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

www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-7154.htm

BPMJ
19,2 Successful ERP implementation:
an integrative model
Dara Schniederjans and Surya Yadav
364 Information Systems and Quantitative Sciences, Texas Tech University,
Lubbock, Texas, USA
Received 30 December 2011
Revised 17 June 2012 Abstract
7 August 2012 Purpose – The paper aims to present a conceptual model that better defines critical success factors to
Accepted 21 September 2012 ERP implementation organized with the technology, organization and environment (TOE) framework.
The paper also adds to current literature the critical success factor of trust with the vendor, system and
consultant which has largely been ignored in the past.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper uses past literature and theoretical and conceptual
framework development to illustrate a new conceptual model that incorporates critical success factors
that have both been empirically tied to ERP implementation success in the past and new insights into
how trust impacts ERP implementation success.
Findings – The paper finds a lack of research depicted in how trust impacts ERP implementation
success and likewise a lack of a greater conceptual model organized to provide insight into ERP
implementation success.
Originality/value – The paper proposes a holistic conceptual framework for ERP implementation
success and discusses the impact that trust with the vendor, system and consultant has on ERP
implementation success.
Keywords Enterprise resource planning, Trust, Technology, Organization, Environment,
Business planning
Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction
ERP systems are software packages that integrate a number of business processes,
such as manufacturing, supply chain, sales, finance, human resources, budgeting and
customer service activities (Amalnick et al., 2011; Weinrich and Ahmad, 2009). The
question, “what makes implementation of an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system
a success?” has been studied extensively in the past few years. Yet little research has been
done on the impact of trust with vendors, systems and consultants and how it affects ERP
implementation success. We, like other previous researchers, believe that ERP evaluation
should extend beyond operational improvements to the more strategic impact of ERP
looking at the intangible nature of costs and benefits in organizational, technological and
behavioral aspects (Stefanou, 2001).
Previous ERP system research focused on case studies of organizations new to
implementing ERP or that highlighted only one phase of the ERP lifecycle (Weinrich
and Ahmad, 2009; Zarotsky et al., 2006; Nah and Delgado, 2006; Beatty and Williams,
2006; Kim et al., 2005; Brown, 2004; Umble et al., 2003; Ng et al., 2003; Rollands and
Business Process Management Prakash, 2001; Mabert et al., 2001; Brehm et al., 2001; Markus et al., 2000; Jarrar et al.,
Journal 2000). ERP implementation has also been tied to firm performance (Yang and Su, 2009;
Vol. 19 No. 2, 2013
pp. 364-398 Hendricks et al., 2007; Gupta and Kohli, 2006; Laframboise and Reyes, 2005; McAfee,
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 2002). While past research has criticized literature on critical success factors (CSFs) in
1463-7154
DOI 10.1108/14637151311308358 ERP implementation, specifically referring to them as laundry lists of information
(Richmond, 1993), new research suggests that an understanding of the relationships Successful ERP
between factors for ERP implementation success is necessary (Tsai et al., 2011). implementation
The authors of this paper believe that ERP implementation success can be negatively
impacted by a culture resistant to change and a lack of trust. There are certain behavioral
components within organizations that impact the overall success of ERP implementation
before it occurs. These include the trust within the ERP community, including the vendor,
consultant and ERP implementing organization, as well as trust with the system itself. 365
Using various theoretical foundations, we develop a comprehensive model depicting
facets that impact ERP implementation success. Although some insights on trust have
been made in previous literature, we develop a preliminary model that incorporates
competence and contractual trust between the vendor, consultant, ERP implementation
company and the system itself.
Overall, this paper offers future research implications by providing theoretical
support for trust with the ERP community and how it impacts ERP implementation
success. Additionally, we identify the importance of a community culture that is
accepting of change within the realm of change management. We also suggest that
future research should focus on behavioral aspects of ERP implementation and how
individual or collective behavior might impact ERP implementation success prior to
actual implementation.
This paper also provides various managerial implications. First, we explain that
trust not only within the confines of the organization is important, but also it is vital for
ERP implementation success with external consultants and vendors. Second, we
provide practitioners a comprehensive model that depicts not only past empirically
examined CSFs, but also theoretically validates the importance of organizational
factors such as a company culture of acceptance of change and environmental aspects
like regulatory pressure and trust. Managers can use this conceptual model as a tool for
optimizing ERP implementation both before and during the implementation process.

Theoretical foundations
To help examine the variety of relationships depicted between CSFs and ERP
implementation success, we use several underlying theoretical foundations including:
capability maturity model (CMM), strategic choice theory, contingency theory, resource
based view, knowledge based view and social capital theory. In this section we will
briefly explain these definitions as well as which relationships these theories underlie
that will be further discussed in the propositions.

Capability maturity model

The CMM suggests that a target maturity level in IT can be achieved only after going
through a series of previous phased levels (Randeree et al., 2012). Paulk (1994) describes
the six levels of the CMM as follows: Level 0 means there is no IT architecture or
maturity. Level 1 (the initial level) is the level where the software process is ad hoc and
occasionally chaotic, where few processes are defined and success depends on individual
effort. Level 2 (the repeatable level) is where basic project management processes
are established to find cost, schedule and functionality. Level 3 (the defined level) is the
level in which the software process for both management and engineering activities is
documented, standardized and integrated into a standard software process. Level 4
(the managed level) has detailed measures of product quality and software processes,
BPMJ which are understood and controlled. Finally, Level 5 (the optimizing level) is the level
19,2 where there is continuous process improvement enabled by quantitative feedback
using innovative ideas and technologies. In this paper we suggest that greater capability
maturity can enhance ERP implementation success, given greater knowledge and
innovation. That is, a firm at Level 5 implementing a new ERP system is likely to have
greater success than a firm at Levels 4, 3 and so on. Previous research supports this by
366 suggesting higher capability maturity encourages creation, evaluation and continuous
improvement of IT services designed to achieve business objectives (Bowen et al., 2007).
We will further analyze this relationship in the next section.

Strategic choice theory

Strategic choice theory assumes that users can actively shape their environments and
can play a role in organizational success and failure (Ketchen Jr and Hult, 2007). IT
departments, with the right capabilities and understanding have the capability to
impact the success or failure of systems in use. However, in order for this to occur the
organization must make strategic choices with concern for the firm as the primary
driver (Ketchen Jr and Hult, 2007). Moreover, organizational leadership must have
adequate knowledge of the ERP users’ needs when it comes to implementing the ERP
system. This is especially true when an organization is restructured during business
process reengineering (BPR), which requires management to focus on strategic
decisions that fit the central tenets of an organization as a whole. If management takes
into account user needs and makes adequate strategic decisions during BPR, it is more
likely ERP implementation will be successful. This relationship will be further
analyzed in the next section.

Contingency theory
Contingency theory suggests an appropriate organizational structure depends on the
overall environment (Hung et al., 2011). This proposes that managers should identify
contingency factors such as the environment that will influence the organization
(Hung et al., 2011). Further research suggests that if contingency factors fit the
business environment adequately, the overall organizational performance will flourish
(Weill and Olson, 1989). If contingency factors also fit the environment in which the
ERP system is being implemented, it can enhance the likelihood that both external and
internal benefits will accrue during and post implementation (Elmeziane and
Elmeziane, 2012). Change management requires that firms look at a variety of factors
that may impede successful change. For example, users of ERP systems must have
adequate education as well as the capability to implement ERP with ease. Further, the
overall culture must be accepting of the change itself. Some of the many questions that
should be addressed to facilitate successful ERP implementation include: how does our
organization react to change? What are some of the main impediments to change in
IT in this organization? With management taking into consideration the culture of the
organization and the acceptance of change specifically in IT as a whole, it is likely that
users will be better able to facilitate ERP implementation successfully.

Resource based view

Resource based view posits that firms develop internal capabilities to strengthen
competitive advantage (Barney, 1996). Firm specific capabilities including human and
organizational resources differentiate successful firms from failing ones (Peng et al., Successful ERP
2009). In order to gain a competitive advantage firms will utilize whatever resources are implementation
available over competition, but often this is accelerated by competitive and regulatory
pressure. When there is sufficient competitive and regulatory pressure to adopt ERP
systems, firms are more likely to use internal capabilities to drive successful ERP
implementation.
367
Knowledge based view
Knowledge based view of the firm builds from resource based view initially proposed
by Penrose (1959) and developed further by Wernerfelt (1984), Barney (1991) and Conner
and Prahalad (1991). While resource based view focuses on specific valuable resources
that a firm has, knowledge based view proposes that knowledge can be used as a
distinctive, unique resource to achieve competitive advantage (Kearns and Sabherwal,
2007). It also views the firm as a “dynamic, evolving, quasi-autonomous system of
knowledge production” (Kearns and Sabherwal, 2007, p. 132). User training in developing
the ERP implementation plan is vital for both enhancing system configuration and
therefore, achieving successful implementation. Further, adequate organizational
knowledge, perceived cost/benefits analysis, as well as a more strategic package
selection can enhance performance during implementation.
In the realm of project management, knowledge is also vital and elicited through IT
and team training, as well as overall team expertise in working toward a common plan
based on a company’s strategy. A project manager and/or champion must be
knowledgeable of not only firm objectives, but also must be aware of the scope and
project plan. For example, consideration must be given to whether the plan is on task,
whether it is following the overall objective and also any potential impediments that
may arise. Moreover, progress should be communicated to everyone throughout the
organization. With competent knowledge and knowledge sharing throughout the
organization the implementation plan, as well as capable project management, will
help improve the likelihood of successful ERP implementation.

Social capital theory

Social capital theory indicates that there are different types of social capital in
organizations, including trust, obligation, identification of relationships, shared goals
and values between individuals, network characteristics and knowledge sharing
(Carey and Lawson, 2011; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). Further, firms are embedded in
social networks where these factors impact economic actions (Osarenkhoe, 2009). Social
capital, including shared goals and values and knowledge sharing, is often perpetuated
by responsible leadership (Maak, 2007). This can include both the amount of leadership
involvement and overall commitment. Further, in order for leadership to perpetuate
this social capital, a company must be supportive of both the task at hand, as well as
supportive of the leaders themselves. When top management is not involved nor
committed to the changeover process required for ERP implementation, it is unlikely
that the ERP implementation itself will be successful. Further, the company must be
supportive of the change as well as the leaders’ vision in adopting the ERP system.
Another dimension of social capital that has important implications for ERP
implementation success is trust. This is similar to the impact of a company culture that
is supportive of the project at hand. When users have trust with vendors, consultants
BPMJ and the system, it is more likely that success will occur as opposed to users who are
19,2 weary of any element in the ERP implementation community. When trust and top
management support built by social capital are present, it improves the likelihood of
ERP implementation success.
While we have briefly described the relationships shown in Figure 1, as well as their
underlying theories, the next section will further elaborate on each CSF and how it
368 impacts ERP implementation success.

