumberofknowledgetypes,knowledgelayers and KM lifecycle phases in an isolated way (see Table 2). In addition,themajorityofexistingresearchhasbeenrestrictedto
Information quality System quality Individual impact Organizational impact
Knowledge
competence
ERP
Success
K-layers
K-types
KM life
cycle
Knowledge
network
facilitates knowledge flows measures key component of key component of key component of achievestheoreticalresearchandconceptualmodels.Noneofthestudies hasbeenabletoexploretheKMfrommultipleperspectives, to simultaneouslyconsiderknowledgetypes,knowledgelayersand KMlifecyclephases,inparticulartherelationshipsbetweenthe knowledgecomponents,forERPsystemsimplementation,inorder to resolve the complex issues related to the phenomenon. Although effective KM has been recognised as one of the key driversforsuccessfulERPsystemsimplementationinrealbusiness world,therehasbeenasignificantshortageofempiricalresearch on the management of knowledge related to ERP systems implementationinordertoenhancethecompany’scompetitive advantage [17]. Therefore, it is evident that the domain of knowledgecompetenceforERPsuccessdemandsmoreresearch, especially empirical evidence, to answer the three research questionsdefinedinSection1.
3.Researchmethodology
Itisvitaltoselectcarefullyappropriateresearchinstruments when conducting scientific research [68,11]. The nature of the researchquestionsadvocatedaqualitativeapproachforthisstudy. Fig. 2 demonstrates the research instruments used in this qualitativestudy.
The company case implementations were investigated with threedifferentsources ofevidence: (1) thedatacollectedfrom one-to-one semi-structured interviews, (2) ERP project related documentshavebeenanalysedand(3)thecodeddataobtained frominterviewsandERPprojectdocumentshavebeenvalidated with the respective companies. The 14 case implementations compriseSAPandOracleERPsystemimplementationsacrossboth themanufacturingand servicesectors. Moredetails aboutcase implementationssuchasthenumber ofmodulesimplemented, thescopeoftheproject,implementationduration,thenatureof thebusiness, etccan befoundin Appendix A.Semi-structured interviewswerehelpfultoconfirmwhatwasalreadyknownand
reveal new themes by allowing interviewees the freedom to express their views in their own terms [6]. Usually, interview participants are not willing to share their personal project experiences infront ofsuperiors, peersand subordinates; thus, adoptingone-to-onesemi-structuredinterviewsisappropriatefor thisstudy[29].Havingaone-to-oneinterviewprovidestheability toobtainin-depthindividualERPimplementationexperiencewith respecttoaparticularproject[39].Theinterviewtemplatecanbe foundinAppendixB.
In order to eradicate the limitations of only using semi-structuredinterviews, ERPproject documentsand validation of coded data were used as additional data sources to achieve triangulation.ERPprojectdocumentsfromcaseimplementation companiesincludeAs-Isprocessdocuments,solutiondesigns, To-Beprocessdocuments,customisationdocuments,project hierar-chydocumentsandfunctionaldocuments.Aftercoding,allcoded data were validated by the respective case implementation company inorder toensuretheintegrity oftheresultsderived fromthesemi-structured interviewsand theERPproject docu-ments.
3.1.Empiricaldatacollection
This research attempts to collect empirical evidence from experiencedpeoplewhohavebeendirectlyinvolvedin off-the-shelf ERP systems implementation. A qualitative rather than quantitativeapproachwasadopted,becauseitattemptstoobtain ERPexperts’opiniononhow,whyandwith-whatknowledgehas been created, transferred, retained and applied in relation to differenttypesofknowledgeduringERPsystemsimplementation. Suchopinionsfromparticipantscannotbeelicitedusing quantita-tive methods. Hence, the main method of data collectionwas throughsemi-structuredinterviewswithERPexpertsinrespectof implementations. More specifically, one-to-one semi-structured interviews were selected over other data collection methods [6,29,39,37]. Therefore, they were also able to discover the determinants for each KM lifecycle phase in order tofocus on specific aspects of KMduring ERP projects by industry practi-tioners.
Specificcriteria for recruitingsuitable interviewparticipants for this study have been defined based on the nature of the researchdemands [44,26]. Thecriteriaare: (1)Theparticipants must havedirectlyinvolved in off-the-shelfERPsystems imple-mentation(suchasSAPandOracle)butnotin-housedeveloped systems/bespoke systems, including the respective case imple-mentationintheUK.Thisisbecauseoff-the-shelfERPsystemsare verydifferentfrombespokesystemsinthatoff-the-shelfsystems are more standardised, hence the empirical evidence collected would offerguidance toawider rangeof beneficiaries.(2) The participantsmusthaveatleast10yearsofexperienceinERPfield,to ensure that the participants have high level of skill and more refined experience, or expertise. One-to-one semi-structured interviewswerecarriedoutwithERPexpertsfrom14companies in theUK which have implemented off-the-shelfERP systems. AppendixAprovidesanoverviewofthecompanies,interviewees Table2
Literaturereviewsummaryandresearchgaps.
ClusterNo. Clustername References Knowledgelayers KnowledgetypesrelatedtoERP KMlifecycle
1 Onlyk-layers [14,2,52,10,59,36] Betweenonetofourk-layers X X
2 Bothk-typesandKMlifecycle [17,47,51] X Twok-types Fourphases
3 OnlyKMlifecycle [63,3,2,19,40,8] X X Fourphases
4 Onek-type [45,44,35] X Onek-type,ERPpackageknowledge X
5 Onlyk-transfer [26,66,22,38] X X Onephase,knowledgetransfer
6 Onlyk-creation [61,24] X X Onephase,knowledgecreation
andERPsystemsimplemented.Eachinterviewlastedfor2hon averagetoallowparticipantsplentyoftimetoelaborateontheir opinions.Theexpertslargelyheldseniormanagementpositionsin ERPclientandvendorcompaniesandthishelpedtoobtainthefine detailsofwhathappenedduringtheERPprojects.
