2.

0 An overview of Literature Review

An enterprise system software is defined by (Laudon and Laudon 2003:55) as a

firm wide information system that integrates key business processes so that
information can flow freely between different parts of the firm. It is also known as
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems and is used to provide firm wide
integration. According to (O’Brian, 2002), an enterprise system involves use of
groupware tools to support communication, coordination and collaboration among
the members of networked teams and workgroups.

Enterprise Application systems do offer a variety of application services such as,

filling an order scheduling a shipment, with the goal of eliminating complex and
expensive links between computer systems in many areas of businesses. This will
in turn produce a seamless flow of information which can be shared in a business
process. It cuts across processes such as in manufacturing, accounting, human
resources and other areas of
the firm ( Laudon and Laudon , 2003).

What is a system?
(Shapiro, Carl and Hal Varian, 1999) defines an information system as a group of
interrelated or interacting elements forming a unified whole. It is a group of
interrelated components working together toward a common goal by accepting
inputs and producing outputs in an organised transformation process.

What is Information Systems?

Information systems are systems that use information technology to capture,

transmit, store, retrieve, manipulate, or display information used in one or more
business processes (Alter, 1996:2). According to (O’Brian 2002:7) an
information system can be any organized combination of people, hardware ,
software , communications networks , and data resources that collects ,
transforms , and disseminates information in an organisation , however (Laudon
and Laudon ,2003 ) summarises an IS as a set of interrelated components that
collect information and disseminate it for support in decision making ,
coordination and control in an organisation.

Different kinds of Information Systems.

(Laudon and Laudon , 2002) highlights that there are four main types of
information systems which serve different levels in an organisation. These systems
are namely operational level system, knowledge level systems, management level
systems and strategic- level systems. The Operational level system supports
operational managers in keeping track of elementary activities within the
organisation. It answers routine questions and follows paths of transactions.
Knowledge –level systems support data and knowledge workers within an
organisation. It helps in integrating new knowledge into the business. The user
groups forms workstations and office systems for information usage.
Management- Level Systems are used in the monitoring, controlling
administration and decision making by middle managers. The information is rather
semi-structured and helps in answering “what if” questions. Strategic- level
systems help senior management in addressing strategic issues and long - term
trends.

Contemporary Approaches to Information Systems

Technical- Approach.
This approach emphasises use of mathematical models to study information
systems as well as the physical technology and formal capabilities of these
systems. It combines the disciplines of computer science, management science and
operations research. Computing science is concerned with establishing theories of
computability, methods of computation and methods of efficient data storage and
access. Management science emphasises development of models for decision
making and management practices. Operations research focuses on mathematical

1
techniques for optimising selected parameters of organisation such as inventory
control, queuing and transaction costs (Deans et al, 1992).

Behavioural Approaches
This approach highlights that information systems is concerned with behavioural
issues that arise in the development and long term maintenance of information
systems. Sociologists study information systems with an eye toward how groups
and organisations shape the development of systems and also how systems affect
individuals, groups and organisations. This approach asserts that psychologists
study information systems with an interest in how human decision makers
perceive and use formal information. Economists study information systems with
an interest in what impact systems have on control and cost structures within a
firm and within markets (Kling and Dutton, 1982).

Socio-Technical Systems Approach

This is a blend of technical and behavioural approaches. The approach arose from
the fact that no single perspective effectively captures the reality of information
systems (Davis and Olson, 1985). They assert that the fact that information
technology is rapidly declining in cost and growing in power does not necessarily
or easily translate into productivity enhancement or bottom- line profits. This view
is affirmed by (Liker et al, 1987) who say that organisations and individuals must
be changed through training, learning, and planned organisational change in order
to facilitate the operation and prosperity of technology. Socio-technical approach
is expected to produce an information system that blends technical efficiency with
sensitivity to organisational and human needs, leading to high job satisfaction
(Mumford and Weir, 1979).

What is Information Technology?

2
Mariosalexandrou.com (2006), defines information technology as referring to both
the hardware and software that are used to store, retrieve, and manipulate
information. At the lowest level you have the servers with an operating system.
Installed on these servers are things like database and web serving software. The
servers are connected to each other and to users via a network infrastructure. And
the users accessing these servers have their own hardware, operating system, and
software tools. This definition is affirmed by wikipedia.org which asserts that
information technology is the use of electronic computers and computer software
to convert, store, protect, process, transmit, and retrieve information. However
(Tuomi and Ilkka ,2000) adds that networks are a critical component of
information technology that they provide a portfolio for sharing resources within
the organisation. A combination of networks, hardware, and software is also
known as information technology infrastructure.