Propositions
ERP implementation success
Implementation of any innovation has been referred to as a “re-invention of the
technology and simultaneous adaptation of the organization” (Hong and Kim, 2002;
Leonard-Barton, 1988). During implementation, an IT application is developed and
maintained, organizational procedures are revised and organization members are
trained and educated (Hong and Kim, 2002; Cooper and Zmud, 1990). Given this, we
define ERP implementation as any process during the beginning stages of ERP
implementation. Previous research focuses on CSFs or what an organization must do to
accomplish what it was designed to do (Elmeziane and Elmeziane, 2012). Since failure of
ERP implementation can be fatal to a firm through waste of enormous amounts of money
or destruction of the competitive advantage of a firm (Hong and Kim, 2002; Davenport,
2000, 1998), we chose to focus on CSFs and how they ultimately lead to success in ERP
implementation.
ERP implementation success can be measured in a broad sense from the perceived
deviation from projected objectives (Annamalai and Ramayah, 2012; Singla, 2009).
However, in order to further define ERP implementation success, one must understand
what some of those objectives are. An ERP system comprises of a central database that
stores data across various business functions and activities in an organization
(Supramaniam and Kuppusamy, 2011). An organization typically expects the system to
not only address problems associated with business process integration, but also enable
information to flow seamlessly across functions and streamline functional processes
(Bharathi and Parikh, 2012). When a project is completed on time and within the budget
(Chen and Li, 2005; Hong and Kim, 2002), various operational benefits occur. For
example, economies of scale are obtained through integration of business functions and
in turn, significant operating cost reduction, improved capabilities and information
transparency results (Supramaniam and Kuppusamy, 2011). Previous research also
alludes to significant internal and external benefits like faster information transferals,
greater financial management, reduced transportation and logistics costs, greater
supply chain relations, increased responsiveness to customers, as well as flexibility,
productivity, and reduced inventory, thereby increasing service levels (Patil et al., 2012;
Dezdar and Ainin, 2011c; Grabski et al., 2011; Davenport et al., 2004). The results of a
successful ERP implementation are different from the results of an ERP implementation
failure, which manifests in an implementation being delayed, going over budget and
needing additional funding (Dezdar and Ainin, 2011c; Zhang et al., 2005), potential loss
of authorization security, data confidentiality, authentication safety, server downtime,
or ultimately system failure (Goel et al., 2011). Overall, a failure entails wasting large
amounts of money for a firm or destroying its competitive advantage (Hong and Kim,
2002); ultimately leading to the system’s or even an organization’s demise.
 Technology
Successful ERP
IT capability
implementation
IT capability level KMS characteristics

CMM level

Organization 369
BPR
Understanding user
requirements User needs

Compatibility & transition

Change Management User education

Culture

Perceived costs/benefits

Selection
Implementation plan
User training

System configuration
ERP implementation success
Time
Cost
Evaluation & disclosure Performance
Benefits
IT training

Team training
Project management
Team expertise

Project manager/champion

Project plan & scope

Leadership involvement
Top management
support Company support

Leadership commitment

Environment

External pressures Competitive/Regulatory pressure

Vendor process mode

Trust System perceived usefulness

Figure 1.
Consultant process mode characteristics Integrative model

However, what must be kept in mind are the different stages of the project. Markus et al.
(2000) suggest that success in projects can be divided into three phases: the project phase,
shakedown phase and onward and upward phase (Candra, 2011). In this paper, we focus
on ERP implementation success, which is primarily structured around the project and
shakedown phases, including metrics such as project cost relative to budget, project
completion time relative to schedule, system functionality and short term changes
BPMJ occurring after the system is implemented, including cost reductions and information
19,2 flow (Candra, 2011; Markus et al., 2000). Given the complexity of ERP implementation
success as a construct, we view it as a multifaceted variable. More specifically we
adopt Hong and Kim’s (2002) definition of ERP implementation which uses four
metrics: reduced costs, time allotted to project, performance of the system during
implementation phase, and benefits accrued to the organization due to implementation.
370 If the implementation of the system results in reduced costs, increased service levels,
various benefits to an organization’s internal and external environment and all the while
maintains adequate project management, user involvement and adequate performance,
the ERP implementation is deemed successful. Further, this definition takes into account
not only performance of the system in terms of costs and benefits accrued, but also project
management and the organizational environment. This is vital because implementation
involves simultaneous adaptation of an organization along with adoption of the system
itself (Hong and Kim, 2002). To further enhance this definition, we also borrow from
Goel et al. (2011). They suggest success is defined by a system’s functionality, security
and quality. While these aspects can be labeled under performance of the system during
the implementation phase and benefits accrued, security of the ERP system is not
specifically mentioned in Hong and Kim (2002) paper. By security we refer to both user
and system security, including data confidentiality, server downtime and system failure
probabilities (Goel et al., 2011). Trust in the system, vendor, and consultant is vital for the
user in order to ensure security breaches and problems with system downtime do not
occur during the implementation. This will be further analyzed later in this paper.
Overall, we believe this definition provides a broad variety of measures for ERP
implementation success, and thus, we have adopted it. However, ERP implementation
success would not be possible without select CSFs, which is described using the TOE
framework below.

Technology
Tornatzky and Fleischer (1990) developed the TOE framework to study the adoption
of technology innovations (Pan and Jang, 2008). The technology aspect refers to the
internal and external technologies relevant to the firm (Pan and Jang, 2008). We consider
IT capability level as a construct that contains various CSFs.
IT capability level. The IT capability level encompasses the type of IT capability,
knowledge management system capability, and stage where an organization is at on
the CMM. Venkatraman (1997) showed four interdependent sources of value from IT
resources, which include:
(1) cost center;
(2) service center;
(3) investment center; and
(4) profit center.

Davis et al. (2009) suggest that joint IT competence is a key driver of user satisfaction
of an ERP system. Some IT capabilities associated with ERP implementation success
include human capital, which was shown to also be effective in IT adoption (Oliveira and
Martins, 2011). Human capital can be in-house IT expertise (Ifinedo, 2011a, b; Nour and
Mouakket, 2011) and user knowledge (Upadhyay et al., 2011). IT infrastructure is also
a CSF (Nour and Mouakket, 2011), as well as IT maturity through resources and assets Successful ERP
(Supramaniam and Kuppusamy, 2011). Other previously explored IT capabilities are implementation
data conversion and integrity (Basu et al., 2011), information flow management
(Upadhyay et al., 2011), as well as testing after implementation (Bharathi and Parikh,
2012; Wickramasinghe and Gunawardena, 2010).
Oliveira and Martins (2011) suggest that factors like formalization of system,
technology competence, and support from technology are important in the adoption of 371
IT. We believe these are also important assets to ERP implementation success, because
many are facets of IT maturity including formalization of system technology
competence. Likewise, support from technology is also important in establishing an
ERP system and having it become successful.
Along with IT capabilities, past literature have looked at knowledge management
system characteristics. These include compatibility with legacy systems (Bharathi and
Parikh, 2012; Dezdar and Ainin, 2011a, b; Dezdar and Sulaiman, 2009) and relative
advantage and complexity of knowledge management systems (Oliveira and Martins,
2011).
One factor that we believe is important in ERP implementation research is the
actual level or stage of capability maturity of the IT system of the firm. The CMM is
mainly used by the operating units and each CIO to assess IT architecture capability
and progress.
Overall, IT capabilities, KMS capabilities and the level of the organization on the
CMM play vital roles in ERP implementation success. Past research supports this by
suggesting that IT capability can aid in the development of innovation, especially
through the implementation of ERP (Upadhyay et al., 2011). In-house expertise and IT
department value has been shown to help with the complex tasks of ERP implementation
(Shah et al., 2011; Upadhyay et al., 2011). Likewise, knowledge management system
capabilities and cooperation with legacy systems has also been shown to be effective in
ERP implementation success (Dezdar and Sulaiman, 2009). We suggest that the level of a
firm in terms of the CMM can also benefit an organization when implementing a new
system such as ERP, given that the more capable a firm is in IT architecture, the more
likely is successful implementation, considering previous findings connected to expertise
and IT architecture to ERP implementation success. Based on the CMM model and
previous literature we formulate Proposition 1:
P1. IT capability level, constructed of IT capability, knowledge management
system characteristics and CMM level, is positively associated with ERP
implementation success.