An interviewtemplate(see Appendix B)was developed and questionswerefocusedaroundobtainingtheparticipant’sopinion on how, why and with-what knowledge had been created, transferred,retainedandappliedinrelationtothefourtypesof knowledge during the ERP systems implementation. However, there was also freedom for participants to express ideas with respecttothecontextbeingdiscussed,andtheinterviewtemplate wasusedasa guidetokeep thefocusofthediscussiononthe subject.Manyprobingquestionswereaskedtogetparticipantsto clarifytheiranswersasnecessary.
3.2.Dataanalysisapproach
The qualitativedatacollectedthroughsemi-structured inter-viewswasanalysedusingthequalitativedataanalysisapproach developedforthisstudyasshowninFig.3.Theanalysisapproach consistsof5steps;transcribing,editing,coding,categorisingand modelling, along with inputs and outputs for each step. Each interviewaudio file was transcribed word-for-wordin order to avoid missing any elements from the responses given by the interview participants. Afterwards, transcripts were carefully editedtocleanirrelevantdata.Acombinationoftwoqualitative dataanalysismethodswere(seeFig.3)usedtoanalysethecleaned transcripts and ERP project documents i.e. thematic analysis [13,57]andcomparativeanalysis[41,13].Thethematicanalysiswas usedtoallownewERPthemes,i.e.knowledgedeterminantsand components in this case, to emerge from the transcripts and documents,whilstthecomparativemethodwasusedtoexamine
the set of themes across the 14 company cases to detect the strengthofevidencefromtheempiricaldata[13,57].Furthermore, thematic analysishelped to findthe data saturation point and thereby stop carrying out further interviews. The coding step comprised3keyactivities:identifyingandconfirmingthethemes of what, how, why and with-what knowledge is created, transferred,retainedandapplied;recognisingthelinksbetween differentknowledgeelementsandcomponents;andderivingthe determinantsforeachKMlifecyclephasebasedontheprevalence ofknowledgeactivitiesandthestrengthofempiricalsupportfrom the 14 ERP case implementations. Finally, the integrative knowledgecompetenceframeworkwasdevelopedinthe model-ling stage, based on the empirical findings, by refining the theoreticalframework.
Thematicanalysisisoneapproachtoanalysequalitativedata;it concentratesonthethemes,orsubjects,emphasising,pinpointing, examiningandrecordingpatternswithinthedata[7].Thematic analysisisnormallyconcernedwithexperiencefocused method-ologies. Throughout the analysis, the researcher identified a number of themes by considering the following three stages highlightedbyKingandHorrocks[28]:
Descriptivecoding (first-ordercodes):theresearcheridentifies those parts of the transcript data that address the research questionsandallocatesdescriptivecodesthroughoutthewhole transcript.
Interpretative coding (second-order themes): the researcher groups together descriptive codes that seem to share some common meaning and create an interpretative code that capturesthis.
Defining overarching themes (aggregate dimensions): the re-searcher identifies a number of overarching themes that characterisekeyconceptsintheanalysis.
The second-order themes were identified using first-order codes, and they werecategorised as aggregated dimensions to revealtheknowledgecomponentsandtheirinteractionsinorder toenhanceknowledgecompetencetoachieveERPsuccess.
The comparative analysis is closely connected to thematic analysis[13]andusedwiththematicanalysisinthisstudy.Using this method, data from different people is compared and contrasted and the process continues until the researcher is satisfiedthatnonewissuesarearising.Comparativeanalysiswas used to confirm the second-order themes revealed through thematicanalysiswhentherewaslessliteraturesupport.Inthis case,comparative analysiswas usedparticularly toconfirmthe discoveryofknowledgedeterminantsandknowledgeflows(inthe knowledge network model) revealed through the thematic analysis.Comparativeanalysiscountshowfrequentlyaparticular second-orderthemeisreferredindatacollectedforthe14case implementations.Thefrequencyscalesweredevelopedusingthe guidelinesbyRihouxandRagin[50]todenoteempiricalevidence in each case implementation and those have been shown in Table3.
4.Empiricalfindings
Theempiricalfindings fortheintegrativeknowledge compe-tence framework will be discussed in four subsections: firstly evaluationofknowledgedeterminantsandtheirinteractionwith knowledgetypes and KMlifecycle phases, secondlyknowledge competence impact on ERP success is discussed, thirdly a “knowledge competence wheel” comprised of key knowledge components is modelled and presented. Finally a “knowledge networkmodel”thatfacilitatesinteractionsbetweenthe knowl-edgecomponentsisdeveloped.
4.1.Evaluationofknowledgedeterminantsandtheirinteractionwith knowledgetypesandKMlifecyclephases
Thissectionexplainshowtheknowledgedeterminantswere evaluatedand examinestheirinteractionwithknowledgetypes andKMlifecyclephases.Table4offersasampleoftheempirical evidencewhichwasusedtoderivetheknowledgedeterminants foreachKMlifecyclephase,withthesupportofknowledge-layers andknowledge-types.Italsoshowstheinteractionofknowledge determinantswithknowledgetypesandKMlifecyclephases.The fullversionofTable4canbefoundinAppendixC.Theknowledge determinantswereidentifiedthroughthefirst-ordercodes (see columnoneandtwo)basedonthematicanalysis.Afterthis,the knowledgedeterminants (second-orderthemes) werevalidated withrespecttoeachcaseimplementation(seecolumnthree)using comparativeanalysis.Thecomparativeanalysiswasusedtowork backandforthbetweenthe14caseimplementationsandestablish the empirical support from the case implementations for knowledge determinants. Column four illustrates the overall strength of the empirical evidence from the 14 cases. Finally, aggregate dimensions revealed the knowledge determinant’s interactionwith knowledge types and KMlifecycle phase (see column five). Column five of Table 4 shows the aggregate dimensions a particular determinant falls into, and those
dimensionsshowknowledgeintegrationthroughtheknowledge typesandKMlifecyclephasestoenhanceknowledgecompetence, therebyachievingERPprojectsuccess:
Thefirstcategoryis‘ERPandbusinessknowledgecreation’and thedeterminantsthatfallintothiscategoryareapplicableforthe creationofbothknowledgetypes.