2.1 Benefits of Enterprise Systems.

An enterprise system collects data from various key business processes and stores
the data in a single comprehensive data repository where they can be used by other
business parts ( Palaniswamy and Tyler, 2000) . Managers emerge with more
precise and timely information for coordinating the daily operations of the
business and a firm wide view of business process and information flows.

Business Processes Supported by Enterprise Systems

Manufacturing processes Inventory management, purchasing, shipping,
production planning, material requirements
planning and plant equipment maintenance
Financial accounting Accounts payable, accounts receivable, cash
processes management, and forecasting, product cost
accounting, cost centre accounting, asset

3
 accounting, general ledger and financial
reporting.
Sales and marketing Order processing, pricing, shipping, billing, sales
processes management and sales planning.
Human Resources Processes Personnel administration, time accounting,
payroll, personnel planning and development,
benefits accounting, applicant tracking and travel
expense.

Table 2.1 Adopted from ( Laudon and Laudon , 2003)

Enterprise Systems promise to greatly change four dimensions of business: firm

structure, management process, technology platform and business capability
(Stein, 1999). He goes on to explain the dimensions in detail as follows.
1. Firm Structure and organization .: Enterprise systems can be used to
support organizational structures that were not previously possible such as
integrating the corporation across geographic or business unit boundaries
so as to create an organizational culture in which everyone uses similar
processes and information. This enables an enterprise – enabled
organisation to do business in the same way world wide with functional
boundaries deemphasised in favour of cross- functional coordination and
information flowing freely across business functions.
2. Management: Firm wide Knowledge-based Management Processes. It
improves management reporting and decision making. Information
supplied by an enterprise system is structured around cross- functional
business process and can be obtained rapidly. An example is when an
enterprise helps management to easily determine which products are more
or least profitable. . It thus supplies management with better data about
business processes and overall organisational performance.

4
3. Technology: Unified Platform: It provides firms with a single, unified, and
all-encompassing information system technology platform and
environment. Enterprise systems can create a single, integrated repository
that gathers data on all key business processes. The data have common,
standardised definitions and formats that are accepted by the entire
organisation
4. Businesses: More Efficient Operations and Customer-driven Businesses
Processes. Enterprise Systems can integrate key discrete business processes
such as sales, production, finance and logistics such that the entire
organization can efficiently respond to customer requests or information.
Manufacturing can use the produce only what the customers have ordered,
to procure exactly the amount of components to fill orders, stage
production and to minimise the time finished products are in inventory.

2.1.1 Challenges of Enterprise Systems

Enterprise systems can help improve organisational coordination, efficiency
and decision making, but they have proven difficulty to build. They do not
only require large technological investments but also fundamental changes in
the way business operates. Employees need take on new job functions and
responsibilities. Enterprise systems require complex piece of software and
large investments of time, money, and expertise. Enterprise systems raise
serious challenges for firms : a daunting implementation process , surviving a
cost/ benefit analysis , inflexibility and realising strategic value.
1. Daunting Implementation. Enterprise systems bring dramatic changes
to business, technological changes and fundamental changes in the way
a business operates. This means that firms implementing enterprise
systems have to come up with definitions for data, retrain employees,
and redesign their fundamental business processes. Failure to
understand such challenges will result in organisations having
problems in implementing enterprise systems or they may not achieve a

5
 higher level of functional and business process integration. For large
companies, it may take three to five years to fully implement all of the
organisational and technology changes required by an enterprise
system.
2. High up –Front Costs and future benefits: The costs of enterprise
systems are large, upfront highly visible. Though costs are obvious, the
benefits often can not be precisely quantified at the beginning of the
enterprise project. Benefits often accrue to employees using the system
after it is completed and gaining the knowledge of business operations
heretofore impossible to learn. High.
3. Inflexibility: The software for enterprise application system tends to be
difficult and complex to master. They are a worldwide shortage in
people with expertise to install and maintain it. If companies need to
make major changes the software, the entire system will have to be
changed. Since enterprise systems are integrated, it is difficult to make
a change in one section without affecting the other. Over time, it is
possible to bind firms to outdated business process and systems.
4. Realising Strategic Value. Companies may fail to achieve strategic
benefits from enterprise systems if integrating business processes by
the enterprise software prevents the firm from using unique business
processes that have been sources of advantage of competitors. This
applies if the enterprise is not compatible with the way the company
does business, the company may lose a better way of performing a key
business process that may be related to its competitive advantage.
Enterprise systems promote centralised organisational coordination and
decision making, which may not be the best way for firms to operate
(Davenport, 2000).