Organization
The organization aspect of the firm refers to descriptive measures of the organization,
like size, scope, managerial structure and internal resources (Pan and Jang, 2008). We
consider understanding user requirements, change management, implementation plan,
project management, and top management support as constructs that contain various
critical factors for ERP implementation success.
Understanding of user requirements. Understanding of user requirements focuses
on BPR and knowledge of user needs in the ERP system in order to successfully
implement ERP. Previous research identifies BPR as a key CSF in ERP implementation
(Dezdar and Ainin, 2011b; Moohebat et al., 2011).
BPMJ Along with BPR is the ability to fulfill user needs in the ERP system. Most users will
19,2 have particular needs based goals and capabilities when it comes to the implementation
of the ERP system. For example, past research has identified ease of use and minimal
customization of the ERP system as CSFs in ERP implementation (Khattak et al., 2012;
Supramaniam and Kuppusamy, 2011; Upadhyay et al., 2011).
Overall, user needs are vital to the successful implementation of ERP systems, because
372 theoretical foundations, including strategic choice theory, suggest users can control the
success or failure of a system. While past literature has provided innovative insight into
the importance of user functionality to the application of information technology
(Baki and Cakar, 2005), very few have provided a theoretically driven conceptual model
that depicts the various aspects of user requirements and how they impact, specifically,
ERP implementation success. While the span of this article does not attempt to provide all
aspects of user requirements, we do provide an insight into how user requirements can
impact ERP implementation success by focusing its span in terms of BPR and knowledge
of user needs. This concept is also theoretically supported by strategic choice theory.
Many of the organizations that implement ERP do not have the fundamental processes
and structure required for the types of information provided by the ERP system
(Dezdar and Ainin, 2011c). Moreover, they are required to reengineer business processes
to achieve successful ERP implementation (Dezdar and Ainin, 2011c; Yusuf et al., 2004).
We suggest that in the process of BPR organizational, entities such as users of ERP need
to be at the forefront in reengineering the organization as a whole, since users can
play a role in ERP implementation success. Further, for organizations to structure
BPR according to user needs, there needs to be adequate knowledge pertaining to
requirements for the user. Past research focuses on the ease of use and minimal
customization. While these are vital and useful additions in the list of requirements for
users, behavioral research also makes an important contribution to ERP implementation
success. Strategic choice theory helps to support our Proposition 2 stated below, but can
also be applied to a variety of research in ERP implementation success. The fundamental
knowledge of the user and their basic needs are important for impacting successful
implementation of an ERP system. Based on previous research and strategic choice
theory we formulate the following proposition:
P2. Greater understanding of user requirements, as defined by BPR and
knowledge of user needs, is positively associated with ERP implementation
success.
Change management. Change management refers to the ability to anticipate future
changes, choose platforms that can accommodate change, and effectively manage
change (Mata et al., 1995; Bharadwaj et al., 1998; Feeny and Willcocks, 1998; Wade and
Hulland, 2004). In this paper we look at compatibility and transition in the organization,
user education, and company culture.
Past research has shown change management to be a CSF in ERP implementation
(Elmeziane and Elmeziane, 2012; Al-Turki, 2011; Nour and Mouakket, 2011). Some
authors stress the need for change management and suggest that it is requisite for
achieving sustainable competitive performance (Guha et al., 1997). Thus, we have added it
to our model. We have attempted to define change management through compatibility
and transition (for example, organizational wide compatibility with the system),
satisfaction with existing systems, like legacy systems, as well as user education in the
change process. While these factors have been identified in current and past ERP Successful ERP
literature, we have also defined it using a company culture component. By company implementation
culture we mean a culture that is accepting of change, supports change, and works toward
making improvements through change. Past literature suggests that an organization can
provide tools such as user training for greater ease of transition (Bharathi and Parikh,
2012; Al-Turki, 2011; Upadhyay et al., 2011).
It also shows a connection between change management, including organizational fit, 373
company culture and user education with ERP implementation success (Al-Turki, 2011),
by suggesting organizational fit impacts organizational readiness, which in turn impacts
ERP system success (Zhu et al., 2010). Further, Jones et al. (2006) suggest that
organizational culture can impact knowledge sharing, which is vital during ERP
implementation. While both of these are vital insights in the stages during and post
implementation of ERP, we believe that organizational culture can significantly impact
the pre-implementation stage, which will significantly impact overall change
management. While it is true that firms can mitigate the impact of a misalignment
using training, we believe before training occurs a misalignment can result in failure
before implementation begins.
Current literature supports the notion that change management is critical in ERP
implementation success in terms of empowered team management in project
management (Dezdar and Ainin, 2011c) and adapting implementation strategies for
identifying, managing and training for implementation of ERP projects (Upadhyay et al.,
2011). While some studies allude to the importance of organizational culture in ERP
implementation (Bharathi and Parikh, 2012; Noudoostbeni et al., 2010) often they view it
as an afterthought. Previous research suggests that when implementing ERP,
organizational structure needs to be managed effectively through formal education and
training in order to be successful. What we believe is missing from current literature in
change management is a broad focus of what change management entails. Change
management not only entails a perspective on change in regard to altering current
business processes and ensuring user training, but also the overall culture of the
organization. For example, is the organization receptive to new technology and new
support systems? Is the culture receptive of potential shortcomings that may appear in the
changes of the processes required? While management may be able to impact and
mitigate potential problems associated with a culture that is risk averse or not adaptive to
change, a mismatch in culture and implementation can lead to possible failure even if
training is available. Dezdar and Ainin (2011c) suggest the more employee oriented an
organization is, the more likely ERP implementation will be successful. Hence, we believe
change management in an organization should not only focus on ease of transition and
training of individual users, but future research should also take into consideration the
overall culture and whether it is accepting of change. This concept is also supported by
theory, including contingency theory because effective change management entails
managers to pre-analyze the culture of the organization before actual change begins. More
specifically, an organization that is not accepting of changes required to implement an
ERP system will either hinder or potentially lead to ultimate failure in the implementation
process. Based on contingency theory and a review of previous literature we formulate the
following proposition:
P3. Change management requires a focus on organizational culture to be
positively associated with ERP implementation success.
BPMJ Implementation plan. An implementation plan refers to a plan of action that entails the
19,2 transformation of ideas into action (Alexander and Faludi, 1989). In particular, we
consider this to be evaluated by an organization through perceived costs and benefits
of an ERP system. This includes a cost/benefits assessment, perceived financial cost and
perceived benefits of ERP. Budget size and cost have been looked at as a CSF of ERP
implementation success (Annamalai and Ramayah, 2012; Upadhyay et al., 2011).
374 Previous literature also suggests that perceived financial costs and benefits are effective
in evaluating the potential for success in ERP and IT implementation (Oliveira and
Martins, 2011).
Along with the cost/benefit analysis of ERP is the actual package selection. Past
research suggests careful package selection is a vital component to ERP implementation
success (Bharathi and Parikh, 2012; Upadhyay et al., 2011).
Another important aspect is user training for the implementation process. Past
research indicates user training is a CSF in ERP implementation (Basu et al., 2011). It is
also vital that managers take this into account during implementation of the ERP
system (Stefanou, 2001).
Planning with system configuration is also important in ERP systems. Sound system
configuration is vital in the first few stages of ERP system implementation, as well as in
the latter stages. Previous literature suggests that a large problem in ERP implementation
is misalignment issues of input, control, data, process, output and schedule (Wei et al.,
2005). Likewise, cross-functional coordination between activities in organizations, in order
to align interests, has been shown to be important in ERP implementations (Gosain et al.,
2005). In the first stages ERP architecture needs to be well configured and appropriated
toward the organization’s goals in order to prevent misalignment and ensure coordination.
Without adequate system configuration it is likely that the ERP implementation process
will be hindered (Dezdar and Sulaiman, 2009).
The importance of developing an effective implementation plan defined by cost/benefits
analysis, careful package selection, user training and sound system configuration is
supported by the knowledge based view. Adequate knowledge is required in terms of the
specific costs and benefits involved with the ERP system, as well as research and
comprehensive knowledge of the particular package and whether it is aligned with a
company’s goals and needs (Annamalai and Ramayah, 2012). Additionally, users need to
be adequately trained on innovative methods of efficiently using the ERP system in order
to gain a competitive advantage. This also promotes sound system configuration.
While we will not present a proposition, since these facets have been studied in past
literature, it is important for organizations to take CSFs such as an adequate cost-benefits
analysis, careful package selection, user training and sound system configuration into
account before ERP implementation takes place. Thus, we have added these components
to make a more complete conceptual model.
Project management. Effective project management ensures that an ERP system will
follow a planned outline and will connect every aspect of an organization (Zhu et al.,
2010; Umble et al., 2003; Markus and Tanis, 2000). This will in turn allow organizations
to effectively communicate with one another and systematize the supply chain.
Similarly, it will ensure that routine jobs can be automated by the system, which will
accelerate processing speed and minimize human errors (Zhu et al., 2010).
Various studies have shown that project management is a CSF. They have included
variants of this construct, including progress being evaluated and disclosed at every
level (Upadhyay and Dan, 2009), information flow management (Upadhyay et al., 2011), Successful ERP
and ERP troubleshooting (Dezdar and Ainin, 2011b; Wickramasinghe and implementation
Gunawardena, 2010).
Other variants include training with IT, teamwork and composition (Elmeziane and
Elmeziane, 2012; Hoch and Dulebohn, 2012; Amalnick et al., 2011; Basu et al., 2011), IT and
team training (Elmeziane and Elmeziane, 2012; Dezdar and Ainin, 2011c), communication
(Elmeziane and Elmeziane, 2012; Basu et al., 2011), and interdepartmental cooperation 375
(Nour and Mouakket, 2011). Similarly, a team must have expertise by using top personnel
(Bradley, 2008). Along with the team, there must also be a project manager and a project
champion that can help lead and effectively provide ERP implementation success
(Moohebat et al., 2011). Lastly, for project management to be a CSF in ERP implementation,
there must be a detailed ERP plan and a scope that outlines clear goals and objectives
for the ERP system (Annamalai and Ramayah, 2012; Bharathi and Parikh, 2012;
Amalnick et al., 2011; Dezdar and Ainin, 2011c).
Knowledge based view reinforces the significance of these factors in ERP
implementation success. An ability for a firm to integrate knowledge streams
ultimately leads to competitive advantage (Kearns and Sabherwal, 2007). Further, the
integration of knowledge is the primary goals of a firm and refers to knowledge being
shared, applied or combined to create new knowledge (Kearns and Sabherwal, 2007;
Grover et al., 1996; Okhuysen and Eisenhardt, 2002). Evaluation and disclosure of
information reinforces knowledge of ERP implementation throughout the organization.
Additionally, for this to occur there needs to be a project manager and champion that
promotes a plan and an environment open to communication and education regarding
the system itself.
Previous literature provides substantiated evidence of the importance of project
management in any information technology adoption. For example, the Project
Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) addresses both integration and scope
management (Project Management Institute, 2004, p. 9). Research has made great strides
in empirically examining the impact of project management on ERP implementation
success as described in the preceding paragraphs. Hence, we have added these
components to our comprehensive model depicting the various CSFs for ERP
implementation success.
Top management support. Top management support refers to the support of
priorities by top management or leadership (Martin, 1982). We define it through several
facets, including leadership involvement with the project, leadership commitment, and
company support.
Top management support is a CSF for enterprise application integration (EAI), which
also has many of the same CSFs of ERP systems (Lam, 2005). It has also been identified
as a CSF in ERP implementation success by various studies (Nour and Mouakket, 2011;
Dezdar and Ainin, 2011a, b, c).
Past research has linked leadership commitment through managerial ability to
overcoming obstacles to the adoption of IT (Oliveira and Martins, 2011). Likewise, recent
literature suggests that ERP implementation success is positively associated with
organizational culture, which is fostered through leadership (Khattak et al., 2012;
Al-Shamlan and Al-Mudimigh, 2011; Wei and Wei, 2011; Dezdar and Ainin, 2011b; Ke and
Wei, 2008). Because there are inevitable problems associated with ERP implementation,
we added this to the construct to top management support. Along with this, CSFs,
BPMJ including competent project manager (Finney and Corbett, 2007) and project champion
19,2 (Dezdar and Ainin, 2011b; Upadhyay et al., 2011), have been associated with ERP
implementation success. However, top management and the company as a whole need to
provide overall company support, in order to make the ERP implementation successful
(Moohebat et al., 2011).
Past literature supports that top management leadership involvement, commitment
376 and company support is vital to ERP implementation success. What is missing is the
reciprocal relationship among users, vendors and top management. While top
management needs to be supportive and committed to the project, company support of
top management is also required. Social capital theory supports this by suggesting social
capital can perpetuate greater performance when knowledge sharing and trust occurs
between individuals. If the leadership is not supported by an organization, it is unlikely
projects advocated by that leadership will be successful. While it is possible leaders can
be replaced, it is probable projects such as ERP implementation will be delayed and
hindered in the process. Our study produces a broad view of top management support
and connects it to ERP implementation success. Based on social capital theory and
previous literature we formulate the following proposition:
P4. Top management support, as defined by leadership involvement, company
support and leadership commitment, is positively associated with ERP
implementation success.