Thesecondcategoryis‘Business knowledgecreation’andthe determinantsthatfallintothiscategoryareonlyapplicablefor thecreationofbusinessprocessknowledge.
The third category is ‘ERP knowledge transfer’ and the determinantthatfallsintothiscategoryisonlyapplicablefor thetransferofERPpackageknowledge.
Thefourthcategoryis‘ERPandbusinessknowledgetransfer’and the determinants that fall into this aggregate dimension are applicableforthetransferofbothknowledgetypes.
Thefifthcategoryis‘ERPandbusinessknowledgeretention’and the determinants that fall into this aggregate dimension are applicablefortheretentionofbothknowledgetypes. Thesixthcategoryis‘ERPandbusinessknowledgeapplication’
andthedeterminantsthatfallintothisaggregatedimensionare applicablefortheapplicationofbothknowledgetypes.
4.2.KnowledgecompetenceimpactonERPsuccess
Thissub-sectiondiscusseshowknowledgecompetencehelps toachieveultimateERPsuccessbyexaminingthefourERPsuccess measures:informationquality,systemquality,individualimpact andorganisationalimpact.Fig.4demonstrateshowthe relation-ship between knowledgecompetence and ERPimplementation success was established with the use of different knowledge componentsbasedontheempiricaldatacollectedforthisstudy. 4.2.1.Knowledgecompetencetoimproveinformationquality
TheknowledgeaboutERPsystemshelptoretrievestructured businessinformationfromthesystemeffectivelyandefficientlyin theformofmanagement reportsandonscreengrids.Also,it is clearfromthefindings thatthestandardfunctionalitiesprovide moreaccurateandmeaningfulinformationthanthatof custom-isedsolutions.Ontheotherhand,bettertraineduserswithproper knowledgetransferpositivelyaffectthequalityofinformationthat theyextractfromthesystem.TheERPknowledgeofconsultants and thebusiness knowledge of users play a significantrole in deciding on the set of modules to be implemented in client organisations,accordingtotheempiricalfindings.Thisimproves thequalityofinformationthatitproducesthroughtheseamless integrationofbusinessprocessestopreservesinglesourceoftruth. AthoroughunderstandingofcurrentbusinessprocessesandERP systemfunctionalitieshavealwaysincreasedinformationquality. 4.2.2.Knowledgecompetencetoimprovesystemquality
Thefindingsconfirmthatthesmoothoperationofthesystem depends on the amount of knowledge that the company has retainedduringtheimplementation.Withtheknowledgeofthe ERPsystem,usershavebeenabletoincreasebusinessefficiency through thenewsystem;for instance,closedownmonth ends sooner,cashcollectionismoreefficient,payingsuppliersisquicker andthereisabetterunderstandingofmanagementinformation. Ontheotherhand,thisstudyalsofindsthatknowledgeofcurrent businessprocessesisthefoundationofthewholeimplementation, because all system configurations are based on the business requirementsthatneedtobeachievedbytheERPsystem.Failingto correctly understandthe current processes might end up with system failure. According to all the case implementations, changingthewaythecompanyoperateshashadabigimpactin Table3
Scalesusedforcomparativeanalysis.
Scale Symbol Frequencyofoccurrence
Noevidence [blank] Zero
Weakevidence U Between1and4(1x4) Averageevidence UU Between5and8(5x8) Strongevidence UUU Morethanorequal9(9x)
Fig.4.KnowledgecompetenceandERPsuccessvariables—datastructure. Table4
Empiricalevidenceindiscoveringknowledgedeterminants.
First-ordercodes Second-order
themes/k-determinants
Supportfromcasesfork-determinants(outof14cases) Overall Aggregate dimensions/ categories 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
“Itisverydifficulttocodifysomeone’sknowledge...However, itispossibletodocumenthowthemodulesworkandmake everybodyawareofhowthemodulesinteractwitheach other.”Headofbusinesssolutions.
Tacitnatureof ERP/business knowledge U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U ERPand business knowledge creation “It’snotlikeasecuritysystemwheretheonlybusiness
interactioniswhenyouswipethecard.Sothatisarealtechnical implementation.WithanERPyouareintobusinessprocessand youareintoculturechangewhereitistostandardisation.” Managingdirector. K-centred culture U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U “Istronglybelieveknowledgecapturingattitudeshouldcome
fromtheleadershipofthecompany,Imeanmanagers,andthen thatpositiveattitudewouldpassontothesubordinates.” Projectmanager. K-oriented leadership U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U “Notjustintheformalworkshops,butobviouslyinformalcoffee
charts,thecorridorchartsareimportantbecauseyou’restarting tobuildupthatrapportbetweenthefunctionalconsultantand thebusinessrepresentative.”HeadofITservices.
Natureof individual interactions U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U “Theendusersthepeoplewhowerenominatedfortheproject
team,theprojectteammembersandthosethatparticipatedin thedesignblueprint,wereverywillingandableandvery knowledgeableintheirparticularprocesses...”Independent consultantfreelance. Individual willingnessand abilitytochange U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U “WhatweobservedwasvendorKMsystemhassupportedfor
knowledgecreationactivitieswithintheprojectteam members...”Financialsystemmanager.