2.1.2 Business Process Reengineering.

6
(O’Brian 2002:59) defines BPR as a “fundamental rethinking and radical redesign
of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in cost, quality, speed,
and service”. The definition concurs with Groover et al. (1995) who affirm that
BPR is the critical analysis and radical redesign of existing business processes to
achieve breakthrough improvements in performance measures.

BPR is often used by companies on the brink of disaster to cut costs and return to
profitability (Fryer, 1994). He adds on to say the danger is that during this process
the company may slash its capacity for future growth. Its potential payback is
high , so is its risk of failure and level of disruption to the organisational
environment.

2.1.3 What is a Business Process?

Davenport & Short (1990) define business process as a set of logically related
tasks performed to achieve a defined business outcome. A process is a structured,
measured set of activities designed to produce a specified output for a particular
customer or market. It implies a strong emphasis on how work is done within an
organization (Davenport 1993). Business processes have two important
characteristics: (i) They have customers (internal or external), (ii) They cross
organizational boundaries, that is., they occur across or between organizational
subunits. One technique for identifying business processes in an organization is
the value chain method proposed by Porter and Millar (1985).

The Engineering Concept.

The concept of reengineering traces its origins back to management theories

developed as early as the nineteenth century. The purpose of reengineering is to
"make all your processes the best-in-class." Frederick Taylor suggested in the
1880's that managers could discover the best processes for performing work and
reengineer them to optimize productivity. BPR echoes the classical belief that
there is one best way to conduct tasks. In Taylor's time, technology did not allow
large companies to design processes in a cross- functional or cross-departmental

7
manner. Specialization was the state-of-the-art method to improve efficiency given
the technology of the time (Lloyd et al, 1994).

In the early 1900's, Henri Fayol originated the concept of reengineering: "To
conduct the undertaking toward its objectives by seeking to derive optimum
advantage from all available resources (Lloyd et al, 1994)." Although the
technological resources of our era have changed, the concept still holds. About the
same time, another business engineer, Lyndall Urwick stated "It is not enough to
hold people accountable for certain activities, it is also essential to delegate to
them the necessary authority to discharge that responsibility (Lloyd et al, 1994)."
This admonition foreshadows the idea of worker empowerment which is central to
reengineering.

According to ( Davenport , 1995 ) ,"classical reengineering" repeats the same

mistakes as the classical approach to management by separating the design of
work from its execution. Typically, a small reengineering team, often from outside
the company, designs work for the many. The team is fueled by assumptions such
as There is one best way to organize work; I can easily understand how you do
your work today; I can design your work better than you can; There is little about
your work now that is worth saving; You will do your work the way I specify
(Chew ,1994). Davenport suggests that the engineering model/analogy that BPR is
based upon is flawed, both in terms of process design and information technology.
He proposes an "ethnographic" approach to process design and an "ecological"
approach to information systems.

To reap lasting benefits, companies must be willing to examine how strategy and
reengineering complement each other -- by learning to quantify strategy (in terms
of cost, milestones, timetables); by accepting ownership of the strategy throughout
the organization; by assessing the organizations current capabilities and processes
realistically; and by linking strategy to the budgeting process. Otherwise BPR is
only a short term efficiency exercise (Berman, 1994).

8
Many articles point out that BPR must have the full support of top management to
succeed. If resistance is encountered, the leader must be willing to "drive" change,
even to the point of ruthlessness. A leader of BPR ought to have following
qualities; Relentless adherence to what is right; Courage -- moral as well as
physical; Recognition that surface appearance is often an illusion; A dogged
determination to get at the deeper truth (Furey et al, 1993). Managers in a
company undergoing reorganization must work to quell the fears of employees and
resistance to change (despite the fact that they may have their own apprehensions.

Reengineering advocates urge management to pull out all the stops and implement
change on a grand scale. Managers in the organizations after reengineering are
compared to coaches. They do not order; they guide. They do not direct the work
of others; they coordinate, facilitate and empower (Cone, 1994).

For information and responsibility to move down to the local level, then the key
question is how can you be sure that people will behave appropriately? You need
to make sure that everyone is playing by the same rule book (Brown, 1994).
Although companies which are seeking to reengineer may work on revamping the
performance appraisal system to support new values, this can be problematic.
When bonuses are linked to profits or even the performance of a team, this may
lead to a situation where the individual is judged on factors beyond his or her
control.

Business Process Redesign is "the analysis and design of workflows and processes
within and between organizations" (Davenport & Short 1990).

2.2. What is the Relation between BPR & Information

Technology?

9
Hammer (1990) considers information technology (IT) as the key enabler of BPR
which he considers as "radical change." He prescribes the use of IT to challenge
the assumptions inherent in the work processes that have existed since long before
the advent of modern computer and communications technology. He argues that at
the heart of reengineering is the notion of "discontinuous thinking -- or
recognizing and breaking away from the outdated rules and fundamental
assumptions underlying operations... These rules of work design are based on
assumptions about technology, people, and organizational goals that no longer
hold." He suggests the following "principles of reengineering": (a) Organise
around outcomes, not tasks; (b) Have those who use the output of the process
perform the process; (c) Subsume information processing work into the real work
that produces the information; (d) Treat geographically dispersed resources as
though they were centralised; (e) Link parallel activities instead of integrating their
results; (f) Put the decision point where the work is performed, and build control
into the process; and (g) Capture information once and at the source.

Davenport & Short (1990) argue that BPR requires taking a broader view of both
IT and business activity, and of the relationships between them. IT should be
viewed as more than an automating or mechanizing force: to fundamentally
reshape the way business is done.

Business activities should be viewed as more than a collection of individual or

even functional tasks: in a process view for maximizing effectiveness. IT and BPR
have recursive relationship. IT capabilities should support business processes, and
business processes should be in terms of the capabilities IT can provide.
Davenport & Short (1990) refer to this broadened, recursive view of IT and BPR
as the new industrial engineering.

2.2.1 Why BPR Projects Fail? What can be done about it?

Challenges of innovation and implementation often results in high failure rate

among enterprise system and business process reengineering (BPR) projects. The

10
cause may be a requirement for extensive organisational change and may require
replacing old technologies and legacy systems that are deeply rooted in many
interrelated business processes (Lloyd, Dewar and Pooley, 1999). Studies have
shown that 70% of the BPR projects fail to deliver promised benefits. A high
percentage of enterprise resource planning projects fail to be fully implemented or
meet the goals of their users even after three years of work (Gillooly, 1998).

Many enterprise system and reengineering projects have been undermined by poor
implementation and change management practices that failed to address
employees concerns about change. Dealing with fear and anxiety throughout the
organization, overcoming resistance by key managers , changing job functions ,
career paths , and recruitment practices and training have posed greater threats to
reengineering than the difficulties companies faced visualizing and designing
breakthrough changes to business processes ( Laudon and Laudon,2003). It is also
cited that an enterprise system create a number of synergies to eliminate redundant
activities and to make better management decisions. Employees are often
unprepared for new procedures and roles (Davenport, 1998, 2000).

Biggest obstacles that reengineering faces are: (i) Lack of sustained management
commitment and leadership; (ii) Unrealistic scope and expectations; and (iii)
Resistance to Change.

Based on the BPR consultants' interviews, ( Bashein et al,1994) outline the

positive preconditions for BPR success as: Senior Management Commitment and
Sponsorship; Realistic Expectations; Empowered and Collaborative Workers;
Strategic Context of Growth and Expansion; Shared Vision; Sound Management
Practices; Appropriate People Participating Full-Time and Sufficient Budget. They
also identify negative preconditions related to BPR as: The Wrong Sponsor; a "Do
It to Me" Attitude; Cost-Cutting Focus; and, Narrow Technical Focus. The
negative preconditions relating to the Organization include: Unsound Financial

11
Condition; Too Many Projects Under Way; Fear and Lack of Optimism; and,
Animosity Toward and By IS and Human Resource (HR) Specialists.

King (1994) views the primary reason of BPR failure as overemphasis on the
tactical aspects and the strategic dimensions being compromised. He notes that
most failures of reengineering are attributable to the process being viewed and
applied at tactical, rather than strategic, levels. He discusses that there are
important strategic dimensions to BPR, notably, Developing and Prioritizing
Objectives; Defining the Process Structure and Assumptions; Identifying Trade-
Offs Between Processes; Identifying New Product and Market Opportunities;
Coordinating the Reengineering Effort; and, Developing a Human Resources
Strategy. He concludes that the ultimate success of BPR depends on the people
who do it and on how well they can be motivated to be creative and to apply their
detailed knowledge to the redesign of business processes (Davenport & Stoddard
1994, Markus et al. 1994).

Reengineering Recommendations
 BPR must be accompanied by strategic planning, which addresses
leveraging IT as a competitive tool.
 Place the customer at the center of the reengineering effort -- concentrate
on reengineering fragmented processes that lead to delays or other negative
impacts on customer service.
 BPR must be "owned" throughout the organization, not driven by a group
of outside consultants.
 Case teams must be comprised of both managers as well as those will
actually do the work.
 The IT group should be an integral part of the reengineering team from the
start.
 BPR must be sponsored by top executives, who are not about to leave or
retire.
 BPR projects must have a timetable, ideally between three to six months,
so that the organization is not in a state of "limbo".

BPR must not ignore corporate culture and must emphasize constant
communication and feedback

12
 2.3 Value Chain Analysis - Role of an Enterprise system

The value chain “describes the full range of activities which are required to bring a
product or service from conception, through the different phases of production (involving
a combination of physical transformation and the input of various producer services),
delivery to final customers, and final disposal after use” (Kaplinsky and Morris, 2000). It
is also defined as a systematic approach to examining the development of competitive
advantage. It was created by M. E. Porter in his book, "Competitive Advantage: Creating
and Sustaining superior Performance" (1985). The value chain analysis describes the
activities the organization performs and links them to the organizations competitive
position.

Value chain analysis describes the activities within and around an organization, and
relates them to an analysis of the competitive strength of the organization. Therefore, it
evaluates which value each particular activity adds to the organizations products or
services. This idea was built upon the insight that an organization is more than a random
compilation of machinery, equipment, people and money. Only if these things are
arranged into systems and systematic activates it will become possible to produce
something for which customers are willing to pay a price. Porter argues that the ability to
perform particular activities and to manage the linkages between these activities is a
source of competitive advantage.

Porter distinguishes between primary activities and support activities. Primary activities
are directly concerned with the creation or delivery of a product or service. They can be
grouped into five main areas: inbound logistics, operations, outbound logistics, marketing
and sales, and service. Each of these primary activities is linked to support activities
which help to improve their effectiveness or efficiency.

There are four main areas of support activities: procurement, technology development
(including R&D), human resource management, and infrastructure (systems for planning,
finance, quality, information management etc.).

13
The term ‚Margin’ implies that organizations realize a profit margin that depends on their
ability to manage the linkages between all activities in the value chain. In other words,
the organization is able to deliver a product / service for which the customer is willing to
pay more than the sum of the costs of all activities in the value chain.

2.4 Resource Based View- An Enterprise System as a resource

The resource-based approach focuses on the characteristics of resources and the strategic
factor markets from which they are obtained to explain firm heterogeneity and
sustainable advantage. Firm decisions about selecting and accumulating resources are
characterized as economically rational within the constraints of limited information,
cognitive biases and causal ambiguity (Amit and Schoemaker, 1993; Ginsberg, 1994;
Lippman and Rumelt, 1982; Peteraf, 1993; Reed and DeFillippi, 1990). According to this
view, it is the rational identification and use of resources that are valuable, rare, difficult

14
to copy, and non substitutable which lead to enduring firm variation and supernormal
profits (Barney, 1991, 1992).

A resource-based view proposes that resource selection and accumulation are a function
of both within-firm decision-making and external strategic factors. Within-firm
managerial choices are guided by an economic rationality and by motives of efficiency,
effectiveness and profitability (Conner, 1991). External influences are strategic industry
factors that impact the firm, including buyer and supplier power, intensity of competition,
and industry and product market structure. These factors influence what resources are
selected, as well as how they are selected and deployed.

2.5 Concept of Change Management in Enterprise Systems.

Change management is defined by www.bitpipe.com as “a systematic approach to

dealing with change, both from the perspective of an organization and on the individual
level”. Change management has at least three different aspects, including: adapting to
change, controlling change, and effecting change. A proactive approach to dealing with
change is at the core of all three aspects. For an organization change management means
defining and implementing procedures and or technologies to deal with changes in the
business environment and to profit from changing opportunities.

Successful adaptation to change is as crucial within an organization as it is in the natural

world. Just like plants and animals, organizations and the individuals in them inevitably
encounter changing conditions that they are powerless to control. The more effectively
you deal with change, the more likely you are to thrive. Adaptation might involve
establishing a structured methodology for responding to changes in the business (Markus
and Benjamin, 1997).

To effectively manage change surrounding the introduction of a new information system,

one must examine the process of implementation (Swanson, 1988). Implementation refers
to all organisational activities working toward adaptation, and reutilisation of an

15
innovation such as a new information system. In the implementation process, the systems
analyst is a change agent.

Causes of Implementation Success and Failure.

1. User Involvement and influence. Involvement of users in the design of information
systems has several positive results. Involving users in the systems design creates
opportunities to mold the system according to their priorities and business requirements
and more opportunities to control the outcome. They react positively to the completed
system since they are active participants in the change process itself. Even when such
involvement is limited, hands-on experience with the system helps users to appreciate its
benefits and encourages useful suggestions for improvements (De and Ferrat, 1998). It
should be noted however that often take a very narrow and limited view of the problem to
be solved and may overlook important opportunities. This makes use of experts’
knowledge critical in this process (Markus and Keil, 1994).

Systems development projects run a high risk of failure when they is a pronounced gap
between users and technicians. When users can not comprehend what information experts
are saying, users conclude that the entire project is best left in the hands of those experts.
This may result in the system failing to serve the organisational goals ( Laudon and
Laudon ,2003).

2. Management Support and Commitment. Commitment of management at various levels

of the systems project is likely to be perceived positively by both users and technical
informational staff. I f a manager considers a new system to be a priority , the system will
more likely be treated that way by his or her subordinates (Doll,1985; Ein-Dor and
Segev, 1978).
However, management support can backfire sometimes. Sometimes management
becomes overcommitted to a project, pouring excessive resources into systems
development effort that is failing or should never have been undertaken in the first place
(Newman and Sabherwal, 1996).

16
3. Level of Complexity and Risk. Systems differ dramatically in their size, scope,
complexity and technical components (McFarlan, 1981). Researchers have identified
three key dimensions that influence the level of project risk namely project size, project
structure and experience with technology. The larger the project as indicated by dollars
spent, size of implementation staff, time allocated to implementation and organisational
units affected, the greater the risk. Projects structure where users know exactly what the
system should do and no possibility of them changing their minds, then such projects
runs a lower risk than where requirements are undefined, fluid and constantly changing.
The project risk will rise if the project team and information staff lack the required
technical expertise.

4. Management of the Implementation Process. The development of a new system must

be carefully managed and orchestrated. Training to ensure that end users are comfortable
with the new system and that they fully understand its potential uses are forgotten in
systems development projects. If the budget is constrained from the beginning, toward
the end of a project there will likely be insufficient funds for training (Bikson et al.,
1985).It is estimated that between 30 and 40%of all software projects are run away
projects that far exceed original schedule and budget projections and fail to perform as
originally specified (Keil, Mann, and Rai ,2000) . Some possibilities of why some
projects are poorly managed are, Ignorance and optimisism where estimating length of
time required analysing and design the systems are poorly developed I n some instances
there is no prior experience in the application area. Among projects in all fields , slippage
in projects , failure and doubts are often not reported to senior management until it is too
late ( Keil and Robey ,2001).

Implementers should adopt a contingency approach to project management with

appropriate tools and linking the organisation to its level of risk (McFarlan, 1981).
Success of projects with high levels of technology benefit depends with how technical
complexities are managed. Project management can help managers identify bottlenecks
and determine the impact that problems will have on completion times. They can also
help system developers’ partition implementation into smaller, more manageable

17
segments with defined, measurable results (Fichman and Moses, 1999). Implementation
process demands organisational change. Such change may be resisted, because different
users may be affected by the system in different ways. Some users may welcome a new
system because it brings changes they perceive as beneficial to them, other may resist
these changes because they believe the shifts are detrimental to their interests (Josh,
1991). If use of the system is voluntary, users may choose to avoid it, if use is mandatory,
resistance will take form of increased error rates, disruptions, turnover and even sabotage.
Therefore, the implementation strategy must not only encourage user participation and
involvement, it must also address the issue of counter implementation (Keen, 1981).

Strategies to overcome user resistance include participation (to elicit commitment as well
as to improve design), user education and training, management edicts and policies
(Laudon and Laudon, 2003). Hence, quality of enterprise systems should be evaluated in
terms of user criteria rather criteria of developer’s staff. In a research that was done it was
found that restructuring of work – involving tasks, quality of working life, and
performance – had a more profound impact than the nature of the technology itself
(Turner, 1984).

2.6 Conclusion from literature

Installing an enterprise system will achieve dramatic results. This comes to be if the
period of change is managed well .Nicholas (1996) notes that before effecting change,
know the business before you try to change anything and finish what you start.

Empirical studies notes that Business Process Reengineering is characterised by seventy

percent failure even after three years of using enterprise application system (Gillooly,
1998). This puts more need for a research to be carried out in the Zimbabwe Revenue
Authority enterprise system. The main thrust would be to find the whether the system
was successfully implemented and if not what remedies can be made to bring it to
achieve intended results. Dobriansky (2004) asserts that implementing an enterprise
system is not a science but an art. It requires planning, solid evaluation, commitment,

18
resources and discipline. The research will then test the situation in Zimbabwe Revenue
Authority to address the identified problems on the ground to come up with.

References.

1. Alter,S. (1996). Information System and Management Perspective.

Benjamin Kumming Publishing Company.
2. Amit, R. and P. J. H. Schoemaker (1993). ‘Strategic assets and
organizational rent’, Strategic Management Journal, 14(1).
3. Barney J. B. (1991). ‘Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage’,
Journal of Management, 17.
4.
5. Ashein, B.J., Markus, M.L., & Riley, P. (1994 Spring). "Preconditions for
BPR Success: And How to Prevent Failures," Information Systems
Management, 11(2)

6. Conner, K. R. (1991). ‘A historical comparison of resource-based theory

and five schools of thought within industrial organizational economics: Do
we have a new theory of the firm?’ Journal of Management, 17.
7. Cooper ,D.R.,& Schindler P.S. Business Research Methods. Tata
Mcgraw-Hill 2003 ,8th Ed.

8. Davenport, T.H. & Short, J.E. (1990 Summer). "The New Industrial
Engineering: Information Technology and Business Process Redesign,"
Sloan Management Review .

9. Davenport, T.H. (1993). Process Innovation, Harvard Business School

Press, Boston, MA.

10. Davenport, T.H. (1994 July). "Reengineering: Business Change of Mythic

Proportions?" MIS Quarterly .

19
11. Doll ,W,J .”Avenues for Top Management Involvement Successful MIS
Development.” MIS Quarterly (March 1985).

12. Davenport, T.H. & Beers, M.C. (1995). "Managing Information About
Processes," Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(1).

13. Dobriansky, J. (2004) “Build your Accounting System to provide relevant

and useful business information,” Contract Management .

14. Earl, M.J., Sampler, J.L. & Short, J.E. (1995). "Strategies for Business
Process Reengineering: Evidence from Field Studies," Journal of
Management Information Systems, 12(1),

15. Ein –Dor .P and Eli Segev . “Organisational Context and the Success of
MIS.”Mnagement Science 24 ( June 1978).

16. Fichman, R G and Scott A.M. An Incremental Process for Software

Implementation.” Sloan Management Review 40, no 2 ( Winter 1999)

17. Ginsberg, A. (1994). ‘Minding the competition: mapping to mastery’,

Strategic Management Journal, Winter Special Issue, 15.
18. Grover, V., Jeong, S.R., Kettinger, W.J. & Teng, J.T.C. (1995). "The
Implementation of Business Process Reengineering," Journal of
Management Information Systems, 12(1).

19. Hammer, M. (1990, July-August). "Reengineering Work: Don't Automate,

Obliterate," Harvard Business Review.

20. Kaplinsky, R. and Morris, M. (2000). A handbook for value chain research. IDRC
21. Kettinger, W.J. & Grover, V. (1995). "Special Section: Toward a Theory
of Business Process Change Management," Journal of Management
Information Systems, 12(1).

20
22. King, W.R. (1994 Spring). "Process Reengineering: The Strategic
Dimensions," Information Systems Management, 11(2).

23. Kotler ,P.(1997). Marketing Management: Analysis ,Planning,

Implementation and Control, Prentice Hall

24. Laudon,K,C & Laudon J.P ( 2003 ). Management Information Systems.

Prentice-Hall ,India 7th Ed .
25. Lippman, S. and R. P. Rumelt (1982). ‘Uncertain imitability: An analysis
of interfirm differences in efficiency under competition’, Bell Journal of
Economics, 13.
26. Nicholas, M. (1996) “9 Tips for Change Agents,” Issue 05 .

27. Maanen,J.V., Dabbs ,J.M.,Faulkner ,R.R. (1982). Varieties of Qualitative

Research , Beverly Hills ,CA: Sage Publications

28. Markus,M and Robert, B. “The Magic Bullet Theory of IT- Enabled
Transformation.” Sloan Management Review (Winter 1997).

29. Marshal ,C & Rossman ,G.B . Designing Qualitative Research. Newbury

Park ,CA : Sage Publications , 1989.

30. McFarlan, W. “Portfolio Approach to Information Systems.” Harvard

Business Review (September to October 1981).

31. Reed, R. and R. J. DeFillippi (1990). ‘Causal ambiguity, barriers to

imitation, and sustainable competitive advantage’, Academy of
Management Review, 15
32. Porter, M.E. (1985). Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining
Superior Performance. New York: The Free Press.

33. Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy. Free Press, New York.

21
34. Stoddard, D.B. & Jarvenpaa, S.L. (1995). "Business Process Redesign:
Tactics for Managing Radical Change," Journal of Management
Information Systems, 12(1), pp. 81-107.

35. Swanson, E.B. Information Systems Implementation. Homewood, IL:

Richard D Irwin (1988).

36. www.bitpipe.com/tlist/Change-Management.html 02/09/2006

37. O’brian ,J,A (2002). Managing Information Systems ,Tata Mcgraw Hill Publishing
Company., India.

38. http://www.mariosalexandrou.com/definition/information-technology.asp
of 18/10/06

39. . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_technology of 18/10/06

40. Tuomi, Ilka. “ Data Is More Than Knowledge”. Journal of Mnagement

Information Systems 16, no.3 (Winter 1999-2000).

41. Deans, Candace P, and Kane M.J, International Dimensions of Information

Systems and Technology. Boston ,MA:PWS-Kent (1992).

42. Davis G B and Olson M H, Management Information Systems: Conceptual

Foundations, Structure, and Development, 2nd Ed New York: McGraw-Hill
(1985).

43. Liker J K, David B R and Roskies E , “ Changing Everything All at Once

: Work Life and Technological Change.” Sloan Management Review
(Summer 1987).

44. Palaniswamy , R and Tyler F . “Enhancing Manufacturing Performance

with ERP Systems.” Information Systems Management (Summer 2000)

45. Tom Stein , “Making ERP Add Up,” Information Week, May 24 , 1999

22
46. Brown, Tom, De-engineering the Corporation, Industry Week, April 18,
1994; Pg. 18.
47. Berman, Saul, Strategic Direction: Don't Reengineer Without It; Scanning
the Horizon for Turbulence, Planning Review, November 1994; Pg. 18.

48. Furey, Tim R. and Garlitz, Jennifer L. and Kelleher, Michael L., Applying
Information Technology to Reengineering, Planning Review, November
1993; Pg. 22.

49. Chew, Angie, How Insurance Firms Can Reengineer for Success, Business
Times, June 20, 1994; Pg. 11.

50. Cone, Edward, Technology Chief of the Year; All the Right Moves -- Tom
Trainer of Reebok International Successfully Teamed Business
Reengineering with Information Technology, InformationWeek, December
26, 1994; Pg. 35.
51. Turner J A. “Computer Mediated Work: The interplay Between
Technology and Structured Jobs.” Communication of the ACM 27
(December 1984).

52. Joshi, Kailash. ‘A Model of Users Perspective on Change: The Case of

Information Systems Technology Implementation.” MIS Quarterly 15, no
2 (June 1991).

53.

23