Environment
Along with the technological and organizational aspects of a firm, environmental
aspects are also important. The environmental aspect refers to the arena in which a
firm conducts its business, including its industry, competitors and dealings with the
government (Pan and Jang, 2008). We consider external pressures and trust as two
dimensions that contain various CSFs for ERP implementation success.
External pressures. External pressures are competitive, regulatory pressures to adopt
a specific information technology. Recent research suggests that competitive pressure
and regulatory policy have influenced ERP adoption (Oliveira and Martins, 2011).
Previous literature suggests the importance of competitive pressure for adopting
innovations, as well as regulatory environment (Zhu and Kraemer, 2005; Zhu et al., 2003,
2004; Premkumar and Ramamurthy, 1995; Iacovou et al., 1995). Likewise, competitive
pressure and regulatory environment, through strategic aspects of ERP systems, have
been shown to have a greater impact on a firm’s competitiveness than any technical
aspect (Yen and Sheu, 2004). Often the decision to invest in ERP technology is based on
researching the IT capabilities of other firms and whether or not they have invested in
ERP technology.
While past studies have identified the positive association between external
pressures, including competition (Bradford and Florin, 2003), on ERP implementation
success, very little if any previous literature examines the relationship between
regulatory pressure and implementation. Most previous research in information
technology and ERP is centered on adoption of the system (Pan and Jang, 2008; Yen and
Sheu, 2004; Zhu et al., 2004). However, these pressures might also have a positive
association with ERP implementation success. The main goal of an organization is not
simply to just adopt an information technology, but to do so effectively and efficiently so
as to reduce pressure from competition, as well as problems stemming from
regulatory pressure. The impact of external pressure is also supported by resource Successful ERP
based view in that to mitigate pressures from the outside, firms will attempt successful
internal capabilities and likewise a successful ERP implementation. Additionally, the
implementation
incentive for first mover advantage and to reduce regulatory problems will ultimately
provide focus toward successfully overcoming obstacles with ERP implementation
(Bradford and Florin, 2003). Based on resource based view and previous literature we
formulate the following proposition: 377
P5. External pressure, as defined by competitive and regulatory pressures, is
positively associated with ERP implementation success.
Trust. One of the factors that past ERP implementation success research has failed to
consider is the importance of trust. As mentioned previously, user security and system
security are both vital facets in ERP implementation success (Goel et al., 2011). Trust
between a user, the vendor, consultant and system is vital for adequate user and system
security. Based on this, we suggest that trust is one of the most important CSFs.
Although previous literature alludes to the importance of relationships between
individuals in an organization during ERP implementation (Amoako-Gyampah and
Salam, 2004), and theoretical underpinnings such as social capital theory alludes to the
importance of trust in both an individual and organizational level to gain competitive
advantage, very little research examines trust within the ERP community, as well as
trust of an organization with the system itself.
Trust has been defined in several ways. It has been defined in both organizational
and individual contexts. While personality psychologists view trust as an individual
characteristic (Rotter, 1971), economists and sociologists show how institutions are
created to reduce uncertainty and increase trust in specific business transactions
(Bhattacharya et al., 1998; Zucker, 1986; Goffman, 1971).
Recent trust research focuses on various types of trust, including:
.
Contractual trust, which is the trustor’s perception that the trustee will or will not
comply with agreements.
.
Competence based trust, which is the trustor’s perception that the trustee is able
and willing to do what they say they will do.
. Goodwill based trust, which focuses on the trustor’s perception of whether or not
the trustee will take him/her into account when making decisions (Chun Ha et al.,
2011; Ireland and Webb, 2007).

Our paper focuses on the trust within the ERP community, which has been defined in
previous research as a triadic group composed of an implementing organization, the
vendor who supplies the ERP system, or in other words vendor process mode, and the
ERP system consultant or consultant process mode characteristics (Adam and Sammon,
2004). Further, we look at the trust of the organization for the system.
The main task of an ERP software vendor is to provide a working ERP system to a
company. The type of trust that occurs between a vendor and a client is similar to
competence and contractual trust. The ERP implementing organization expects that the
vendor will provide an adequate system and give the client all information, including
disclosure of limitations of the system. In this sense they expect honesty as well as
competence in providing a capable system. Often vendors will exclude information
when trying to sell a product. Similarly, they may try to go above the heads of the
BPMJ implementation team, straight to senior management in order to close a deal. These
19,2 issues can limit trust and reduce the morale of the implementation team, thereby proving
detrimental to the implementation of the system itself. Gefen (2004) found that client
trust in the vendor and perceived usefulness of the ERP contribute to the client’s
assessment that the relationship with the vendor is worthwhile. Various studies have
also alluded to the importance of the relationship, knowledge, quality and support a
378 vendor provides to the client for ERP implementation success (Hung et al., 2012).
Without trust between the client and the vendor the relationship would be hindered,
thereby leading to difficulties in ERP system implementation.
The trust that an organization has with an ERP system is fundamental not only during
implementation, but also for the future. If an organization does not understand the
system, trust can also be hindered. Rotter (1954) defines this as external locus of control.
It also relates to Heider (1958) attribution theory. If something appears to be going wrong
with the system, people might attribute it to the system itself, rather than to their own
manipulation, thus, inhibiting trust. If trust in the system is low, it is less likely that the
organization will continue using it, thus, limiting chances for system success. Past studies
have failed to look at the impact of system trust with regard to ERP implementation success.
The ERP system consultant’s duty is to aid in the implementation process of the
ERP system and support a continuous effort toward helping the organization streamline
operations. The type of trust that occurs between an ERP implementing organization
and the consultant is likely characterized by competence and is contractual. An ERP
implementing organization expects a consultant to not only be capable of fulfilling
his/her duties, but to also follow guidelines set out before the relationship began.
Previous literature suggests that ERP implementation provokes considerable impact
on the organization, management model, and interaction among individuals and the
group (Wood and Caldas, 2001). Consultants take on the role of supporting an
organization and helping it view the undertaking as a major organizational change
process as opposed to merely an IT project (Wood and Caldas, 2001), which could
ultimately lead to ERP implementation failure. When organizations take advice from
consultants, specifically regarding IT implementation, they require a basic form of
competency trust in the vendor. This form of trust is separate from the trust of the
system itself in that it is between the organization and a separate entity. Yet the trust
between the consultant and the organization is vital to the success of the system, because
the consultant is in charge of the start-up. That is, the consultant is inextricably linked to
the system. Without the help of the consultant, operating the system could be
troublesome and might be a success inhibitor. Various studies have looked at the
importance of consultant selection, relationship, services, and qualifications in ERP
implementation success (Supramaniam and Kuppusamy, 2011). The careful selection of
a consultant can also reduce moral hazard (i.e. consultant shirking) (Basu and Lederer,
2011), which can impede a variety of success factors, including user security and
potentially functionality and quality of the system. Overall, trust can help facilitate the
relationship between the consultant and the organization thus being vital to the success
of the system.
If one trust link is slow to provide information, it could be detrimental in the
implementation of any project or system, especially in ERP systems, where the main
focus is collecting and maintaining communications within and outside an organization.
Hence, we formulate the following proposition:
 P6. Trust, as defined by vendor process mode characteristics, consultant process Successful ERP
mode characteristics and system perceived usefulness, is positively implementation
associated with ERP implementation success.

Integrative model
This research proposes that IT capability level, understanding of user requirements,
change management, implementation plan, project management, top management 379
support, external pressures and trust are positively associated with ERP implementation
success. The model in Figure 1 shows the connections between these constructs.
In this model we have added the element of trust because very little research has
applied it to ERP implementation success. The closest study linking trust and ERP found
that client trust in the vendor and perceived usefulness of the ERP contribute to the
client’s assessment that the relationship with the vendor is worthwhile (Gefen, 2004).
Likewise, four governance structures, including explicit and implicit contracts, reputation
and trust play a role in ERP project success (Wang and Chen, 2006). Yet this study still fails
to specifically link it with ERP implementation and likewise, fails to identify each
relationship, including the relationship with the vendor, system and consultant.

Validation of the conceptual model

In this section the proposed model will be logically validated by comparing features of
the model with those of other proposed ERP implementation success models. Tables I-V
present a list of publications that contain elements of ERP implementation success.
Table VI presents further analysis of how we theoretically developed our model and
supporting literature. We focus on articles within the past ten years whose domain is in
ERP implementation success. Using the key words “ERP implementation success” and
“CSFs”, we discovered several articles from 2001 to 2012 depicted in Tables I-V.
During our review of literature, we found many terms used to identify similar
constructs. For example, various studies supported the notion that clear goals and
objectives are critical for ERP implementation success. Clear goals are labeled in
project management under plan and scope of the project.

Limitations and future research directions

In this paper we have provided both researchers and professionals a conceptual
model that depicts the various CSFs organized using the TOE framework of ERP
implementation success. Our research contributions include developing a theoretically
supported conceptual framework that includes a variety of CSFs that have been
empirically validated as well as others that have not. More specifically, we have also
provided researchers insight into CSFs that have not been examined in previous
literature, including trust between user, vendor, consultant and system, as well as a
community culture that is accepting of change. The paper also provided a few managerial
implications, including theoretically based knowledge that trust not only within the
confines of the organization is important, but also that trust with consultants and vendors
themselves is vital for ERP implementation success. Further, we provided practitioners
a model that depicts established CSFs and theoretically validated organizational
factors and environmental aspects that practitioners can use as a tool for optimizing
ERP implementation success. However, this paper only provides a first step in
establishing a model for optimization.
 Critical success factors
Table I.