Vendor managedKM systems U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U Legend:strongevidence–UUU,averageevidence–UU,weakevidence–U,noevidence–[blank].
implementing a better system with best industry practices by eliminatingnon-valueaddingbusinessactivities.Forexample,one usermightgothroughseveralscreenstoentersomedataontothe systemthanenteringthesamedataintheoldsystem,howeverthe additionalminutesspententeringthedatawillresultinreduced timeinotheractivities(e.g.lesstimetopreparefinancialreports). 4.2.3.Knowledgecompetencetoimproveindividualimpact
TheknowledgeoftheERPsystemwasimportanttogatherthe exactbusinessrequirementsandtomanagetheexpectationsofthe stakeholdersduringimplementation.Thestudyrevealsthat the roles and responsibilities of individuals have been changed significantlyandtheyhavebecomeanalytical,ratherthansimply data entry users, with the use of new ERP system. Good communicationthroughouttheprojectandahighleveloftraining hasalwaysgivenusersapositiveexperienceintheircareers.Ifthe users are not confident in using the system, it can negatively impactthe company aftergo-live. Therefore, self-confidence in system usewill increase by staff knowing whythey are doing somethingand how they shoulddo it in the newsystem. The empiricalevidenceshowsthatkeepingtherightusersfromthe starttoendoftheprojectwithoutpullingthematthemiddleofthe projectforbusinessactivities helpedthemtograduallydevelop theirskillstooperatethesystemeffectively.
4.2.4.Knowledgecompetencetoimproveorganisationalimpact Thefindingsconfirmthatspendingsomemoneyforafeasibility studyupfront(tounderstandtheexactrequirements)hasalways been a way to mitigate the risk of the implementation. Also accordingtothefindings,businessprocessknowledgeisvitalto streamline processes, take out non-value adding steps and improvethebusinessprocessestoincreaseorganisationalresults throughthenewsystem.Thedirectorganisationalresultsmainly
include profit maximisation and cost reduction through the system. Withanintegratedoff-the-shelfERPsystemin-place, it hasbeenpossibletosavemoneyonbusinessactivitiesaswellas being easier tomaintain thesystem. In addition, wider use of correct system features and functionalities have improved organisationalresultsalongwithsounddecisionmaking. 4.3.The“knowledgecompetencewheel”
Basedonthedataanalysisapproach,a“knowledgecompetence wheel”wasdevelopedtohighlighttheempiricalfindingsofthis study,asshowninFig.5.Ithasbeenmodelledbytakingknowledge componentsandtheirinteractionsintoconsideration,asdiscussed intheprevioussectionsthroughtheempiricalevidence.Inother words,theaggregatedimensionsinTable4andFig.4wereusedin modelling the wheel. This integrative “knowledge competence wheel”illustratesthekeyknowledgedeterminantsidentified,the knowledgecomponentsviewedfrommultipleperspectives, and their relationships during ERP systems implementation, to enhance knowledge competence. The integrative “knowledge competencewheel”isstructuredwithfourlevels:
Thefirstlevelofthe“knowledgecompetencewheel”comprises thefourknowledge-layers(i.e.know-what,know-how, know-whyandknow-with).
Knowledge types are in the second level (ERP package knowledge,businessprocessknowledge,andbothERPpackage andbusinessprocessknowledge).
ThethirdlevelshowsthefourKMlifecyclephases(i.e.creation, transfer,retentionandapplication).
Thefourthleveldisplaysthekeyknowledgedeterminantswhich are then assigned to corresponding KM lifecycle phases, knowledgetypesandknowledgelayersthataredefinedinthe
firstthreelevels.Followthespokelinesonthe“wheel”tocross differentlevels.
ThefourvariablestomeasurethesuccessoftheERPsystems implementationthroughtheadvancementofknowledge compe-tencearepositionedtotherighthandofthe“wheel”.Betweenthe second level and forth level, it can be observed that certain determinantsare only applicabletoa specificknowledge type. Theyareasfollows:
Knowledge-creation!two determinants of ‘Ability to define businessrequirements’and ‘Capabilityofintegratorin under-standingbusinessrequirements’areonlyapplicabletoBusiness processknowledge.
Knowledge-transfer!the determinantof ‘Organisation struc-ture’isonlyapplicabletoERPpackageknowledge.
TherestofthedeterminantsareapplicabletobothERPpackage knowledgeandbusinessprocessknowledge.Thefour knowledge-layersarenotrestrictedtoaspecificcomponent,andthefour k-layershavebeenusedtoidentifythedeterminantsforeach KM phaseforbothERPpackageandbusinessprocessknowledgetypes. Moreover,thereisnopriorityforonedeterminantoveranother, butlessapplicabledeterminants(twodeterminants:top manage-mentsupportforknowledgetransferandKMautomation)have beenhighlightedintheframework.
ThisstudyintegratesKMfrommultipledifferentperspectives toenhancetheknowledgecompetenceofanorganisationduring ERPsystemsimplementationthrough:knowledge-layer perspec-tive, knowledge-type perspective and KMlifecycle perspective. ThestudyrevealsspecificdeterminantsforeachKMlifecyclephase whichdrivetheKMactivities inrespectivephases.Therefore,it increases knowledge competence within the organisation by effectivelymanagingtherelevantknowledgeelementsduringERP systems implementation. Out of the four knowledge types discussedintheliterature,onlytwohavebeenformallymanaged
duringimplementationsi.e.ERPpackageknowledgeandbusiness process knowledge. The organisational cultural and project managementknowledgehavenotbeenformallymanagedthrough theuseofKMlifecyclephasesaccordingtoempiricalevidences [23].ItisalsoevidentfromAppendixCthatorganisationalcultural knowledgeand projectmanagement knowledgehave not been identified as aggregate dimensions in column five. Lack of empirical evidencewith respecttothesetwo knowledge types demonstratethesmallercontributionofsuchknowledgetowards a successful implementation. The knowledge pertaining to organisational culture and project management have not been created,transferred,retainedandappliedduringERP implemen-tations as with ERP package knowledge and business process knowledge.Therefore, organisational culturaland project man-agementknowledgetypeshavenotbeenshownintheintegrative “knowledgecompetencewheel”.Theknowledgelayerswereused todiscoverthedeterminantsforeach KMlifecyclephasewhich wereapplicableforERPpackageandbusinessprocessknowledge. 4.4.The“knowledgenetworkmodel”
Inordertounderstandhowtheknowledgedeterminantsdrive the ERPknowledge lifecycle activitiesand how the knowledge components interact with each other, a “knowledge network model” has been developed. The model is a much larger component than that shown in thetheoretical framework(see Fig. 1), based on the empirical evidence. As a result, it was developed as a separate model, in order to understand the integrationofthevariousknowledgecomponentsinthe knowl-edgecompetencewheel.Themodelwasdevelopedbyidentifying the stakeholdersand studying the flow of knowledgebetween stakeholders during ERP implementations. Table 5 shows the empirical evidence from ERPproject documentsand interview transcriptstodeveloptheknowledgenetworkmodelbyexplaining knowledgeflowsbetweenvariousstakeholders.Thefullversionof Table5canbefoundinAppendixD.Theknowledgeflowsamong Table5
Empiricalevidenceindevelopingknowledgenetworkmodel.
First-ordercodes Second-orderthemes/
knowledgeflow
Supportfromcasesforknowledgeflows(outof14cases) Overall Aggregate dimensions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
“Superusersobtainbusinessprocessknowledgefrom endusersaboutspecificbusinesstaskstheyperform withinthecompany.”
“Aftersuperusersbeingtrainedbyconsultants,super userstrainenduserstousethesystem.”
Endusers$Super users/keyuser U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U Knowledge flowwithin clientbottom level “Clientprojectmanagerworkscloselywithdepartment
managerstoensuresmoothexecutionofproject activities.”
“Processchampionsareemployeeswhohavedetail processknowledge,inmanycasestheyaredepartment managers.” Clientproject manager$Process champion/department manager U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U Knowledge flowwithin clientmiddle level
“Programmanageroverseesseveralprojectsina company,andthestrongcommunicationlinkbetween himandtheprojectmanagerleadtheERP
implementationtothesuccess.”
Programmanager, clientside$Client projectmanager U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U “Strategicguidanceprovidebyprogrammanagerwould
helptoensureexecutionofeffectiveknowledge managementactivitiesbyprocesschampions.” “Processchampionsseekadvicesandinvolvementof programmanagerinfinalisingcriticalfunctionalitiesof thesystem.”
Processchampion/ department manager$Program manager,clientside
U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
“Theclientsidesteeringcommitteeleadershipholdsby theCEO,CIO,MDoraGMdependingonthescaleofthe project.”
“Thereareinstancesofhavingbothsteeringcommittee headandadeputyhead.”
Steeringcommittee leader,clientside:CEO, CIO,MD,GM U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U Knowledge flowwithin clienttop level
stakeholders wereidentified through thefirst-ordercodes (see columnoneandtwo)basedonthematicanalysis.Subsequently, the existence of knowledge flows (second-order themes) was validatedwithrespecttoeachcaseimplementation(seecolumn three)usingcomparativeanalysis.Columnfourdemonstratesthe overallstrengthoftheempiricalevidencefrom14cases.Finally, aggregatedimensionswereidentifiedtodeveloptheknowledge networkmodel(seecolumnfive).Thefirst4aggregatedimensions were supported to build the client-side project hierarchy i.e. knowledgeflowwithinclientbottomlevel,knowledgeflowwithin clientmiddle level,knowledge flowwithin clienttop leveland knowledgeflowbetweenclientmanagementlevels.The vendor-sideprojecthierarchywas modelledusingthenext 4aggregate dimensions i.e. knowledge flow within vendor bottom level, knowledge flow within vendor middle level, knowledge flow within vendor top level and knowledge flow between vendor management levels. The last aggregate dimension (Business knowledgeflows fromclient tovendor betweenalllevels, ERP knowledgeflowsfromvendortoclientbetweenalllevels)linked theclient andvendor project hierarchies toexplain knowledge flowsbetweeninternalandexternalparties.
The “knowledge network model” in Fig. 6 demonstrates all stakeholders/actorsinvolvedinan ERPimplementationand the direction of knowledge flow between the stakeholders. It is believedthatbusinessperformancedependsonthesmoothflowof knowledge between stakeholders, rather than pure access to knowledgebyindividuals(Lech,2014;Newell,2015).The stake-holdersaredividedintotwo maingroups;internal(client) and external(vendor).Businessprocessknowledgeflowslargelyfrom clientstakeholderstovendorstakeholders,basedontheempirical findings. On the contrary, ERP package knowledge flows from vendorstakeholderstoclientstakeholders.Itcanalsobeobserved that the traditional management hierarchy (top, middle and bottommanagementlevels)existsinexternalandinternalproject structures.Thetopleveloftheclientstructureconsistsofsteering committeeleaderssuchasCEO,CIO,MDorGM.Dependingonthe scopeoftheproject,theremaybeaheadandadeputyheadinthe steering committee leadership. The middle level comprises program manager client side, client project manager and
process champions/departmental managers. The bottom level consists of end users and super users/key users. The top level steeringcommitteeleaderoftheimplementationpartner organi-sationcouldbeaprincipleconsultant,CEOorpartner.Themiddle levelcomprisesprogrammanagervendorside,vendorproject managerandthirdpartyconsultants.Implementationconsultants, softwaredevelopersandtechnicalengineersrepresentthebottom level.Thesewereevidentfromtheprojectcommunicationcharts ofvariouscaseimplementationsinvestigatedinthisstudy.Onlyon afewoccasions,suchasindecidingcriticalsystemfunctionalities, cantheimplementationconsultantdirectlyreachtheclientand vendortopmanagement.