380

19,2
BPMJ
PM TP PS CPM PED T CM CPS IFM PC RA ITI IEI LS UK SCR IAI AD EU MC TMS CS T VT ST CT OF BPR IC TW C TR

Hong and Kim

(2002) X
Akkermans and
Van Helden (2002) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Nah et al. (2001) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Finney and Corbett
(2007) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Zhang et al. (2005) X X X X X X X X X X X X
Gargeya and
Brady (2005) X X X X X X X X
Soja (2006) X X X X X
Ehie and Madsen
(2005) X X X X X X
Sarker and Lee
(2003) X X X
Amoako-Gyampah
(2004) X X X
Jafari et al. (2006) X X X X X X X X X X
Bradley (2008) X X X X
 PM TP PS CPM PED T CM CPS IFM PC RA ITI IEI LS UK SCR IAI AD EU MC TMS CS T VT ST CT OT BPR IC TW C TR

Ramayah et al.
(2007) X X X
El Sawah et al.
(2008) X X X X
Wang et al. (2006) X
Dezdar and
Sulaiman (2009) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Snider et al. (2009) X X X X X X
Kamhawi and
Gunasekaran
(2009) X
Motwani et al.
(2005) X X X X
Zabjek et al. (2009) X X X
Upadhyay and
Dan (2009) X X X X X X X X X X X X
Doom et al. (2010) X X X X X
Sternad and Bobek
(2006) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Jafari et al. (2006) X X X X X X X X X X

Successful ERP
implementation
Critical success factors
Table II.

381
 Critical success factors
Table III.

382

19,2
BPMJ
PM TP PS CPM PED T CM CPS IFM PC RA ITI IEI LS UK SCR IAI AD EU MC TMS CS T VT ST CT OF BPR IC TW C TR

Singla (2009) X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Singla and Goyal
(2006) X X X X X
Aboelmaged (2009) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Becerra-Fernandez
et al. (2005) X X X X X X
Moohebat et al.
(2011) X X X X
Nour and
Mouakket (2011) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Dezdar and Ainin
(2011a, b, c) X X X
Dezdar and Ainin
(2011b) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Basu et al. (2011) X X X X X X X X X
Upadhyay et al.
(2011) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Shah et al. (2011) X X X X X
Wickramasinghe
and Gunawardena
(2010) X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Supramaniam and
Kuppusamy (2011) X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Amalnick et al.
(2011) X X X X X
Al-Shamlan and
Al-Mudimigh
(2011) X X X X X X
Wei and Wei (2011) X X X X
 PM TP PS CPM PED T CM CPS IFM PC RA ITI IEI LS UK SCR IAI AD EU MC TMS CS T VT ST CT OF BPR IC TW C TR

Annamalai and
Ramayah (2012) X X X X X X X
Bharathi and
Parikh (2012) X X X X X X X X X X X X
Hoch and
Dulebohn (2012) X
Elmeziane and
Elmeziane (2012) X X X X
Khattak et al.
(2012) X X X X X X X X X

Successful ERP
implementation
Critical success factors
Table IV.

383
BPMJ
PM Project management
19,2 TP Top personnel
PS Plan and scope
CPM Competent project manager
PED Progress evaluated and disclosed
T Troubleshooting
384 CM Change management
CPS Careful package selection
IFM Information flow management
PC Project champion
RA Resources/assets
ITI IT infrastructure
IIE In-house IT expertise
LS Legacy systems
UK User knowledge
SCR System configuration/reliability
TAI Testing after Implementation
AD Accurate data
EU Ease of use
MC Minimal customization
TMS Top management support
CS Company support
T Trust
VT Vendor trust
ST System trust
CT Consultant trust
TW Teamwork
Table V. C Communication
Tables I-III key TR Training

One limitation of this paper is that the model has not yet been empirically examined.
While we provide a comprehensive CSF model for ERP implementation success that
introduces trust, a major component of project success that has not been established in
previous research, future research should examine this relationship empirically. This
will help further validate the model and its separate components. Another limitation to
the study is that we do not assess all behavioral aspects involved in ERP
implementation and how they promote success. Future research should focus on
establishing how individual or collective behavior, specifically in the ERP community,
may impact success at different levels.
Further, while there is a variety of research that examines the impact of CSF’s on
ERP implementation success, there is currently not many that examine the impact of
CSF’s on other CSF’s. A recent study, Sternad et al. (2011), empirically investigates the
influence of external factors on routine ERP usage. For example, Sternad et al. (2011)
considers the impact of communication and training on overall ERP usefulness. Given the
lack of research on trust and ERP implementation success, we suggest future studies
should not only empirically examine the impact of trust on ERP implementation success,
but also investigate what impacts trust between the user, vendor, consultant and system,
and what are the antecedents? Moreover, are there any impacting mediating or
moderating variables involved?
First order constructs Second order constructs Theory Supporting literature

Technology
IT capability level IT capability, knowledge management Capability maturity model Oliveira and Martins (2011), Nour and
system characteristics, CMM level Mouakket (2011), Upadhyay et al. (2011),
Supramaniam and Kuppusamy (2011),
Basu et al. (2011), Dezdar and Sulaiman
(2009)
Organization
Understanding of user BPR, knowledge of user needs Strategic choice theory Dezdar and Ainin (2011a, b, c), Yusuf et al.
requirements (2004)
Change management Compatibility and ease of transition, user Contingency theory Nour and Mouakket (2011), Shah et al.
education, culture accepting of change (2011), Supramaniam and Kuppusamy
(2011), Upadhyay et al. (2011), Dezdar and
Ainin (2011a, b), Hung et al. (2011), Zhu
et al. (2010), Jones et al. (2006), Guha et al.
(1997), Weill and Olson (1989)
Implementation plan Perceived cost/benefits analysis, careful Knowledge based view Upadhyay et al. (2011), Oliveira and
package selection, user training and sound Martins (2011), Basu et al. (2011), Dezdar
system configuration and Ainin (2011a, b, c), Supramaniam and
Kuppusamy (2011), Aboelmaged (2009),
Dezdar and Sulaiman (2009), Singla (2009),
Upadhyay and Dan (2009), Ehie and
Madsen (2005), Gargeya and Brady (2005),
Stefanou (2001)
Project management Evaluation and disclosure, IT training, Knowledge based view Upadhyay et al. (2011), Basu et al. (2011),
team training, team expertise, project Moohebat et al. (2011), Nour and Mouakket
manager, project champion, project plan (2011), Dezdar and Ainin (2011a, b, c),
and scope Supramaniam and Kuppusamy (2011),
Upadhyay et al. (2011), Wickramasinghe
and Gunawardena (2010), Zhu et al. (2010),
Upadhyay and Dan (2009), Bradley (2008),
Sternad and Bobek (2006), Umble et al.
(2003), Markus and Tanis (2000)
(continued)

Successful ERP
implementation
Constructs, supporting
theory and literature

Table VI.

385
 Table VI.

386

19,2
BPMJ
First order constructs Second order constructs Theory Supporting literature

Top management support Leadership involvement, company Social capital theory Nour and Mouakket (2011), Dezdar and
support, leadership commitment Ainin (2011a, b, c), Basu et al. (2011),
Supramaniam and Kuppusamy (2011),
Shah et al. (2011), Upadhyay et al. (2011),
Oliveira and Martins (2011), Finney and
Corbett (2007), Moohebat et al. (2011)
Environment
External pressures Competitive pressure, regulatory pressure Resource based view Oliveira and Martins (2011), Pan and Jang
(2008), Zhu and Kraemer (2005), Yen and
Sheu (2004), Zhu et al. (2004), Zhu et al.
(2003), Iacovou et al. (1995), Premkumar
and Ramamurthy (1995)
Trust Vendor process mode characteristics; Social capital theory, attribution Hung et al. (2012), Wood and Caldas (2001),
consultant process mode characteristics; theory Nour and Mouakket (2011), Supramaniam
system perceived usefulness and Kuppusamy (2011), Upadhyay et al.
(2011), Basu et al. (2011), Amoako-
Gyampah and Salam (2004), Gefen (2004),
Nah et al. (2001)
While this research is a first step toward assessing behavioral CSF’s on ERP Successful ERP
implementation success, there is still a myriad of questions left unanswered. We hope implementation
that researchers will incorporate these ideas to help improve knowledge of ERP
implementation.

Conclusion 387
Past literature has criticized the development and long list of CSFs in ERP
implementation research, referring to them as “laundry lists” without insight into how
one affects another and vice versa (Akkermans and Van Helden, 2002; Richmond,
1993). We believe that future research should entail a greater understanding of ERP
implementations using a holistic approach that analyzes ERP implementation success
and refrains from a reductionistic perspective that reduces ERP implementation
into a subset of factors that is incomplete. The problems of reductionism in ERP
implementation CSFs have also been examined by Wood and Caldas (2001), who
recommend ERP implementation should be thought of as a major organizational change
process and should not be planned and conducted with a reductionist point of view.
Following these criticisms and important insights, we wish to provide a complete
conceptual model of ERP implementation organized using the TOE framework. We
believe that although previous literature in the past 20 years has provided important
insights into the various factors that should be of major concern for organizations
implementing ERP, and should not be ignored in this model, we also advocate future
research concentrate on insights that have limited or no research to date. In this paper
we have provided insight and theoretical foundations for the importance of company
culture and its vitality in change management and regulatory pressure in ERP
implementation. However, one of the most important insights in this article is the
importance of trust in the ERP community. Specifically, new research should broaden the
perspective of different types of trust existing before and during ERP implementation,
including trust that exists between organizations implementing ERP, vendors,
consultants and trust that exists regarding the system itself. While previous research
alludes to this importance, very little work has been done on each of these relationships of
trust, as well as the different types, including contractual and competence trust.
We hope that the model presented here can be used as a tool for optimizing ERP
implementation, both before and during the implementation process. Moreover, we
hope that future research empirically examines behavioral aspects of the individuals
and the collective impact on ERP implementation success.
Overall, researchers can utilize this model to help integrate parts into their own
models of ERP implementation success. The authors of this article encourage further
development through empirical work using the model in future research publications.

References
Aboelmaged, M.G. (2009), “An empirical analysis of ERP implementation in a developing
country: toward a generic framework”, International Journal of Enterprise Network
Management, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 309-311.
Adam, F. and Sammon, D. (2004), The Enterprise Resource Planning Decade: Lessons Learned
and Issues for the Future, Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA.
BPMJ Akkermans, H. and Van Helden, K. (2002), “Vicious and virtuous cycles in ERP implementation:
a case study of interrelations between critical success factors”, European Journal of
19,2 Information Systems, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 35-46.
Al-Shamlan, H. and Al-Mudimigh, A. (2011), “The change management strategies and processes
for successful ERP implementation: a case study of MADAR”, International Journal of
Computer Science Issues, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 399-407.
388 Al-Turki, U. (2011), “An exploratory study of ERP implementation in Saudi Arabia”, Production
Planning & Control, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 399-407.
Alexander, E.R. and Faludi, A. (1989), “Planning and plan implementation: notes of evaluation
criteria”, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 16, pp. 127-140.
Amalnick, M., Ansarinejad, A., Nargesi, S. and Taheri, S. (2011), “New perspective to ERP critical
success factors: priorities and causal relations under fuzzy environment”, The Journal of
Mathematics and Computer Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 160-170.
Amoako-Gyampah, K. (2004), “ERP implementation factors: a comparison of managerial and end
user perspectives”, Business Process Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 171-183.
Amoako-Gyampah, K. and Salam, A.F. (2004), “An extension of the technology acceptance model
in an ERP implementation environment”, Information and Management, Vol. 41 No. 6,
pp. 731-745.
Annamalai, C. and Ramayah, T. (2012), “Does an implementation stage act as a moderator in
enterprise resource planning (ERP) projects in India? An empirical study”, Asian Journal
of Research in Banking and Finance, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 200-229.
Baki, B. and Cakar, K. (2005), “Determining the ERP package-selecting criteria”, Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 75-86.
Barney, J.B. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Barney, J.B. (1996), “The resource-base view of the firm”, Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 5,
pp. 469-470.
Basu, R., Modak, M. and Dan, P.K. (2011), “A procedure for ranking critical issues influencing
ERP implementation in Indian small and medium scale enterprises”, International Journal
of Contemporary Business Studies, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 19-64.
Basu, V. and Lederer, A. (2011), “Agency theory and consultant management in enterprise
resource planning systems implementation”, ACMSIGMIS Database, Vol. 42 No. 3,
pp. 10-33.
Beatty, R.C. and Williams, C.D. (2006), “ERP II: best practices for successfully implementing an
ERP upgrade”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 105-109.
Becerra-Fernandez, I., Murphy, K.E. and Elam, J. (2005), “Successfully implementing ERP: the
IBM personal systems group experience”, International Journal of Internet and Enterprise
Management, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 78-97.
Bharadwaj, A., Sambamurthy, V. and Zmud, R.W. (1998), “IT capabilities: theoretical
perspectives and empirical operation”, paper presented at the 19th International
Conference Information Systems, Finland.
Bharathi, S. and Parikh, S. (2012), “A comparative study on the conceptual and contextual
perception about CSF for ERP adoption in the SMEs”, Journal of Arts, Science and
Commerce, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 38-46.
Bhattacharya, R., Devinney, T.M. and Pillutla, M.M. (1998), “A formal model of trust based on
outcomes”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 459-472.
Bowen, P., Decca-Cheung, M. and Rohde, F. (2007), “Enhancing IT governance practices: a model Successful ERP
and case study of an organization’s efforts”, International Journal of Accounting
Information Systems, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 191-221. implementation
Bradford, M. and Florin, J. (2003), “Examining the role of innovation diffusion factors on the
implementation success of enterprise resource planning systems”, International Journal of
Accounting Information Systems, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 205-225.
Bradley, J. (2008), “Management based critical success factors in the implementation of enterprise 389
resource planning systems”, International Journal of Accounting Information, Vol. 9 No. 3,
pp. 175-200.
Brehm, L., Heinzl, A. and Markus, M.L. (2001), “Tailoring ERP systems: a spectrum of choices
and their implications”, Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences, Maui, Hawaii, available at: www.hicss.hawaii.edu/hicss_34/pdfs/
oserp02.pdf (accessed 10 November 2011).
Brown, W. (2004), “Enterprise resource planning implementation planning and structure: a recipe
for ERP success”, Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM SIGUCCS Conference on User
Services, Baltimore, MD, USA, ACM Press, New York, NY, available at: http://dl.acm.org/
citation.cfm?id¼1027824 (accessed 10 November 2011).
Candra, S. (2011), “The road of ERP success: a framework model for successful ERP
implementation”, BINUS Business Review, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 1118-1122.
Carey, S. and Lawson, B. (2011), “Governance and social capital formation in buyer-supplier
relationships”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 152-170.
Chen, S. and Li, C. (2005), “An empirical study of the relationship of enterprise conditions and
ERP implementation effect”, Science and Technology Management Research, Vol. 7,
pp. 69-72.
Chun Ha, B., Park, Y.K. and Cho, S. (2011), “Suppliers’ affective trust and trust in competency in
buyers”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 31 No. 1,
pp. 56-77.
Conner, K.R. and Prahalad, C.K. (1991), “A resource-based theory of the firm: knowledge vs.
opportunism”, Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 477-501.
Cooper, R.B. and Zmud, R.W. (1990), “Information technology implementation research:
a technological diffusion approach”, Management Science, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 123-139.
Davenport, T.H. (1998), “Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 121-131.
Davenport, T.H. (2000), Mission Critical: Realizing the Promise of Enterprise Systems, HBS Press,
Boston, MA.
Davenport, T.H., Harris, J.G. and Cantrell, S. (2004), “Enterprise systems and ongoing process
change”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 16-26.
Davis, J.M., Kettinger, W.J. and Kunev, D.G. (2009), “When users are IT experts too: the effects of
joint IT competence and partnership on satisfaction with enterprise-level systems
implementation”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 26-37.
Dezdar, S. and Ainin, S. (2011a), “Critical success factors for ERP implementation: insights from
a Middle-Eastern country”, Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, Vol. 10 No. 6,
pp. 798-808.
Dezdar, S. and Ainin, S. (2011b), “Examining ERP implementation success from a project
environment perspective”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 6,
pp. 919-939.
BPMJ Dezdar, S. and Ainin, S. (2011c), “The influence of organizational factors on successful ERP
implementation”, Management Decision, Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 911-926.
19,2
Dezdar, S. and Sulaiman, A. (2009), “Successful enterprise resource planning implementation:
taxonomy of critical factors”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 109 No. 8,
pp. 1037-1052.
Doom, C., Milis, K., Poelmans, S. and Bloemen, E. (2010), “Critical success factors for ERP
390 implementations in Belgian SMEs”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management,
Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 378-406.
Ehie, I.C. and Madsen, M. (2005), “Identifying critical issues in enterprise resource planning
implementation”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 56 No. 6, pp. 545-557.
Elmeziane, K. and Elmeziane, M. (2012), “Enterprise resources planning systems implementation
success in China”, Business and Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
El Sawah, S., Tharwat, A.A.E.F. and Rasmy, M.H. (2008), “A quantitative model to predict the
Egyption ERP implementation success index”, Business Process Management Journal,
Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 288-306.
Feeny, D. and Willcocks, L. (1998), “Core IS capabilities for exploiting information technology”,
Sloan Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 9-21.
Finney, S. and Corbett, M. (2007), “ERP implementation: a compilation and analysis of critical
success factors”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 329-347.
Gargeya, V.B. and Brady, C. (2005), “Success and failure factors of adopting SAP in ERP system
implementation”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 501-516.
Gefen, D. (2004), “What makes an ERP implementation relationship worthwhile: linking trust
mechanisms and ERP usefulness”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 21
No. 1, pp. 263-288.
Goel, S., Kiran, R. and Garg, D. (2011), “A framework for efficient enterprise resource planning
(ERP) implementation in technical educational institutions”, African Journal of Business
Management, Vol. 5 No. 34, pp. 13197-13204.
Goffman, E. (1971), Relations in Public, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Gosain, S., Lee, Z. and Kim, Y. (2005), “The management of cross-functional inter-dependencies in
ERP implementations: emergent coordination patterns”, European Journal of Information
Systems, Vol. 14, pp. 371-387.
Grabski, S., Leech, S. and Schnidt, P. (2011), “A review of ERP research: a future agenda for
accounting information systems”, Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 37-78.
Grover, V., Cheon, M.J. and Teng, J.T.C. (1996), “The effect of service quality and partnership in
the outsourcing of information systems functions”, Journal of Management Information
Systems, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 89-116.
Guha, S., Grover, V., Kettinger, W.J. and Eng, J.T.C. (1997), “Business process change and
organizational performance: exploring an antecedent model”, Journal of Management
Information Systems, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 119-154.
Gupta, M. and Kohli, A. (2006), “Enterprise resource planning systems and its implications for
operations function”, Technovation, Vol. 26 Nos 5/6, pp. 687-696.
Heider, F. (1958), The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations, Wiley, New York, NY.
Hendricks, K.B., Singhal, V.R. and Stratman, J.K. (2007), “The impact of enterprise systems on
corporate performance: a study of ERP, SCM, and CRM system implementations”, Journal
of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 65-82.
Hoch, J. and Dulebohn, J. (2012), “Shared leadership in enterprise resource planning and human Successful ERP
resource management system implementation”, Human Resource Management review,
Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 114-125. implementation
Hong, K.K. and Kim, Y.G. (2002), “The critical success factors for ERP implementation: an
organizational fit perspective”, Information & Management, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 25-40.
Hung, S.Y., Chang, S.I., Yen, D.C., Kang, T.C. and Kuo, C.P. (2011), “Successful implementation of
collaborative product commerce: an organizational fit perspective”, Decision Support 391
Systems, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 501-510.
Hung, W.H., Ho, C.F., Jou, J.J. and Kung, K.H. (2012), “Relationship bonding for a better
knowledge transfer climate: an ERP implementation research”, Decision Support Systems,
Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 406-414.
Iacovou, C.L., Benbasat, I. and Dexter, A.S. (1995), “Electronic data interchange and small
organizations: adoption and impact of technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp. 465-485.
Ifinedo, P. (2011a), “Examining the influences of external expertise and in-house computer/IT
knowledge on ERP system success”, Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 84 No. 12,
pp. 2065-2078.
Ifinedo, P. (2011b), “Internal IT knowledge and expertise as antecedents of ERP system
effectiveness: an empirical investigation”, Journal of Organizational Computing and
Electronic Commerce, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-23.
Ireland, R.D. and Webb, J.W. (2007), “A multi-theoretic perspective on trust and power in
strategic supply chains”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 482-497.