Theknowledgenetworkmodelisusefulinthreemainwaysto understandthecurrentresearchcontextbeinginvestigated:(1)It assiststorecognisehowtheknowledgedeterminants drivethe knowledge lifecycleactivities in achieving ERPimplementation success.(2)Ithelpstounderstandtheinteractionsofknowledge componentssuchasknowledgetypes,knowledgelayersandKM lifecycle. (3) The model facilitates to identify how various stakeholders are involved in knowledge creation, knowledge transfer,knowledgeretentionandknowledgeapplicationinorder toenhanceknowledgecompetence.Thestudyshowsthe impor-tanceofeffectiveknowledgemanagementduringERP implemen-tation. The framework of integrative knowledge competence demonstratestheinter-linkedeffectsofknowledgedeterminants, knowledge-types, knowledge-layersand KM lifecyclephases to increaseknowledgecompetenceinordertoachieveultimateERP success.
5.Discussionandconclusions
The paper has determined the integration of multiple knowledge components with empirical evidence (i.e. knowl-edge-layers, knowledge-types, KM lifecycle and knowledge determinants)toincreaseknowledgecompetencewithin indus-tries in implementing ERP systems. This paperfocused onthe empirical evidence of an integrative knowledge competence framework dedicated to ERP systems implementation in real business practices. Thekey findings of this studyhave madea
numberofcontributionstotheexistingbodyofknowledgewhile answeringthethreeresearchquestionsoutlinedpreviously:(1)It providesempiricalevidenceofthekeyknowledgedeterminants thatdriveknowledgecreation,transfer,retentionandapplication in ERP systems implementation in the UK manufacturing and service industries. (2) It develops an innovative “knowledge competence wheel” which assembles knowledge components frommultipleperspectives,includingknowledgelayers, knowl-edge types and knowledge lifecycle stages. The “knowledge competencewheel”furtherhelpslinktheidentifiedkey knowl-edgedeterminantswithknowledgecomponents.(3)Itdevelopsa “knowledge network model” that facilitates knowledge flows betweenthemultiplestakeholdersinvolvedintheERPsystem’s implementation,which canhelptounderstandtheinteractions betweentheknowledgecomponentsduringtheKMlifecycle.
Comparing theempirical findings in this study withthat in literature, we find that the four phases of KM lifecycle are consistentwithexistingresearch[3,2,19,40,8].IneachKMphase, there are important stakeholders to initiate and carry out KM activitiesduringERPsystemsimplementation,asdiscussedinthe “knowledgenetworkmodel”.Inaddition,the“knowledgenetwork model” shows the hierarchy of the stakeholders and how the knowledgeflowsbetweenthem.Therehavebeenfourknowledge typesdiscussedintheliterature;however,theempiricalfindingof thisstudyrevealsthatonlytwoknowledgetypes(ERPpackageand business process knowledge) have been formally managed through the KM lifecycle. The other two knowledge types (organisational cultural and project management knowledge) havenotbeenformallymanagedusingtheKMlifecycle,asper thefindings.
Amongthe19knowledgedeterminantsidentifiedthroughthe empirical findings and shown in the “knowledge competence wheel”,themajorityofthedeterminantsarenewtotheKMfor ERPsuccess domain. However, there are several determinants thatsupporttheliterature.Vandaie[61]identifiesthetacitnature of process knowledge and how the nature of individual interactionsaffecttheknowledge creation.Thisstudyconfirms the results in knowledge creation in the context of ERP implementations.The studycarriedoutby Donateand Guada-millas[15]illustratesthat knowledgecentredcultureisvitalto driveknowledge creation. This study also supports thispoint. Hungetal.[22]revealthattopmanagementsupportisnecessary for knowledge transfer activities during the project, but the findings of this study show that top management support is necessary for ERP projectsin general, but there is lessdirect involvementoftopmanagersinknowledgetransfer.Ontheother
hand,consultantsupportpositivelyimpactedknowledgetransfer activities in both studies. Xu and Ma [66] highlight the significanceofconsultantsupportandusersupportforeffective knowledgetransferactivities,whichisreinforcedbythisstudy. This study also demonstrates how the practice of document managementdeterminestheretentionofup-to-dateandrelevant knowledge.Thisstudy,alongwithWangetal.[62]bothindicate theimportanceofcompetentconsultantsandintelligentbusiness usersinordertofetchandre-userelevantknowledgeduringERP implementation.
Besidesthe contributionstotheory, this researchalsohasa numberofcontributionstobusinesstechnologypractices(forboth clientandvendororganisations)intermsofknowledge compe-tence for ERP systems implementation. Firstly, it classifies determinantsforknowledgemanagementinERPimplementation undereach KMlifecyclephase withthesupportof knowledge-typesandknowledge-layerstoenhanceknowledgecompetence, basedonempiricalevidence.Therefore,practitionerscanfocuson the key determinants in creating, transferring, retaining and applying relevant knowledge during ERP implementation. Sec-ondly, it informs ERP implementers about the mostimportant knowledgetypes(ERPpackageandbusinessprocessknowledge) andhow,whyandwith-whattocreate,transfer,retain,useand re-useknowledgeduringanERPimplementationtoachieveproject success.Furthermore,theycanprioritiseandpaylessattentionto thelessimportantknowledge-types(organisationalculturaland project management knowledge). Thirdly, the framework of integrativeknowledgecompetenceshowsthedeterminantsthat areonlyapplicableforERPandbusinessknowledgerespectively,as wellasthedeterminantsapplicableforbothknowledge-typesin managingknowledgein eachKMphase. Therefore,it easesthe managementofknowledgeineachknowledge-typebynarrowing thepractitioner’sbroaderknowledgeareatobefocusedintoone knowledge-type and one KM phase. Fourthly, this is the first integrativeknowledgecompetenceframeworkdedicatedtoERP implementationinindustry.
However,thisstudydoeshavesomelimitations.Itconcentrates onlyontheERPimplementationstage,notincludingthepreor postimplementationstages.Thecaseimplementationsonlycover SAPandOracleERPproductimplementationsintheUK.Further researchwill extend this work,toprioritise the importanceof knowledge-typestoachieveERPsuccesswiththesupportoffour successmeasuresandobtainresponsesfromawideraudienceof the ERP field. Finally, the integrative knowledge competence frameworkwillbeextendedfortheERPpreandpost implemen-tationstagesaswell.
AppendixA.Backgroundofthecompanies,interviewparticipantsandimplementations No Natureofthebusiness Numberof
employees ERP name
Numberofmodules implemented
ScopeoftheERP implementation Implementation duration Designationofthe interviewparticipant ERP experience 1 Musiclicencing 260 Oracle 18 Finance,HRandCRM 1.5years HeadofITServices 10years+
2 Marketresearch 1500 Oracle 10 FinanceandSCM 1year FinancialSystem
Manager
15years
3 Highereducation 6000 Oracle 16 Finance,HR,CRMand
Operations
2years HeadofBusiness Solutions
15years
4 Healthcare 90000 Oracle 10 FinanceandSCM 1.5years ProjectLead/Principal
Consultant
10years+ 5 Industrialvehiclespareparts
manufacturing
1000 Oracle 18 Finance,HR,SCM,CRM andProduction
2years SolutionArchitect 12years
6 Media 23000 SAP 15 Finance,HR,SCMand
CRM
1.5years BusinessSystems Manager
20years 7 Aerospaceanddefence
equipmentmanufacturing
800 SAP 12 Financeand
manufacturing
1.5years Independent ConsultantFreelance
16years
8 Fooddistributing 3500 SAP 23 Finance,manufacturing,
SCM,CRMandHR
4years ChangeManagement Lead
15years
AppendixB.Interviewtemplate
Projecttitle:KnowledgecompetenceforERPimplementation success
Instructions
Briefoverviewoftheresearchwillbegivenbeforestartingthe interviewbytheresearcherinordertoeaseansweringprocessof the participant. However, when answering each interview question,trytoaddressthekeyaspects oftheresearchsuchas What,How,Why,WithandERPimplementationsuccess.Foran example;
IfwebreakdownQuestion1into5subquestions,thosewould looklike;
1.WhatsortofERPpackageknowledgehasbeencreatedwithin thecompanyduringtheERPimplementation?
2.How ERP package knowledge has been created within the companyduringtheERPimplementation?
3.Why ERP package knowledge has been created within the companyduringtheERPimplementation?
4.WithwhatandwhomERPpackageknowledgehasbeencreated withinthecompanyduringtheERPimplementation? 5.What is the impact on ERP implementation success by
knowledgecreationintermsofERPpackageknowledge? Interviewquestions
Introductoryquestions
a Abriefoverviewofthecompanystructure,parentcompanyand itsoperations.
bWhatistheindustrysectorinwhichtheorganisationoperates in?
cHowmanyemployeesareworkingforthecompany? d WhatistheERPsystemimplementedbythecompany? eHowmanyemployeesareusingtheERPsystem?
fAbriefoverviewofyourjobrolewithinthecompanyoperations. gWhatisyourcurrentdesignation?
hHowmanyyearsofworkingexperienceinthiscompany? iHowmanyyearsofexperienceinthesamejobroleintotal?
jA brief overview about the ERP implementation in your organisation, when implemented, implementation duration, whichmodules,anymajorsystemupgrades,etc.
A.ERPpackageknowledge
1.HowwouldyoudescribethecreationofERPpackagerelated knowledgeduringtheERPimplementation?
2.HowwouldyoudescribethetransferofERPpackagerelated knowledgeduringtheERPimplementation?
3. How would you describe the retention of ERP package relatedknowledgeduringtheERPimplementation?
4. Howwould you describe theapplication ofERP package relatedknowledgeduringtheERPimplementation?
B.Businessprocessknowledge
5.Howwouldyoudescribethecreationofbusinessprocess relatedknowledgeduringtheERPimplementation?
6.Howwould youdescribethetransferof businessprocess relatedknowledgeduringtheERPimplementation?
7.Howwouldyoudescribetheretentionofbusinessprocess relatedknowledgeduringtheERPimplementation?
8.Howwouldyoudescribetheapplicationofbusinessprocess relatedknowledgeduringtheERPimplementation?
C.Organisationalculturalknowledge
9. How would you describe the creation of organisational culturalrelatedknowledgeduringtheERPimplementation?
10. How would you describe the transfer of organisational culturalrelatedknowledgeduringtheERPimplementation?
11. Howwouldyou describethe retention oforganisational culturalrelatedknowledgeduringtheERPimplementation?
12.Howwouldyoudescribetheapplicationoforganisational culturalrelatedknowledgeduringtheERPimplementation?
D.Projectmanagementknowledge
13.Howwouldyoudescribethecreationofproject manage-mentrelatedknowledgeduringtheERPimplementation?
14.Howwouldyoudescribethetransferofproject manage-mentrelatedknowledgeduringtheERPimplementation?
15. How would you describe the retention of project managementrelatedknowledgeduringtheERPimplementation? 16. How would you describe the application of project managementrelatedknowledgeduringtheERPimplementation? (Continued)
No Natureofthebusiness Numberof employees
ERP name
Numberofmodules implemented
ScopeoftheERP implementation Implementation duration Designationofthe interviewparticipant ERP experience
10 Propertyregistering 4700 Oracle 8 Finance 1.5years ProjectManager 20years
11 Foodretail 90000 Oracle 3 HRcovers1200
restaurantsinUK
1.5years ITProgramManager 15years 12 Studentaccommodation 1000 Oracle 16 Finance,manufacturing,
SCMandCRM
2years ManagingDirector 12years
13 ITservices 4000 Oracle 9 FinanceandSCM 1.5years AllianceDirector 23years
14 Steelmanufacturing 300 Oracle 15 Finance,manufacturing andCRM
1.5years AssociatePractice Director
Appendix C. Full version ofTable 4—empirical evidence in discovering knowledge determinants First-order codes Second-order themes/
k-determinants
Support from cases for k-determinants(out of 14 cases) Overall Aggregate dimensions/ categories
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 “It is very difficult to codify someone’s knowledge . . .
However, it is possible to document how the modules work and make everybody aware of how the modules interact with each other.”Head of business solutions.
Tacit nature of ERP/ business knowledge U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
ERP and business knowledge creation
“It’s not like a security system where the only business interaction is when you swipe the card. So that is a real technical implementation. With an ERP you are into business process and you are into culture change where it is to standardisation.”Managing director.
K-centred culture U U UU U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U UU UU U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
“I strongly believe knowledge capturing attitude should come from the leadership of the company, I mean managers, and then that positive attitude would pass on to the subordinates.”Project manager.
K-oriented leadership U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
“Not just in the formal workshops, but obviously informal coffee charts, the corridor charts are important because you’re starting to build up that rapport between the functional consultant and the business representative.” Head of IT services. Nature of individual interactions U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
“The end users the people who were nominated for the project team, the project team members and those that participated in the design blueprint, were very willing and able and very knowledgeable in their particular processes . . .”Independent consultantfreelance.
Individual willingness and ability to change
U U U U U U U U UU U U U U U U UU UU U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U UU U U U U
“What we observed was vendor KM system has supported for knowledge creation activities within the project team members...”Financial system manager.
Vendor managed KM systems U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
“The key knowledge that you’ll hope within an organisation is what your organisation does, what the business processes are that support the operation on that business . . . The business being able to define what it wants.”Business systems manager.
Ability to define business requirements (BR) U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U Business knowledge creation
“...The next big enabler is the capability of the implementation partner to translate those requirements into that configuration designs.”Alliance director.
Capability of integrator in understanding BRs U U U U U UU UU U U U U U U U U U U U U UU U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U UU U
“Knowledge has no value unless it’s with the right people and then when you look at now who needs to have that knowledge over the lifecycle of a project...”Business systems manager. Organisation structure U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U ERP knowledge transfer
“Project team members need to be people who are very knowledgeable of their particular process area. They need to be empowered and that is the key thing. They need to be able to make a decision without going through many, many levels of management . . . If you can get those right people on the project team, then you will get good knowledge transfer . . .”Independent consultant freelance.
Project team power and culture U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U UU U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U UU U
ERP and business knowledge transfer
“It would tend to be an area that they technically wouldn’t really get involved that much . . . However, the top management was very keen on capturing the knowledge because they saw it as an opportunity for the future to build on the solution.”Project lead/Principal consultant.
Top management support U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U 8 U. Jay awickr ama et al. / Computers in Industry 82 (20 1 6 ) 205 – 223
representatives is a must to drive knowledge transfer activities according to our experience during the implementation”Solution architect.
U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
“We did this in two ways and thefirst way was the informal knowledge transfer between the consultant and the business representative. And we did that by organising the office such that the consultants sat side by side with the business representatives and in their particular module area.”Project lead/Principal consultant.
Consultant support U U UU U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U UU U U U U U U U U U UU U U U UU U
“The functional knowledge of the solution which is again documented in functional documents. There is also the training material which is developed. And all of that seem the testing scripts and all the documents all of which is a vast wealth of knowledge . . .”Independent consultant freelance. Practice of document management U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
ERP and business knowledge retention
“I think the big thing here is the solution manager once again, solution managers are the repository for all your documentation, all your materials, all your processflows, really kind of everything.”Change management lead.
ERP features for KM U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
“If you got an organisation that does have a very formal automated KM system, then yes you should use that for the implementation. Trying to use one just for the
implementation will not work because you are setting up all new if people aren’t already used to the limitations of it...” Head of business solutions.
KM automation U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
“We had the reviewed within the team and also we had a quality review of the documents as well . . . We had a peer review that had a review by the team and then we had people on the project reviewing those documents before they were approved and signed off.” Independent consultantfreelance.
Quality of document management U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
ERP and business knowledge application
“To apply knowledge in subsequent stages of the project, we must have right knowledge in right quantities. The competencies of the consultants matter a lot to have such knowledge on board...”Managing director.
Highly competent consultants U U U U U UU UU U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U UU U U U U U U U U U UU U
“The company is a highly technical company and the employees a lot are very bright people, very clever people, very well qualified people.”Project manager.
Intelligent business users U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
Legend: strong evidence–UUU, average evidence–UU, weak evidence–U, no evidence–[blank].
U. Jay awickra ma et al. / Compute rs in Industry 82 (20 1 6 ) 205 – 223 21 9