Jafari, S.M., Osman, M.R., Rosnah, M.Y. and Tang, S.H. (2006), “A consensus on critical success
factors for enterprise resource planning systems implementation: the experience of
Malaysian firms”, International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management,
Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 396-407.
Jarrar, Y.F., Al-Mudimigh, A. and Zairi, M. (2000), “ERP implementation critical success factors
the role and impact of business process management”, Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE
International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology, 12 November,
available at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber¼917299 (accessed
10 November 2011).
Jones, M.C., Cline, M. and Ryan, S. (2006), “Exploring knowledge sharing in ERP implementation:
an organizational culture framework”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 411-434.
Kamhawi, E.M. and Gunasekaran, A. (2009), “ERP systems implementation success factors:
IS and non-IS managers’ perceptions”, International Journal of Business Information
Systems, Vol. 4 No. 6, pp. 688-704.
Ke, W. and Wei, K.K. (2008), “Organizational culture and leadership in ERP implementation”,
Decision Support Systems, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 208-218.
Kearns, G.S. and Sabherwal, R. (2007), “Strategic alignment between business and information
technology: a knowledge based view of behaviors, outcome and consequences”, Journal of
Management Information Systems, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 129-162.
Ketchen, D.J. Jr and Hult, G.T.M. (2007), “Bridging organization theory and supply chain
management: the case of best value supply chains”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 573-580.
Khattak, M., Yuanguan, S., Irfan, M., Khattak, R.A. and Khattak, M.S.M. (2012), “Examining
critical success factors affecting ERP implementations in enterprises of Pakistan”,
Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, Vol. 3 No. 10, pp. 606-632.
BPMJ Kim, Y., Lee, Z. and Gosain, S. (2005), “Impediments to successful ERP implementation process”,
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 158-170.
19,2 Laframboise, K. and Reyes, F. (2005), “Gaining competitive advantage from integrating
enterprise resource planning and total quality management”, Journal of Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 49-64.
Lam, W. (2005), “Investigating success factors in enterprise application integration: a case-driven
392 analysis”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 175-187.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1988), “Implementation as mutual adaptation of technology and
organization”, Research Policy, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 251-267.
McAfee, A. (2002), “The impact of enterprise information technology adoption on operational
performance: an empirical investigation”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 11
No. 1, pp. 33-53.
Maak, T. (2007), “Responsible leadership, stakeholder engagement and social capital”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 329-343.
Mabert, V.A., Soni, A. and Venkatraman, M.A. (2001), “Enterprise resource planning: common
myths versus evolving reality”, Business Horizons, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 69-76.
Markus, M.L. and Tanis, C. (2000), “The enterprise systems experience: from adoption to
success”, in Zmud, R.W. (Ed.), Framing the Domains of IT Reserch: Glimpsing the Future
Through the Past, Pinnaflex Educational Resources, Inc., Cincinatti, OH.
Markus, M.L., Axline, S., Petrie, D. and Tanis, S.C. (2000), “Learning from adopters’ experiences
with ERP: problems encountered and success achieved”, Journal of Information
Technology, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 245-266.
Martin, J. (1982), Stories and Scripts in Organizational Settings, Oxford University Press,
New York, NY.
Mata, F., Fuerst, W. and Barney, J. (1995), “Information technology and sustainable competitive
advantage: a resource-based analysis”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 487-505.
Moohebat, M.R., Jazi, M.D. and Asemi, A. (2011), “Evaluation of the ERP implementation at
Esfahan Steel Company based on five critical success factors: a case study”, International
Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 236-246.
Motwani, J., Akbulut, A.Y. and Nidumolu, V. (2005), “Successful implementation of ERP systems:
a case study of an international automotive manufacturer”, International Journal of
Automotive Technology and Management, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 375-386.
Nah, F.F. and Delgado, S. (2006), “Critical success factors for enterprise resource planning
implementation and upgrade”, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 46,
pp. 99-113.
Nah, F.F., Lau, J.L. and Kuang, J. (2001), “Critical factors for successful implementation of
enterprise systems”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 285-296.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-266.
Ng, C.S.P., Gable, G. and Chan, T. (2003), “An ERP maintenance model”, Proceedings of the 36th
Annual Hawaii International Conference, Hawaii, available at: www.ieeexplore.ieee.org/
xpl/login.jsp?tp¼&arnumber¼1174609&url¼https%3A%2F%2Ffanyv88.com%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%
2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D1174609 (accessed 23 March 2013).
Noudoostbeni, A., Ismail, N.A., Jenatabadi, H.S. and Yasin, N.M. (2010), “An effective end-user
knowledge concern training method in enterprise resource planning (ERP) based on
critical factors (CFs) in Malaysian SMEs”, International Journal of Business and
Management, Vol. 5 No. 7, pp. 63-76.
Nour, M.A. and Mouakket, S. (2011), “A classification framework of critical success factors for Successful ERP
ERP systems implementation: a multi-stakeholder perspective”, International Journal of
Enterprise Information Systems, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 56-71. implementation
Okhuysen, G.A. and Eisenhardt, K.M. (2002), “Integrating knowledge in groups: how formal
interventions enable flexibility”, Organization Science, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 370-386.
Oliveira, T. and Martins, M.F. (2011), “Literature review of information technology adoption
models at firm level”, The Electronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation, Vol. 14 No. 1, 393
pp. 110-121.
Osarenkhoe, A. (2009), “An integrated framework for understanding the driving forces behind
non-sequential process of internationalization among firms”, Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 286-316.
Pan, M. and Jang, W.Y. (2008), “Determinants of the adoption of enterprise resource planning
within the technology organization environment framework: Taiwan’s communications
industry”, Computer and Information Science, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 94-102.
Patil, B., Narkhede, B., Mahajan, S. and Joshi, A. (2012), “Performance evaluation of enterprise
resource planning (ERP) systems in Indian manufacturing industries”, International
Journal of Research in Management and Technology, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 72-75.
Paulk, M.C. (1994), “A comparison of ISO 9001 and the capability maturity model for software”,
Software Engineering Institute, available at: http://repository.cmu.edu/sei/57 (accessed
10 November 2011).
Peng, M., Sun, S., Pinkham, B. and Chen, H. (2009), “The institution-based view as a third leg for a
strategy tripod”, The Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 63-81.
Penrose, E.T. (1959), The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Premkumar, G. and Ramamurthy, K. (1995), “The role of inter-organizational and organizational
factors on the decision mode for adoption of inter-organizational systems”, Decision
Science, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 303-336.
Project Management Institute (2004), A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge,
PMI Publications, Newtown Square, PA.
Ramayah, T., Roy, M.H., Arokiasamy, S., Zbib, I. and Ahmed, Z.U. (2007), “Critical success
factors for successful implementation of enterprise resource planning systems in
manufacturing organizations”, International Journal of Business Information Systems,
Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 276-297.
Randeree, K., Mahal, A. and Narwani, A. (2012), “A business continuity management maturity
model for the UAE banking sector”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 472-492.
Richmond, B. (1993), “Systems thinking: critical thinking skills for the 1990s and beyond”,
Systems Dynamics Review, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 113-133.
Rollands, C. and Prakash, N. (2001), “Matching ERP system functionality to customer
requirements”, Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE International Symposium on Requirement
Engineering, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 12 November, available at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.
org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber¼917299 (accessed 10 November 2000).
Rotter, J.B. (1954), Social Learning and Clinical Psychology, Prentice-Hall, New York, NY.
Rotter, J.B. (1971), “Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust”, American Psychologist,
Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 443-450.
Sarker, S. and Lee, A.S. (2003), “Using a case study to test the role of three key social enablers in
ERP implementation”, Information & Management, Vol. 40 No. 8, pp. 813-829.
BPMJ Shah, S.I.H., Bokhari, R.H., Hassan, S., Shah, M.H. and Shah, M.A. (2011), “Socio-technical factors
affecting ERP implementation success in Pakistan: an empirical study”, Australian
19,2 Journal of Basic and Applied Science, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 742-749.
Singla, A.R. (2009), “Enterprise resource planning systems implementation: a literature
analysis”, International Journal of Business and Systems Research, Vol. 3 No. 2,
pp. 170-185.
394 Singla, A.R. and Goyal, D.P. (2006), “Managing risk factors in ERP implementation and design:
an empirical investigation of the Indian industry”, Journal of Advances in Management
Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 59-67.
Snider, B., Silveira, G.J.C. and Balakrishnan, J. (2009), “ERP implementation at SMEs: analysis of
five Canadian cases”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 4-29.
Soja, P. (2006), “Success factors in ERP systems implementations: lessons from practice”, Journal
of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 646-661.
Stefanou, C.J. (2001), “A framework for the ex-ante evaluation of ERP software”, European
Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 204-215.
Sternad, S. and Bobek, S. (2006), “Factors which have fatal influence on ERP implementation on
Slovenian organizations”, Journal of Information and Organizational Sciences, Vol. 30
No. 2, pp. 279-289.
Sternad, S., Gradisar, M. and Bobek, S. (2011), “The influence of external factors on routine ERP
usage”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 111 No. 9, pp. 1511-1530.
Supramaniam, M. and Kuppusamy, M. (2011), “Investigating the critical factors in implementing
enterprise resource planning system in Malaysian business firms”, The Electronic Journal
of Information Systems in Developing Countries, Vol. 46 No. 5, p. 46.
Tornatzky, L.G. and Fleischer, M. (1990), The Process of Technological Innovation, Lexington
Books, Lexington.
Tsai, W.H., Shaw, M.J., Fan, Y.W., Liu, J.Y., Lee, K.C. and Chen, H.C. (2011), “An empirical
investigation of the impacts of internal/external facilitators on the project success of ERP:
a structural equation model”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 480-490.
Umble, E.J., Haft, R.R. and Umble, M.M. (2003), “Enterprise resources planning: implementation
procedures and critical success factors”, European Journal of Operational Research,
Vol. 146 No. 2, pp. 241-257.
Upadhyay, P. and Dan, P.K. (2009), “A study to identify critical success factors for ERP
implementation in an Indian SME: a case based approach”, Information Systems,
Technology and Management, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 185-196.
Upadhyay, P., Jahanyan, S. and Dan, P.K. (2011), “Factors influencing ERP implementation in
Indian manufacturing organizations: a study of micro, small and medium scale
enterprises”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 130-145.
Venkatraman, N. (1997), “Beyond outsourcing: managing IT resources as a value center”, Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 51-61.
Wade, M. and Hulland, J. (2004), “The resource-based view and information systems research:
review, extension and suggestions for future research”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 107-142.
Wang, E.T.G. and Chen, J.H.F. (2006), “The influence of governance equilibrium on ERP project
success”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 708-727.
Wang, E.T.G., Ying, T.C., Jiang, J.J. and Klein, G. (2006), “Group cohesion in organizational Successful ERP
innovation: an empirical examination of ERP implementation”, Information and Software
Technology, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 235-244. implementation
Wei, H. and Wei, C. (2011), “Analysis of success factors of introducing SAP systems for ERP
implementation in small and midsize enterprises in Taiwan”, International Journal of
Digital Library Systems, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-37.
Wei, H.L., Wang, E.T. and Ju, P.H. (2005), “Understanding misalignment and cascading change 395
of ERP implementation: a stage view of process analysis”, European Journal of
Information Systems, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 324-334.
Weill, P. and Olson, M.H. (1989), “An assessment of the contingency theory of management
information systems”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 59-85.
Weinrich, K.I. and Ahmad, N. (2009), “Lessons learned during a decade of ERP experience: a case
study”, International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 55-75.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984), “A resource-based view of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5
No. 2, pp. 171-180.
Wickramasinghe, V. and Gunawardena, V. (2010), “Critical elements that discriminate between
successful and unsuccessful ERP implementations in Sri Lanka”, Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 466-485.
Wood, T. and Caldas, M.P. (2001), “Reductionism and complex thinking during ERP
implementations”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 387-393.
Yang, C. and Su, Y. (2009), “The relationship between benefits of ERP systems implementation
and its impacts on firm performance of SCM”, Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 722-752.
Yen, H.R. and Sheu, C. (2004), “Aligning ERP implementation with competitive priorities of
manufacturing firms: an exploratory study”, International Journal of Product Economics,
Vol. 92 No. 3, pp. 207-220.
Yusuf, Y., Gunasekaran, A. and Abthorpe, M.S. (2004), “Enterprise information systems project
implementation: a case study of ERP in Rolls-Royce”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 251-266.
Zabjek, D., Kovacic, A. and Stemberger, M.I. (2009), “The influence of business process
management and some other CSF’s on successful ERP implementation”, Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 588-608.
Zarotsky, M., Pliskin, N. and Tsipi, H. (2006), “The first ERP upgrade project at DSW: lessons
learned from disillusion with simplicity expectations”, Journal of Cases on Information
Technology, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 13-24.
Zhang, Z., Lee, M.K.O., Huang, P., Zhang, L. and Huang, X. (2005), “A framework of ERP systems
implementation success in China: an empirical study”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 98 No. 1, pp. 56-80.
Zhu, K. and Kraemer, K. (2005), “Post adoption variations in usage and value of e-business by
organizations: cross country evidence from the retail industry”, Information Systems
Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 61-84.
Zhu, K., Kraemer, K. and Xu, S. (2003), “Electronic business adoption by European firms: a cross
country assessment of the facilitators and inhibitors”, European Journal of Information
Systems, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 251-268.
Zhu, K., Kraemer, K., Xu, S. and Dedrick, J. (2004), “Information technology payoff in e-business
environments: an international perspective on value creation of e-business in the financial
services industry”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 17-54.
BPMJ Zhu, Y., Li, Y., Wang, W. and Chen, J. (2010), “What leads to post implementation success of
ERP? An empirical study of the Chinese retail industry”, International Journal of
19,2 Information Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 265-276.
Zucker, L.G. (1986), “Production of trust: institutional sources of economic structure”,
in Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, JAI Press,
Greenwich, pp. 53-111.
396
Further reading
Al-Mashari, M., Al-Mudimigh, A. and Zairi, M. (2003), “Enterprise resource planning: a taxonomy
of critical factors”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 146 No. 2, pp. 352-364.
Amoako-Gyampah, K. (2007), “Perceived usefulness, user involvement and behavioral intention:
an empirical study of implementation”, Journal of Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 23
No. 3, pp. 1232-1248.
Bingi, P., Sharma, M.K. and Godla, J.K. (1999), “Critical issues affecting ERP implementation”,
Information Systems Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 7-14.
Boontaree, K., Ojelanki, N. and Kweku-Muata, O. (2006), “An exploration of factors that impact
individual performance in an ERP environment: an analysis using multiple analytical
techniques”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 556-568.
Broadbent, M., Weill, P. and Clair, D. (1999), “The implications of information technology
infrastructure for business process redesign”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 159-182.
Buckhout, S., Frey, E. and Nemec, J. Jr (1999), “Making ERP succeed: turning fear into promise”,
available at: www.strategy-business.com/article/16678?gko¼49d43 (accessed
10 December 2011).
Chakraborty, S. and Sharma, S.K. (2007), “Enterprise resource planning: an integrated strategic
framework”, International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, Vol. 4
No. 5, pp. 533-551.
Davenport, T.H. and Short, J.E. (1990), “The new industrial engineering: information technology
and business process redesign”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 1-46.
DeLone, W.H. and McLean, E.R. (1992), “Information systems success: the quest for the
dependent variable”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 60-95.
DeLone, W.H. and McLean, E.R. (2003), “The DeLone and McLean model of information systems
success: a ten year update”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp. 9-30.
Ein-Dor, P. and Segev, E. (1978), “Organizational context and the success of management
information systems”, Management Science, Vol. 24 No. 10, pp. 1064-1077.
Fui-Hoon Nah, F. and Santiago, D. (2006), “Critical success factors for enterprise resource
planning implementation and upgrade”, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 46
No. 5, pp. 99-129.
Gable, G., Sedera, D. and Chan, T. (2003), “Enterprise systems success: a measurement model”,
Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Information Systems, Seattle, WA,
14 December, available at: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/4743/ (accessed 10 November 2011).
Gupta, A. (2000), “Enterprise resource planning: the emerging organizational value systems”,
Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 100 No. 3, pp. 114-118.
Hakkinen, L. and Hilmola, O.P. (2008), “Life after ERP implementation: long-term development of
user perceptions of system success in an after-sales environment”, Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 285-309.
Hsu, K., Sylvestre, J. and Sayed, E.N. (2006), “Avoiding ERP pitfalls”, Journal of Corporate Successful ERP
Accounting and Finance, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 67-74.
Ifinedo, P. (2006a), “Enterprise resource planning systems success assessment: an integrative
implementation
framework”, PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science and Information Systems,
University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla.
Ifinedo, P. (2006b), “Extending the Gable et al. enterprise systems success measurement model:
a preliminary study”, Journal of Information Technology Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, 397
pp. 14-33.
Ifinedo, P. and Nahar, N. (2009), “Interactions between contingency, organizational IT factors and
ERP success”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 109 No. 1, pp. 118-137.
Inkpen, A. (1996), “Creating knowledge through collaboration”, California Management Review,
Vol. 39, pp. 123-140.
Kamhawi, E.M. (2007), “Critical factors for implementation success of ERP systems: an empirical
investigation from Bahrain”, International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems,
Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 34-49.
Karimi, J., Somers, T.M. and Bhattacherjee, A. (2007), “The impact of ERP implementation on
business process outcomes: a factor based study”, Journal of Management Information
Systems, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 101-134.
Kluse, C. (2009), “TQM and the government: the importance of leadership and personal
transformation”, The Journal for Quality & Participation, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 27-31.
Lassila, K.S. and Brancheau, J.C. (1999), “Adoption and utilization of commercial software
packages: exploring utilization equilibria, transitions, triggers, and tracks”, Journal of
Management Information Systems, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 63-90.
Martinsons, M.G. (2004), “ERP in China: on package, two profiles”, Communication of the ACM,
Vol. 47 No. 7, pp. 65-68.
Munns, A.K. and Bjeirmi, B.F. (1996), “The role of project management in achieving project
success”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 81-87.
Nah, F.F., Zuckweiler, K.M. and Lau, J.L. (2003), “ERP implementation: chief information officers’
perceptions of critical success factors”, International Journal of Human-Computer
Interaction, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 5-22.
Radosevich, L. (1999), “Measuring up, CIO”, Framingham, Vol. 12 No. 23, pp. 52-60.
Rosario, J.G. (2000), “Or the leading edge: critical success factors in ERP implementation
projects”, Business World, Vol. 17, pp. 15-29.
Seddon, P.B. (1997), “A respecification and extension of the DeLone and McLean model of IS
success”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 240-253.
Shaw, D. and Edwards, J.S. (2005), “Building user commitment to implementing a knowledge
management strategy”, Information & Management, Vol. 42 No. 7, pp. 977-988.
Somers, T.M. and Nelson, K.G. (2003), “The impact of strategy and integration mechanisms on
enterprise system value: empirical evidence from manufacturing firms”, European Journal
of Operational Research, Vol. 146 No. 2, pp. 315-338.
Sumner, M. (1999), “Critical success factors in enterprise wide information management systems
projects”, Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS),
New York, NY, available at: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id¼299722&dl¼ACM&
coll¼DL&CFID¼75908539&CFTOKEN¼16513917 (accessed 10 November 2011).
Tsai, C.H. and Chen, H.Y. (2007), “Assessing knowledge management system success: an
empirical study in Taiwan’s high tech industry”, Journal of American Academy of
Business, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 257-262.
BPMJ Wang, E., Chou, H.W. and Jiang, J.J. (2005), “The impacts of charismatic leadership style on
teaching cohesiveness and overall performance during ERP implementation”,
19,2 International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 173-180.
Wang, E.T.G., Chia-Lin Lin, C., Jiang, J.J. and Klein, G. (2007), “Improving enterprise resource
planning (ERP) fit to organizational process through knowledge transfer”, International
Journal of Information Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 200-212.
398 Wee, S. (2000), “Juggling toward ERP success: keep key success factors high”, ERP News,
available at: www.erpnews.com/erpnews/erp904/02get.html (accessed 10 November 2011).
Wong, A., Scarbrough, H., Chau, P. and Davison, R. (2005), “Critical failure factors in ERP
implementation”, PACIS 2005 Proceedings, available at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2005/40
(accessed 10 November 2011).

About the authors

Dara Schniederjans is a PhD Candidate in the Rawls College of Business, Texas Tech University,
Lubbock, Texas. Her research interests include business ethics and trust research, social issues
in supply chain management and information systems. She has published in journals like JORS,
Quality Management Journal and Global Studies Journal. Dara Schniederjans is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Surya Yadav is the Sowell Professor of Telecom Technology in the Rawls College of
Business, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas. His teaching interests are ERP systems,
research methodologies, and system development. His research areas include intelligent
information retrieval systems, text mining, and system security.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints