The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1741-0398.htm

A multi-disciplinary review Enablers and

barriers to
of enablers and barriers to Cloud Cloud ERP

ERP implementation
and innovation outcomes
Imran Ali and Ngoc Dang Khoa Nguyen Received 12 August 2022
Revised 16 March 2023
School of Business and Law, Central Queensland University-Melbourne Campus, Accepted 3 April 2023
Melbourne, Australia, and
Shivam Gupta
Department of Information Systems,
Supply Chain Management and Decision Support, NEOMA Business School,
Reims, France

Abstract
Purpose – Due to the unprecedented disruptions in business operations, many organisations are turning to
Cloud ERP implementation to ensure employees can access real-time business information from anywhere,
enabling the continuity of business activities. As a result, over the past decades, literature on Cloud ERP
implementation has seen significant growth across different subject areas. This paper aims to present a
systematic literature review (SLR) that consolidates the literature scattered across various multidisciplinary
subject areas, explores recent developments and identifies knowledge gaps for more impactful future research.
Design/methodology/approach – An SLR approach has been applied to a sample of 73 articles published
until 1 February 2022.
Findings – Our SLR identifies and consolidates a set of critical enablers and barriers to the implementation of
Cloud ERP. What is particularly interesting is that this study established a link between these enablers and
barriers and four key innovation outcomes: product, service, process and business model innovations.
A rigorous framework has been devised that demonstrates the nexus between enablers and barriers to Cloud
ERP implementation and innovation outcomes in an organisation. In addition, this study has recognised
several organisational theories from information systems literature that have the potential for future research
in this emerging area.
Research limitations/implications – This SLR makes several theoretical contributions to the literature on
Cloud ERP implementation and its impact on innovation outcomes.
Practical implications – The review consolidates a wide range of literature to provide decision-makers with
an integrated understanding of the most influential factors in Cloud ERP implementation.
Originality/value – SLR provides a comprehensive analysis of the current state of research on the topic,
offering unique perspectives on developments in theory and knowledge gaps, as well as identifying future
research opportunities in the area.
Keywords Systematic literature review, Cloud ERP, Barrier, Enabler, Innovation
Paper type Research article

1. Introduction
In the wake of unprecedented disruptions in business operations, cloud-based enterprise
resource planning (Cloud ERP) implementation has received tremendous attention from
organisations. This implementation helps ensure that employees can access real-time
business information from anywhere, thereby maintaining business continuity (Mahmood
et al., 2020; Chofreh et al., 2018). Cloud ERP services include enterprise-wide information
system packages that consist of a comprehensive set of software modules. These modules Journal of Enterprise Information
Management
coordinate multiple business processes across different functional units by means of a single © Emerald Publishing Limited
1741-0398
data repository (Al-Shboul, 2019; Sancar Gozukara et al., 2020). It is estimated that by 2023, DOI 10.1108/JEIM-08-2022-0273
JEIM approximately 65% of enterprises will be using Cloud ERP, as reported by Bandara et al.
(2023). The top 10 global ERP companies, including Accenture, SAP, Oracle, Microsoft Azure,
Sage and others (see Table 1), offer enterprises the ability to adopt various digital business
models in diverse industries, such as manufacturing (33.66%), IT (14.85%), financial services
(13.86%), healthcare (4.95%) and utilities (3.96%), as reported by Panorama Consulting
Group (2020) and Gartner (2020). Cloud adoption has exceeded expectations in various
disciplines since 2020, with 17% of ERP systems using hybrid cloud, 12% of ERP solutions in
public cloud systems and 46% of ERP services in private setups, according to Accenture
(2020). Consequently, the utilisation of business-to-business (B2B) commerce services or
transformation has significantly increased over the past decades, and the global ERP market
is expected to grow to USD 130 billion by 2027, as reported by Deloitte (2021), IBM (2021) and
MarketsandMarkets (2022).
Recent studies (e.g. Chang, 2020; Gupta et al., 2020a, b) have outlined several benefits of
Cloud ERP. These benefits include the capability to integrate different functional units on
cloud platforms in real-time, handle high-volume data with flexible accessibility and
standards and do so at low operating and maintenance costs. Amid the global spread of
coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in early 2020, Cloud ERP played a critical role in ensuring
continued business operations in a highly turbulent and disruptive business environment
(Singh et al., 2021; Ali et al., 2022). The organisations that have embraced cloud ERP could
work remotely, thereby holding up their business performance (Ahn and Ahn, 2020). The
digital Europe programme (DEP) envisages a budget of 7.58bn euros for 2021–2027 to
support the advanced digital infrastructure including Cloud ERP (Lomba et al., 2022;
European Commission, 2022). Cloud ERP services can help reduce up to 20% of global annual
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 (Bieser and Hilty, 2018). Given the myriad benefits
of Cloud ERP services, growth in literature across multiple discipline areas is evident.

ERP software Best for Deployment Modules/Editions Authors

1 SAP S/ Medium to Cloud-based Sales and Distribution, Human SAP

4HANA large and on-premises Capital, Supply Chain and
Logistics, Analytics, IoT, etc
2 Oracle Small to Cloud-based Financials, Supply Chain, (ORACLE
NetSuite medium Warehouse, Production, etc NETSUITE)
3 Oracle ERP Small to Cloud-based Enterprise Performance (ORACLE)
Cloud large Management, Supply Chain and
Manufacturing, Analytics, etc
4 Microsoft Small to Cloud-based Financials, Risk Management and (Microsoft
Dynamics 365 large and on-premises Procurement Dynamics 365)
5 Epicor ERP Small to Cloud-based Point of Sale (PoS), e-Commerce, (EPICOR)
large and on-premises Distribution and Manufacturing
6 Sage Intacct Small to Cloud-based Financials, Inventory, (Sage Intacct)
medium Purchasing, etc
7 SAP Business Small Cloud-based Inventory, Product Planning, (SAP)
One Financials, Business Intelligence,
etc
8 Salesforce Small to Cloud-based Commerce, Service, Sales, (Salesforce)
CRM large and on-premises Marketing, IoT, etc
9 Acumatica Small to Cloud-based General Business, Distribution (Acumatica)
medium and Manufacturing
Table 1. 10 Odoo Small to Cloud-based Sales, Financials Marketing, (Odoo)
Top 10 global Cloud large Purchasing, etc
ERP services Source(s): Authors work
Following the significant growth in literature across various disciplines, it is essential to Enablers and
conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) to consolidate key themes, knowledge barriers to
trajectories and trends. This approach facilitates more impactful research on promising
topics while avoiding duplication of scientific contributions by identifying what has already
Cloud ERP
been done and what still needs investigation for field advancement. While some insightful
SLRs have been carried out on the topic to date, much remains to be learned.
For example, Sørheller et al. (2018) reviewed 17 articles published between 2013 and 2017,
recognising issues associated with Cloud ERP implementation. Abd Elmonem et al. (2016)
conducted an SLR of 31 articles published from 2011 to 2016, identifying the benefits and
challenges of Cloud ERP implementation. Aulia et al. (2019) reviewed 31 articles published from
2011 to 2016, determining the benefits and challenges before Cloud ERP implementation.
Mahmood et al. (2020) reviewed 53 articles published between 1999 and 2018, identifying 10
challenges faced by ERP implementation projects. Tongsuksai et al. (2019) reviewed 18 articles
published between 2011 and 2019, exploring critical success factors (CSFs) for the
implementation of Cloud ERP. Yasiukovich and Haddara (2020) stressed the importance of
Cloud ERP adoption for SMEs by reviewing 71 articles and offering a classification of articles
based on six phases of adoption: adoption decision, acquisition, implementation, use and
maintenance, evolution and retirement. Huang et al. (2021) reviewed 10 articles published
between 2013 and 2019, identifying CSFs of Cloud ERP implementation. Recent research
suggests that successful implementation of Cloud ERP leads to various innovation outcomes,
including product, service or business model innovations (Alismaili et al., 2020; Chang, 2020;
Gupta et al., 2018b). Despite the pertinent link between Cloud ERP implementation and
innovation outcomes, the existing literature reviews have missed the opportunity to offer
comprehensive insights into the enablers and barriers to Cloud ERP implementation and their
relationship with innovation outcomes. Previous research has highlighted the challenges in
attaining the enablers of Cloud ERP implementation, and additional corporate changes are
necessary to unlock their potential. To date, various dimensions of Cloud ERP implementation
have been explored, ranging from conceptualising the benefits and challenges of Cloud ERP
alongside adoption stages (Chen et al., 2015), investigating successful cases of Cloud ERP in
different sectors and countries (Ahmed et al., 2020), to examining CSFs relevant to the decision
of Cloud ERP services (Marinho et al., 2021). However, the existing literature has either
overlooked the entire implementation process or has rarely associated implementation with the
enabled innovation types (product, service, process or business model innovation).
Against this backdrop, our manuscript aims to explore the association between Cloud
ERP implementation and innovation. Specifically, we focus on the enablers, barriers and
types of innovation involved. Our SLR offers fresh and in-depth insights into the most
influential factors that enable or hinder Cloud ERP implementation. Additionally, our review
sheds light on the relationship between categories of enablers and barriers and four types of
innovation outcomes: product, process, service and business model innovation. To achieve
this objective, we address the following three research questions:
(1) What is the current state-of-the-art on the enablers and barriers of Cloud ERP
implementation and their connections with innovation outcomes?
(2) What is the theoretical development of the field?
(3) What are the promising opportunities for more impactful research in the area?
The rest of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 outlines the review methodology and
provides a classification of the literature, as well as recent developments and trends in the
research. Section 3 concludes the review by discussing theoretical and practical implications
and provides a future scope of research.
JEIM 2. Review methodology
In accordance with our research questions, we employed an SLR approach guided by Gupta
et al. (2020a, b). This approach allowed us to synthesise and evaluate relevant studies in a
transparent and reproducible manner, as advocated by Tranfield et al. (2003). Our SLR builds
upon the seminal work of Gupta et al. (2020a, b), with three main sections: (1) planning the
review; (2) conducting the review; and (3) reporting and dissemination. Each of these sections
is further divided into sub-sections. Section 2.1 details the review’s preparation stage,
including the investigation of relevant literature. In Sections 2.2 and 2.3, we explore various
aspects of Cloud ERP implementation and their relationship to innovation outcomes.

2.1 Retrieving related literature

Scopus, one of the largest databases for academic journals and conference proceedings, is the
primary source of article collection for this SLR. Researchers can use Scopus to search for
articles from multiple subject areas, including Business, Management and Accounting,
Engineering, Computer Science, Social Sciences and others, allowing for interdisciplinary
perspectives. Since the literature on Cloud ERP implementation is spread across various
subject areas, Scopus is the most suitable database for this review.
The review focuses on the interface of two aspects: Cloud ERP and its implementation.
Cloud ERP facilitates active collaboration, encourages the transformation of a conventional
business model and promotes business values in the market (Sharma and Sehrawat, 2020).
Additionally, Cloud ERP plays a facilitative role in assisting organisations to attain improved
performance and accelerate productivity growth with minimum cost (Wang and Kogan, 2020;
L
opez and Ishizaka, 2017). Moreover, the implementation helps firms to compete with other
corporations by utilising an advanced and inexpensive service (Alsharari et al., 2020).
Furthermore, Cloud ERP provides business leaders with an authentic reference utilised in the
decision-making process of their firms regarding empirical evidence on the benefits and
challenges (Chang, 2020; Senarathna et al., 2018). Such an implementation can enable firms to
deliver innovation in services, products or processes, promoting firm competitiveness
(Alismaili et al., 2020).
With the help of the keywords depicted in Table 2, we independently searched for the two
concepts on Scopus. Next, we integrated the search outcomes by employing an “AND”
operator between the two search strings in Scopus. The keyword string provided in Table 2
can be copied and pasted into the advanced search section of Scopus to see the results of this
review. Notably, since we have considered articles published online until 1 February 2022, the
total number of documents may be slightly more than our sample, as Scopus actively updates
its database.
Figure 1 demonstrates the article search and screening process. To illustrate this, we
searched for Cloud ERP-associated keywords in the first stage (as depicted in Table 2),
resulting in 92,230 documents. The second stage was carried out by taking implementation-
related keywords, resulting in 21,402,807 documents. Following the study conducted by
Gupta et al. (2020a, b), in the third stage, we merged both keywords, resulting in 57,596 journal
articles. Scholars from many disciplines except computer science prefer to publish these
papers in journals compared to conferences. As a result, we have limited the search to review
papers, articles and articles in press in the fourth stage. Furthermore, we have excluded
articles in languages other than English. This process yielded 1,311 research papers (Stage 4,
Figure 1). We then limited the time span from 2012 to 1 February 2022, resulting in 1,277
documents (Stage 5, Figure 1). In the final (sixth) stage, we only included good-quality journal
articles (A*, A and B rank in the ABDC list) to ensure the reliability of the findings.
Additionally, this stage included articles with a DOI (Digital Object Identifier). The entire
article screening process yielded a final set of 73 research articles for this SLR.
Keywords
Enablers and
Cloud ERP Implementation barriers to
Cloud ERP
or “cloud computing” develop* or
or “cloud-based ERP” innovate* or
or “cloud enterprise resource planning” challenge* or
or “Cloud ERP” benefit* or
barrier* or
driver* or
strateg* or
“success factor*” or
obstacle* or
enabler* or

Search syntax

Search syntax on Scopus (Search performed on ((TITLE-ABS-KEY (“cloud computing”) OR TITLE-ABS-

1st February 2022 on www.scopus.com KEY (“cloud-based ERP”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (“cloud
enterprise resource planning”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY
(“cloud ERP”))) AND ((TITLE-ABS-KEY (implement*) OR
TITLE-ABS-KEY (develop*) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY
(innovat*) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (challenge*) OR TITLE-
ABS-KEY (benefit*) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (barrier*) OR
TITLE-ABS-KEY (driver*) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (strateg*)
OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (“success factor*”) OR TITLE-ABS-
KEY (obstacle*) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (enabler*))) AND
(LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”)) AND (LIMIT-TO
(SUBJAREA, “BUSI”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE,
“English”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2021) OR LIMIT-
TO (PUBYEAR, 2020) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2019) OR
LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2018) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR,
2017) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2016) OR LIMIT-TO
(PUBYEAR, 2015) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2014) OR Table 2.
LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2013) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, Keywords and search
2012)) syntax used in
Source(s): Authors work the study

The 73 papers are spread across diverse academic domains offering a multi-disciplinary
perspective: Business, Management and Accounting (46%), Engineering (17%), Computer
Science (17%), Decision Sciences (13%), Economics, Econometrics and Finance (3%),
Mathematics (2%), Arts and Humanities (1%) and Psychology (1%). In terms of journal-wise
distribution, the Journal of Enterprise Information Management (10 articles), the
Australasian Journal of Information Systems (4 articles) and the International Journal of
Information Management (3 articles) are among the top three journals for research on
Cloud ERP.

2.2 Classification of literature

In this SLR, we have employed the classification scheme of Dubey et al. (2017). The literature
classification presented by Dubey et al. (2017), which is basically inspired by Whetten (1989)
(see Figure 2).
The literature of 73 papers (Table 3) has been broadly classified into two groups: (1)
Theory Building and (2) Application-Based Research. In the theory building category, the
focus has been on identifying articles that contribute to current organisational theories. This
JEIM Appropriate arƟcles with keywords: “cloud compuƟng”
Stage 1 OR “cloud-based ERP” OR “cloud enterprise resource N = 92,230
planning” OR “cloud ERP”: #1

Appropriate arƟcles with keywords: implement* OR

Stage 2 develop* OR innovat* OR challenge* OR benefit* OR N = 21,402,807
barrier* OR driver* OR strateg* OR “success factor*” OR
obstacle* OR enabler*: #2

IntersecƟng the two searches:

Stage 3 N = 57,596
#3: #1 and #2

Limit to ArƟcle, Review Papers, ArƟcle in Press; Business

Stage 4 Management and AccounƟng subject area; English N = 1,311
language: #4

Include the journal arƟcles between 2012 and 2021:

Stage 5 #5 N = 1,277

Include journal arƟcles with DOI and high-ranking (A*, A

Stage 6 & B) and relevance to the present study: #6 N = 73

Figure 1.
Stages of data
collection
Source(s): Authors work, Scopus Database,1st February 2022

category has been further subdivided into Alternative Methods and Rationalist Approach.
The articles in the Alternative Methods group, which consist of conceptual frameworks, have
been validated through empirical studies or case studies. In the Rationalist Approach group,
articles have been scrutinised for their contribution to theories and for advancing the current
state of research in the domain through critical review papers.

2.3 Reporting and dissemination: understanding the concepts used in the study
An analysis of 73 journal articles revealed multiple studies on enablers and barriers
associated with the implementation of Cloud ERP and their relationship with innovation
outcomes. The synthesised enablers and barriers led to a conceptual framework that presents
the Cloud ERP implementation process. Additionally, Section 2.3.4 discusses the theories that
can be used in the context of Cloud ERP implementation. Table 4 provides a summary of the
articles consisting of enablers and barriers.
 Cloud ERP and Enablers and
ImplementaƟon barriers to
Cloud ERP
Theory ApplicaƟon
Building Based Research

RaƟonalist AlternaƟve Case Studies

Approach Methods

Conceptual Industry focused

Theory Theory Building and CriƟcal Framework through Research with Figure 2.
Building Theory TesƟng Review Survey/Experiments Surveys/Experiments Classification of
literature
Source(s): Authors work

2.3.1 Enablers of cloud ERP implementation. Enablers refer to the factors that support the
implementation of Cloud ERP. Table 4 summarises five key enablers required to realise Cloud
ERP: economic opportunities, system quality and performance, accessibility and collaboration,
policies and programmes and capability enablers. The following sections provide an overview of
the existing literature and the latest developments related to each enabler.
2.3.1.1 Economic opportunities. Economic opportunities are essential in enabling
successful Cloud ERP implementation and boosting organisational performance. For
example, Cloud ERP is an invaluable tool for reducing IT infrastructure investments and
lowering implementation costs (Alismaili et al., 2020; Gupta et al., 2013). Specifically, Sharma
and Sehrawat (2020) stated that cloud computing (CC) offers instant access to resources for
ERP users, requiring less upfront capital investment and resulting in quicker time-to-market
for diverse firms. Cost optimisation, such as eliminating operational and capital expenses,
also plays an indispensable role in motivating firms towards Cloud ERP adoption (Khalil,
2019; Kyriakou and Loukis, 2019). Therefore, economic opportunities and perceived values
positively drive organisations towards ERP implementation (Sawas and Watfa, 2015; Tan
and Kim, 2015; Loukis et al., 2019).
2.3.1.2 System quality and performance. Up-to-date and fast-to-deploy functionalities can
be desired attributes of system quality and performance, which are measured by adaptability
and availability (Chang, 2020). Specifically, firms utilise on-demand cloud systems without IT
infrastructure, leading to rapid and easy deployment of Cloud ERP systems and a reduction
in system response time (Chang, 2020; Chang et al., 2019). Another body of literature
emphasises that increasing system quality is a key driver of ERP adoption as it makes
organisational processes and tasks more effective and relevant (Kim et al., 2017). The quality
of the system is perceived to have a facilitative impact on the benefits of using ERP systems,
such as simplified implementation stages and better performance of multi-tasks (Tsai and
Hung, 2014; Senarathna et al., 2018; Meghana et al., 2018).
2.3.1.3 Accessibility and collaboration. Evidence indicates that accessibility and
collaboration have a positive impact on the entire ERP adoption process. For instance, a
study by Sharma demonstrates that Cloud ERP is more mobile and accessible than client/
server ERP. In Cloud ERP environments, firms can access real-time information and
JEIM Methods Theories Themes Innovation Authors

1 Survey Challenges Business model Alali and Yeh (2012)

2 Conceptual Benefits and Lee and Mautz (2012)
discussion Challenges
3 Case study TOE Factors Process (Alshamaila et al.,
2013)
4 Case study Challenges Brender and Markov
(2013)
5 Conceptual Benefits Business model DaSilva et al. (2013)
discussion
6 Survey Factors Service (Gupta et al., 2013)
7 Survey Benefits Service (Repschlaeger et al.,
2013)
8 Survey Barriers (Trigueros-Preciado
et al., 2013)
9 Survey Agency theory, TCE, Factors Winkler and Brown
Knowledge-based view (2013)
10 Conceptual Barriers Product (Yigitbasioglu et al.,
discussion 2013)
11 Survey DOI, TOE Factors Business and (Oliveira et al., 2014)
Process
12 Survey RBV Factors Business model Son et al. (2014)
13 Mathematical DOI Factors Service Tsai and Hung (2014)
model
14 Case study Structuration theory Factors Business model Twum-Darko and
Sibanyoni (2014)
15 Survey TCE, TOE, TRA, DOI Benefits Yigitbasioglu (2014)
16 Survey Innovation resistance theory Barriers Process Chen and Chen (2015)
(IRT)
17 Survey TAM, TOE Factors Business model (Gangwar et al., 2015)
18 Survey RBV Benefits Process and (Garrison et al., 2015)
Business model
19 Survey TOE Factors Business model (Gutierrez et al., 2015)
20 Survey SC theory, TAM Benefits Service Ratten (2015)
21 Case study Challenges and Product and Ross and
Benefits Process Blumenstein (2015)
22 Survey TOE, DOI Factors Business model (Safari et al., 2015)
23 Survey Benefits Sawas and Watfa
(2015)
24 Case study Challenges Schneider and
Sunyaev (2015)
25 Survey Theory of Reasoned Action Factors Product Tan and Kim (2015)
(TRA), TPB, TAM, UTAUT,
DOI
26 Survey TOE Factors Product and Yigitbasioglu (2015)
Process
27 Case study Benefits Business model Najmaei (2016)
28 Survey Social cognitive theory Benefits and Process Ratten (2016)
Challenges
29 Survey TOE, DOI Challenges Business model Senarathna et al.
(2016)
30 Survey TOE Factors Service (Senyo et al., 2016)
Table 3. 31 Survey Factors Wang et al. (2016)
Summary of the 32 Survey TAM, DOI Factors Business model Asadi et al. (2017)
literature on Cloud 33 Survey Challenges Gupta et al. (2017)
ERP and
innovation types (continued )
 Methods Theories Themes Innovation Authors
Enablers and
barriers to
34 Survey Factors Business model Habjan and Pucihar Cloud ERP
(2017)
35 Survey Factors (Kajiyama et al.,
2017)
36 Survey TOE Factors Process (Kim et al., 2017)
37 Survey RBV Factors Gupta et al. (2018a)
38 Survey RDT Factors Gupta et al. (2018b)
39 Survey Factors (Meghana et al., 2018)
40 Case study Challenges Service (Nieuwenhuis et al.,
2018)
41 Survey Barriers Business model Raut et al. (2018a)
42 Mixed methods Factors Business model Raut et al. (2018b)
43 Survey TOE, DOI Factors Business model Senarathna et al.
(2018)
44 Survey DOI, TOE Factors Process Al-Shboul (2019)
45 Survey Benefits and Ali et al. (2019)
Challenges
46 Survey 2FT Benefits Process Chang et al. (2019)
47 Survey DOI, TOE Factors Business model (Dinca et al., 2019)
48 Survey DCV Benefits and Business model Gupta et al. (2019)
Factors
49 Case study Benefits Product and Khalil (2019)
Service
50 Survey TOE Factors Kyriakou and Loukis
(2019)
51 Survey Benefits Product, Service (Loukis et al., 2019)
and Process
52 MCDM Enablers Business model Raut et al. (2019)
53 Case study Benefits and Business model Albelaihi and Khan
Challenges (2020)
54 Case study Factors Process Ali and Osmanaj
(2020)
55 Survey TOE, DOI Factors Product, Service Alismaili et al. (2020)
and Process
56 Mixed methods Benefits Business model Bouaynaya (2020)
57 Survey 2FT, TOE, IS success model, Enablers and Business model Chang (2020)
ECT Barriers
58 Case study Benefits Product and (Ferri et al., 2020)
Service
59 Survey ECT, ECM, IS success model Factors Business model (Khayer et al., 2020)
60 Mixed methods TAM, TOE Enablers and Product and Sharma and
Barriers Process Sehrawat (2020)
61 Mixed methods Factors Product Xiao et al. (2020)
62 Case study TOE Challenges Process and (Yau-Yeung et al.,
Service 2020)
63 Survey Factors Service Altin and Yilmaz
(2021)
64 Case study Factors Product Bhardwaj (2021)
65 Case study Challenges Product Carlsson-Wall et al.
(2021)
66 Mixed methods Factors Business model (Floerecke et al.,
2021)
67 Survey TOE, UTAUT Factors Business model Khayer et al. (2021)

(continued ) Table 3.
JEIM Methods Theories Themes Innovation Authors

68 Case study Benefits Business model (Schreieck et al.,

2021)
69 Case study TOE Barriers Sharma et al. (2021)
70 Mixed methods Challenges Product Singh and Misra
(2021)
71 Survey TAM, TOE Challenges Process Stewart (2021)
72 Survey TOE Enablers Process Xu and Mahenthiran
(2021)
73 Mathematical Game theory Challenges (Yang et al., 2021)
model
Table 3. Source(s): Authors work

functionalities from any device through an Internet connection, as highlighted by Kim. Such
ubiquitous accessibility and enhanced information sharing features of cloud services support
the Cloud ERP implementation process. With the proliferation of mobile devices and social
media, firms can improve work productivity and support teleworking by integrating Cloud
ERP systems, according to Repschlaeger et al. (2013) and Safari et al. (2015). Moreover, several
quantitative studies reveal that the convenience and ease of use provided by cloud services,
through an intuitive user interface and round-the-clock accessibility, have significant impacts
on collaboration in an organisation, as noted by Gupta et al. (2013) and Chang et al. (2019).
2.3.1.4 Government policies and training programs. Policies and training programmes are
useful enablers for Cloud ERP implementation. Extant studies (e.g. Al-Shboul, 2019; Ali and
Osmanaj, 2020) confound that government support is pivotal for the adoption of Cloud ERP.
For example, offering direct tax incentives to firms that adopt cloud computing increases
positive perceptions of Cloud ERP intention (Kim et al., 2017). Adopting cutting-edge IT
systems can give organisations a competitive edge. In terms of training programmes, it is
highly encouraged to engage project team members from start to finish in project
management (Wang et al., 2016). A highly skilled and competent project team is an influential
determinant of Cloud ERP success (Gupta et al., 2018b; Twum-Darko and Sibanyoni, 2014).
Additionally, user training can facilitate Cloud ERP implementation by helping users better
understand the system’s functionalities and use the technology in an efficient and productive
manner (Gupta et al., 2018a; Alshamaila et al., 2013).
2.3.1.5 Management competence. Several articles have discussed management competence
as an essential factor for successful Cloud ERP implementation. New initiatives, like Cloud ERP
adoption, require the initiation, planning, execution and control of various resources within an
organisation (Alismaili et al., 2020; Alshamaila et al., 2013). The managerial competence of the
project leader is crucial in developing the team and promoting the knowledge base of employees
within the firm. This helps overcome any resistance during the implementation stage of the ERP
package (Kim et al., 2017). Top management support (TMS) is also considered a critical link
between individual and organisational innovation adoption (Floerecke et al., 2021). TMS is
indispensable in maintaining a smooth change process through an articulated vision (Oliveira
et al., 2014). Top executives, for example, send important signals about new technology to other
employees and ensure sufficient resources for implementation, thereby significantly impacting
Cloud ERP adoption (Gutierrez et al., 2015; Senyo et al., 2016). Management competence is,
therefore, imperative in helping firms modify existing processes and realign workflows for
better adaptability with the system (Kim et al., 2017). Inter-departmental data integration is also
deemed an important factor for Cloud ERP, which cannot be achieved without a constructive
and flexible management team (Gupta et al., 2018a).
Enablers
Enablers and
Empirical evidence of barriers to
Main category Sub-category enablers Authors Cloud ERP
Economic Cost reduction Less IT infrastructure (Kajiyama et al., 2017; Khalil, 2019; Xu
opportunities investment and Mahenthiran, 2021; Sharma and
Lower implementation costs Sehrawat, 2020; Alismaili et al., 2020;
Transparency of TCO Dinca et al., 2019; Asadi et al., 2017; Wang
Better IT support from et al., 2016; Gupta et al., 2013; Schreieck
external experts et al., 2021; Kyriakou and Loukis, 2019;
Loukis et al., 2019)
System quality Speed and Fast deployment (Chang, 2020; Chang et al., 2019;
and performance performance Simplified implementation Meghana et al., 2018; Ali and Osmanaj,
stages 2020; Senarathna et al., 2018; Kim et al.,
Faster system response time 2017; Tsai and Hung, 2014)
Better performance of multi-
tasks
Accessibility and Mobility and Improved access and (Kajiyama et al., 2017; Khalil, 2019;
collaboration collaboration connectivity of website Sharma and Sehrawat, 2020; Meghana
browser et al., 2018; Safari et al., 2015;
Support for teleworking Repschlaeger et al., 2013; Gupta et al.,
Accessible IT resources and 2013; Ferri et al., 2020)
services
Policies and Government policies Government support (Ali and Osmanaj, 2020; Al-Shboul, 2019;
programs and implementation Local investment, tax Kim et al., 2017; Twum-Darko and
incentives Sibanyoni, 2014; Dinca et al., 2019)
Cloud ERP Training (Gupta et al., 2018a; Gupta et al., 2018b;
implementation Formulation of project plan Wang et al., 2016; Alshamaila et al., 2013)
programs
Capability Project management Top management support (Floerecke et al., 2021; Alismaili et al.,
enablers 2020; Meghana et al., 2018; Ali and
Osmanaj, 2020; Gupta et al., 2018a; Gupta
et al., 2018b; Kim et al., 2017; Senyo et al.,
2016; Gutierrez et al., 2015; Yigitbasioglu,
2015; Oliveira et al., 2014; Alshamaila
et al., 2013)
Business process re- Reconfiguration of value (Bhardwaj, 2021; Al-Shboul, 2019; Dinca
engineering networks for business et al., 2019; Raut et al., 2018b; Gupta et al.,
continuity 2018a; Gupta et al., 2018b; Kim et al.,
2017)
Technology Interdepartmental data (Meghana et al., 2018; Al-Shboul, 2019;
integration integration Raut et al., 2018b; Gupta et al., 2018a;
Gupta et al., 2018b)

Barriers
Empirical evidence of
Main category Sub-category challenges Authors

Organizational Lack of Cloud ERP Uncertainty of technological (Ali et al., 2019; Raut et al., 2018a;
issues project vision needs Sharma and Sehrawat, 2020)
Difficulties in integrating new
processes
Difficulties in Lack of trust with system (Singh and Misra, 2021; Brender and
customer-vendor vendor Markov, 2013; Trigueros-Preciado Table 4.
relationship Difficulties in contractual et al., 2013) Enablers and barriers
agreements and innovation
outcomes of Cloud ERP
(continued ) implementation
JEIM Barriers
Empirical evidence of
Main category Sub-category challenges Authors

Policy and Lack of Lack of standards of Cloud (Yau-Yeung et al., 2020; Nieuwenhuis
regulation standardisation ERP et al., 2018; Senarathna et al., 2016)
challenges Need for standardised
continuous implementation
process
Lack of government Lack of policies for Cloud ERP (Singh and Misra, 2021; Yang et al.,
support implementation 2021; Ali et al., 2019; Nieuwenhuis
Risk of security and privacy et al., 2018; Brender and Markov, 2013)
rules and regulations
Economic Long-term cost issues Cost of storage space (Ali et al., 2019; Gupta et al., 2017;
constraints Cost of regular periodic Senarathna et al., 2016; Yang et al.,
subscription 2021; Sharma and Sehrawat, 2020)
Personnel-related Skills development Lack of skills by cloud vendor (Ali et al., 2019; Chen and Chen, 2015;
challenges issues Loukis et al., 2019)
Employee resistance Psychological resistance to (Yau-Yeung et al., 2020; Chen and
routine changes Chen, 2015; Raut et al., 2018a;
Nieuwenhuis et al., 2018; Senarathna
et al., 2016)
Technology Technology system Differences between (Albelaihi and Khan, 2020; Gupta et al.,
constraints issues prototypes and final product 2017; Carlsson-Wall et al., 2021)
Issues in loss of IT
competencies (lack of
operational and technical
support)
Data security Risk of stolen private (Singh and Misra, 2021; Stewart, 2021;
constraints information Albelaihi and Khan, 2020; Yau-Yeung
Lack of awareness on data et al., 2020; Raut et al., 2018a; Gupta
security issues et al., 2017; Chen and Chen, 2015; Ross
Lack of awareness on data and Blumenstein, 2015; Brender and
migration Markov, 2013; Alali and Yeh, 2012)
Network disruption Dispersed level of connectivity (Albelaihi and Khan, 2020; Yau-Yeung
Difficulties in data integration et al., 2020; Ali et al., 2019; Gupta et al.,
2017)

Enablers and barriers to cloud ERP implementation and innovation outcomes

Barriers/
Innovation Enablers main Aspects relevant to
types category Sub-category innovation outcomes Authors

Product Policy and Lack of government Lack of policies for Cloud (Singh and Misra, 2021;
innovation regulation support ERP implementation Bhardwaj, 2021; Alismaili
barriers et al., 2020; Kyriakou and
Loukis, 2019; Loukis et al.,
2019)
Capability Business process re- Reconfiguration of value
enablers engineering networks for business
continuity
Economic Cost reduction Less IT infrastructure
opportunities investment
Lower implementation
costs
Product and Technology Data security Lack of awareness on Ross and Blumenstein (2015)
process constraints constraints data migration
innovation

Table 4. (continued )
Enablers and barriers to cloud ERP implementation and innovation outcomes
Enablers and
Barriers/ barriers to
Innovation Enablers main Aspects relevant to Cloud ERP
types category Sub-category innovation outcomes Authors

Process Accessibility Mobility and Improved access and (Khalil, 2019; Chen and Chen,
innovation and collaboration connectivity of web 2015; Alshamaila et al., 2013;
collaboration browser Kim et al., 2017; Schreieck et al.,
2021)
Economic Cost reduction Better IT support from
opportunities external experts
Personnel- Employee Psychological resistance
related resistance to routine changes
challenges
Policies and Cloud ERP Formulation of project
programs implementation plan and training
programs
Product and Accessibility Mobility and Accessible IT resources (Ferri et al., 2020; Sharma and
service and collaboration and services Sehrawat, 2020)
innovation collaboration
Service System quality Speed and Fast deployment Tsai and Hung (2014)
innovation and performance
performance
Better performance of
multi-tasks
Business model Capability Business process Reconfiguration of value (Floerecke et al., 2021; Raut
innovation enablers reengineering networks for business et al., 2018b; Gupta et al., 2018a;
continuity Chang, 2020; Nieuwenhuis
et al., 2018; Senarathna et al.,
2016; Ross and Blumenstein,
2015; Alali and Yeh, 2012;
Oliveira et al., 2014)
Technology Interdepartmental data
integration integration
System quality Speed and Simplified
and performance implementation stages
performance
Policy and Lack of Lack of standards of
regulation standardisation Cloud ERP
barriers
Need for standardised
continuous
implementation process
Technology Data security Risk of stolen private
constraints constraints information
Policies and Government policies Government support and
programs and implementation tax incentives
Product, Capability Project Top management Alismaili et al. (2020)
process and enablers management support
service
innovation
Source(s): Authors work Table 4.

2.3.2 Barriers to cloud ERP implementation. Barriers refer to factors that may impede Cloud
ERP implementation initiatives. Table 4 presents a summary of the five main barriers, along
with their sub categories and empirical evidence. These barriers are organisational issues,
policy and regulation barriers, economic constraints, personnel-related challenges and
technology constraints.
JEIM 2.3.2.1 Organisational issues. Most journal articles describe organisational issues as a
critical inhibitor associated with communicating and executing technological change. The
lack of vision for a Cloud ERP project reveals uncertainty regarding technological needs or
difficulties in integrating new processes (Ali et al., 2019). Specifically, an unclear vision of an
organisation can completely derail the implementation even before it begins (Sharma and
Sehrawat, 2020). Such constraints might also reflect inter-organisational barriers in
managing customer-vendor relationships, where the adopter’s lack of trust in a vendor can
influence the entire adoption process (Raut et al., 2018a). Brender and Markov (2013) indicate
that a lack of trust from vendors leads to a reduction in customer and employee loyalty, and
the costs to rebuild trust play an important role. For example, a study recognises contractual
agreement difficulties or lack of transparency of licenses discouraging potential clients from
entering into a contract for Cloud ERP implementation (Singh and Misra, 2021). It is
empirically evident that a lack of contractual agreement or transparency of licenses has a
negative influence on a firm’s motivation to adopt Cloud ERP (Trigueros-Preciado et al., 2013).
2.3.2.2 Policy and regulation challenges. Several studies have shown that challenges
related to policy and regulation can have a detrimental effect on the implementation process
of ERP. Such barriers include gaps in the regulatory system and government initiatives,
which fail to incentivise industry standards and the diffusion of knowledge on Cloud ERP
services and costs (Nieuwenhuis et al., 2018; Senarathna et al., 2016). Several papers highlight
a lack of safety or absence of standards for Cloud ERP (Nieuwenhuis et al., 2018; Senarathna
et al., 2016). Evidence on Cloud ERP adoption shows the need for a standardised continuous
implementation process, alongside the risk of infringing copyrights for the design and
printing of products (Yau-Yeung et al., 2020). From a policy perspective, some studies analyse
the lack of government support with inconsistent adoption policies (Yang et al., 2021),
especially for additive manufacturing readiness (Singh and Misra, 2021; Ali et al., 2019).
In line with this, Brender and Markov (2013) contextualise the lack of policies for Cloud ERP
implementation within markets where information is imperfect. The policy and regulatory
barriers lead to the risk of security and privacy rules and regulations that are indispensable
for Cloud ERP success (Nieuwenhuis et al., 2018).
2.3.2.3 Economic constraints. Various studies have shown that economic constraints,
including long-term and periodic subscription costs, can hinder organisations from
implementing Cloud ERP (Senarathna et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2021; Sharma and Sehrawat,
2020). The implementation of Cloud ERP requires high costs, such as acquiring knowledge on
system installation, process costs and using a large amount of data inside the cloud (Ali et al.,
2019; Sharma and Sehrawat, 2020). Furthermore, the research also highlights investment
justification constraints, such as the cost of storage space, which are essential to assess the
Cloud ERP investment at different phases of the implementation process (Gupta et al., 2017).
2.3.2.4 Personnel-related challenges. Changes in the technology system can lead to
personnel-related challenges, such as a lack of skills by cloud vendors during installation.
These challenges may be reported as relevant to evaluation criteria and can range from
employees’ resistance to established competencies, skills development constraints or failure
to comply with legislation, which can trigger delays of a couple of months in the installation
process (Chen and Chen, 2015; Ali et al., 2019). Additionally, some scholars describe
psychological resistance from people to routine changes, such as the fear of job losses in
unionised organisations (Loukis et al., 2019). Yau-Yeung et al. (2020) consider the skills gap a
critical impediment to Cloud ERP implementation. For example, organisations often lack
Cloud ERP integration and control skills, which constrain their capability to promote the
implementation process (Raut et al., 2018a). Specifically, the issue of the skills gap has
received increased attention from scholars (Chen and Chen, 2015; Raut et al., 2018a;
Senarathna et al., 2016), reporting design skills challenges for Cloud ERP or the inability of
firms to adapt to the changing demands of a highly competitive market.
 2.3.2.5 Technology constraints. The programmable nature of Cloud ERP increases the risk Enablers and
of various technology issues, such as system malfunctions that can influence operations, data barriers to
security and issues with the integration of Cloud ERP elements. Several authors provide
evidence of issues in the loss of IT competencies or differences between prototypes and final
Cloud ERP
products (Albelaihi and Khan, 2020; Carlsson-Wall et al., 2021; Gupta et al., 2017). Empirical
evidence from both qualitative and quantitative papers emphasises the significance of data
security constraints linked to such malfunctions, namely the risk of stolen private
information or a lack of awareness of data security issues (Alali and Yeh, 2012; Albelaihi
and Khan, 2020). These factors can be taken into consideration as predicted risk factors
influencing the Cloud ERP implementation decision (Gupta et al., 2017). In addition, some
studies have espoused that a lack of awareness of data migration can pose barriers associated
with the inability to validate data transformation specifications or a lack of integrated
processes (Singh and Misra, 2021; Stewart, 2021). Recent articles also highlight the challenge
associated with network disruption, which results in a dispersed level of connectivity or
difficulties in data integration for Cloud ERP (Gupta et al., 2017; Yau-Yeung et al., 2020).
2.3.3 Cloud ERP implementation barriers and enablers and innovation outcomes. In this
section, we examine the enablers and barriers of Cloud ERP implementation in relation to four
innovation outcomes: product, process, service and business model innovations. Table 4 and
Figure 3 provide a visual representation of these enablers and barriers and their association
with innovation types or outcomes. Studies on Cloud ERP implementation report two
technology-related barriers: the risk of stolen private information and lack of awareness on
data migration. Research on Cloud ERP-driven innovation shows that the first barrier
impedes business model innovation (Alali and Yeh, 2012; Oliveira et al., 2014), while the
second barrier hinders product and process innovations (Chen and Chen, 2015; Ross and
Blumenstein, 2015).

Barriers & enablers of Cloud ERP implementaƟon InnovaƟon outcomes/types

Risk of stolen private informaƟon Business model

Technology
constraints Barriers innovaƟon
Lack of awareness on data migraƟon

Lack of standards of cloud ERP

Policy and Need for standardized conƟnuous
regulaƟon
implementaƟon process
barriers
Lack of policies for cloud ERP
implementaƟon Service innovaƟon

ReconfiguraƟon of value networks for

Capability business conƟnuity
enablers
Top management support

Accessibility Accessible IT resources and services Product innovaƟon

and
collaboraƟon Improved access and connecƟvity of
web browser Figure 3.
Relationship between
Government support and tax barriers and enablers
Policies and incenƟves of cloud ERP
programs Enablers
implementation and
FormulaƟon of project plan Process innovaƟon
innovation
outcomes/types
Source(s): Authors work
JEIM Personnel-related challenges of Cloud ERP implementation relate to process innovation.
Research reports challenges for psychological resistance to routine changes (Chen and Chen,
2015). Likewise, policy and regulation-related barriers of Cloud ERP implementation include
a lack of standards for such an implementation, the need for standardised continuous
implementation processes and a lack of policies for Cloud ERP. The first two types of Cloud
ERP implementation barriers could hinder business model innovation (Nieuwenhuis et al.,
2018; Senarathna et al., 2018), while the third type of barrier impedes product innovation
(Senarathna et al., 2016; Singh and Misra, 2021). Regarding policies and programmes
associated with enablers of Cloud ERP implementation, many authors (Alshamaila et al.,
2013; Ali and Osmanaj, 2020; Kim et al., 2017) claim that complementary formulation of
project plans and training are related to process innovation outcomes. Alternatively,
government support and tax incentives as enablers of Cloud ERP implementation are
considered essential for business model innovation (Kim et al., 2017; Gupta et al., 2018a; Raut
et al., 2018a; Schreieck et al., 2021).
Among capability enablers, two key enablers have been identified for Cloud ERP
implementation: a reconfiguration of value networks for business continuity and top
management support. The first enabler substantially supports business model innovation
(Gupta et al., 2018b; Floerecke et al., 2021), while top management support intensifies product,
service and business model innovations (Alismaili et al., 2020). As for accessibility and
collaboration-related enablers, studies on Cloud ERP innovation outcomes show that having
access to IT resources and services promotes product and service innovations (Sharma and
Sehrawat, 2020). Alternatively, improved access and connectivity of web browsers act as a
key lever to realise process innovation (Ferri et al., 2020; Sharma and Sehrawat, 2020).
In summary, some barriers and enablers of Cloud ERP implementation have a direct link to
innovation outcomes.
2.3.4 Underpinning theories. As Cloud ERP implementation is seen as a philosophy for
organisations, it is crucial for them to develop their capabilities and resources to identify
innovative patterns and meet customer requirements (Carlsson-Wall et al., 2021). According to
the resource-based view, the exploitation of dynamic capability and firm-specific resources
determines the ability to construct and integrate resources to achieve desired organisational
performance and gain a competitive edge in the dynamic environment (Son et al., 2014; Gupta
et al., 2018a). To promote cost-effective growth in a dynamic environment, the utilisation of Cloud
ERP implementation supports firms in surviving (Alismaili et al., 2020). Specifically, Cloud ERP
helps improve operational efficiency and enables enterprises to attain dynamic capabilities
(Gupta et al., 2018a). Furthermore, Gupta et al. (2019) argue that dynamic capabilities assist firms
in promoting profits by managing the enterprise’s capabilities (e.g. flexibility, quality, efficiency,
velocity and so forth) in a dynamic and uncertain environment.
Regarding the form of the principal–agent relationship, vendor relationship management
is of crucial importance to successfully accomplish both short-term and long-term Cloud ERP
implementation (Winkler and Brown, 2013). Kyriakou and Loukis (2019) investigated the
relationship between client firms and implementation consultants deploying Cloud ERP
systems by applying agency theory and subsequently assessing how the relationship can
affect the success of the implementation. The implementation of Cloud ERP is the result of
various forces assisting the organisation in making isomorphic changes in the view of
normative, mimetic and coercive manners (Senarathna et al., 2016; Gutierrez et al., 2015).
Alongside transactional cost economics, it is indispensable to investigate determinants
relevant to transaction attributes influencing the intention of Cloud ERP implementation
(Yigitbasioglu, 2014). The tenets of transactional cost economics theory are successfully
grounded in exploring the implementation of Cloud ERP and identifying its institutional
factors, which encourage cloud adoption by SMEs (Winkler and Brown, 2013).
 As pointed out by Garrison et al. (2015), Cloud ERP implementation can be deemed as a Enablers and
data-driven method for achieving the desired performance in the long run. In each stage of the barriers to
implementation in accordance with Multiple Criteria Decision-making (MCDM) methods,
decision-making is essential for collecting and analysing extensive data from various
Cloud ERP
functional units. As such, the implementation of Cloud ERP has a far-reaching effect on each
other (Safari et al., 2015; Sharma and Sehrawat, 2020). Based on the two-factor theory, it is
applicable to simultaneously assess users’ perceptions of motivators and demotivators. It is
also helpful in enabling cloud service providers to comprehensively understand how to
enhance Cloud ERP adoption from different perspectives (Chang, 2020; Chang et al., 2019).
Cloud ERP adoption facilitates organisations in generating profound or disruptive
innovation, promoting more efficient business processes and developing a comprehensive
understanding of the acceptance of emerging SaaS collaboration tools (Safari et al., 2015; Tan
and Kim, 2015; Raut et al., 2018b). The key aspects of organisational theories in line with
Cloud ERP implementation and corresponding research gaps related to future research have
been highlighted in Table 5.

3. Conclusion and future research avenues

Our study demonstrates that there is a growing body of literature on the association between
Cloud ERP implementation and innovation. As a result, implementing Cloud ERP, along with
achieving different innovation outcomes, is increasingly becoming indispensable for
enterprises to generate business value and attain a competitive edge. However, despite the
significant investment in time, effort and resources, many Cloud ERP initiatives still fail due
to a lack of comprehensive understanding of how Cloud ERP services can generate business
value and what types of business innovations can be expected.
Our analysis is based on a narrative review to determine how enterprises can deploy Cloud
ERP and the value-generating mechanisms involved. The outcome of our study consists of
several parts. Firstly, we identify the classification of five different enablers and barriers of
Cloud ERP implementation, which provides a foundation to investigate the relative
significance and frequency of occurrence of each category. This information is valuable to
both policymakers and practitioners. Secondly, our SLR integrates findings from both
qualitative and quantitative studies to provide a structured overview of enablers and barriers
alongside their associated innovation types. Thirdly, optimising the implementation enablers
and barriers along with different innovation types can lead to augmenting human abilities or
automating tasks, either for internal purposes, such as improving internal business models or
processes, or for external purposes, such as enhancing products and services with clients.
Therefore, we believe that the continuing research interest and application of Figure 3 will
have far-reaching impacts on practical solutions to today’s business problems.

3.1 Policy implications

The discussion on Cloud ERP put forth significant contributions to regulation and policy. It is
clear that a regulatory requirement for enterprises to adopt Cloud ERP in an industry can
promote transparency about Cloud ERP data security practices. While it may not be feasible
to mandate all enterprises to use cloud-based solutions to streamline business processes in
the near future, policymakers should consider the practicalities of enterprises while defining
Cloud ERP implementation policies and regulations that aim to improve business security
and economic benefits, especially against unforeseen events like the COVID-19 outbreak.
Moreover, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union (EU) has
established laws on data protection and privacy in the EU and the European Economic Area
(European Council and Council of the European Union, 2022). Any Cloud ERP service
 JEIM

Table 5.

research directions
Key organizational
theories and future
Theory Key articles Key aspects of the theory Research gaps and future research directions

Resource-based (Garrison et al., 2015; Wernerfelt, 1984; (1) Organizations employ their resources for (1) The vendor’s perceptions of IT-based
view Feeny and Ives, 1990; Teece, 1988; attaining superior performance and such capabilities of firms can provide a better
Teece et al., 1997; Gupta et al., 2018a; resources can be non-substitutable, very costly understanding of the interdependencies among
Gupta et al., 2019) to emulate, valuable and rare the capabilities resulting in fit or congruence
(2) Resources can be intangible and tangible that with a cloud delivery mode (Garrison et al., 2015)
must be immovable and heterogeneous (2) For firms to remain competitive, specific assets
and capabilities along with isolating
mechanisms are crucial resources. Thus, the
actual impact of cloud deployments success
should be assessed in terms of firm performance
(e.g. profit, sales and process efficiency) (Gupta
et al., 2018a)
Resource (Gupta et al., 2018b; Pfeffer and (1) Dependence between two firms is likely to (1) It is empirical that resource dependence theory
dependence theory Salancik, 2003; Hannan and Carroll, generate asymmetrical association, in turn can be utilised to have better understanding of
1992; Barrow, 1998) generating power-associated relationships the relationship/dependencies between cloud
(Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003; Barrow, 1998) service providers and users (Gupta et al., 2018b)
(2) A firm that lacks specific resources to fulfil (2) Hannan and Carroll (1992) state that the
their transactions will aspire to build a relationship that is generated between two
relationship with an entity that can help in entities may lead to internal and external
accomplishing the desired outcomes changes so that a firm can have to incur during
the Cloud ERP implementation
Expectation (Olson and Dover, 1979; Anderson and (1) ECT that is proposed by Olson and Dover (1) Anderson and Sullivan (1993) posit that
confirmation Sullivan, 1993; Chang, 2020; Khayer (1979), explains attitudes and perspectives consumer’s intention to repurchase a service or
theory (ECT) et al., 2020) towards a service or product rather than product is identified by their satisfaction with
explaining its quality factors prior use of the service or product
(2) It is important to reflect on the conventions of (2) An initial expectation of a specific IS and
IS continuance theory perceptions of its performance is formed by
users after using IS in line with ECT (Chang,
2020)

(continued )
Theory Key articles Key aspects of the theory Research gaps and future research directions

Information (Reddi et al., 1993; DeLone and McLean, (1) System quality and information quality play an (1) The success of information systems can be
systems success 1992; Myers et al., 1997; Seddon, 1997; indispensable for determining the success of an evaluated by the benefits that an organization
model Khayer et al., 2020; Chang, 2020) information system (DeLone and McLean, captures after the adoption of the technology
1992) (Khayer et al., 2020)
(2) The combination of organizational and (2) Information quality and system quality improve
individual impact of an IS into net benefits is organizational benefits as well (Chang, 2020)
comprehensively vital. Such benefits include
social, group and industry impacts) are crucial
for measuring IS success (Reddi et al., 1993)
Agency theory (Eisenhardt, 1989; Winkler and Brown, (1) Two parties involve and liaise, in which one (1) The overall IT governance schemes echo agency
2013; Christopher, 2010) party (the principal) delegates work to another theory, wherein application governance is
party (the agent) extremely identified by the opportunism of
(2) (a) There is asymmetric information existence individual actors (Eisenhardt, 1989)
between agents and principals (b) Each party (2) IT governance schemes/initiatives lack support
has their own self-interest (c) There is an for application specificity. It is important to
impending conflict exists between agents and arbitrate a balance of rights and their respective
principals (d) The agent is more risk than the accountabilities between relevant actors
principal (Winkler and Brown, 2013)
Two-factor theory (Chang et al., 2019; Chang, 2020; (1) 2FT is employed to characterise switching (1) 2FT has been used for investigating the effects
(2FT) Herzberg, 1965; Hachicha and costs and benefits on firm’s switching intention of switching costs (demotivators) and switching
Mezghani, 2018) to Cloud ERP benefits (motivators) on switching intention.
(2) 2FT comprises motivators (enablers) and Thus, such factors can influence work
hygiene factors (inhibitors) influencing job motivations of employees simultaneously
satisfaction (Herzberg, 1965) (2) The adoption and acceptance of cloud
(3) Two-factor theory is used to intensify computing, mobile-based services and
switching benefits and costs that affect knowledge management systems are developed
switching intention based on 2FT (Hachicha and Mezghani, 2018)
(3) 2FT is employed to characterise switching costs
and benefits on firm’s switching intention to
Cloud ERP

(continued )
Enablers and
Cloud ERP
barriers to

Table 5.
 JEIM

Table 5.
Theory Key articles Key aspects of the theory Research gaps and future research directions

Transaction cost (Yigitbasioglu, 2014; Winkler and (1) The cost of transaction or production might be (1) Winkler and Brown (2013) Winkler and Brown
economics (TCEs) Brown, 2013; Lacity et al., 2011) identified in line with economic exchange (2013) advocate the explanation of contractual
theory within parties such as buyers and providers arrangements and other governance
(2) The cost might increase as a result of bounded phenomena in outsourcing relationships such as
rationality, opportunism and information SaaS-based outsourcing
asymmetry (2) The emergent factors that have been
(3) Such costs consist of negotiating with other theoretically grounded captured characteristics
parties and controlling functions and of the application, namely scope of use and
evaluating suppliers. All factors of cost can be specificity. In addition, organizations can take
applicable both to the market and to the strategic decisions regarding the transaction, if
hierarchy such a transaction is strategically important
(4) Specificity can be deemed as a vital aspect of (Lacity et al., 2011)
the transaction. High specificity means that the
organization might transact the maximum
information. In low specificity, minimal
information is essential to be exchanged with
the partner
Social cognitive (Compeau and Higgins, 1995; Pincus, (1) SCT is deemed as a learning theory since it (1) Future research can add to the work carried out
(SC) theory 2004; Ratten, 2015, 2016; Wang and investigates the process of behavioral changes, by seeing how SCT can explain how important it
Lin, 2012; Ajzen, 1991) including social occurrences and dimensions is when using social cognitive theory to further
(Ajzen, 1991) investigate consumer’s intention adopt
(2) Using internal and external environmental technological innovations (Ratten, 2016)
factors is crucial for understanding the role of (2) SCT also plays a vital role in providing better
organizational innovation understandings of consumer’s current and
future behavior that is unintended or intended in
line with various phenomena (Pincus, 2004)
(3) Future research ought to keep focusing on the
role of social networks, especially decisions’
consumer regarding the usefulness of cloud
technology associated with their social circle
(Ratten, 2015)
Source(s): Authors work
provider operating in EU nations must follow GDPR’s rules and regulations to protect user Enablers and
data from illegal access, misuse and competition. It is crucial for cloud vendors to focus on barriers to
maintaining a high standard of privacy, including protecting data from public and private
sectors, limiting data misuse for profit and preventing data breaches. Based on the outcomes
Cloud ERP
of this research, policymakers and regulators can gain insights into promoting Cloud ERP
and determining necessary regulatory interventions to enhance competition and public
benefits. Therefore, policymakers should prioritise creating a regulatory framework that
balances the need for transparency and security with the practicalities of enterprises.

3.2 Managerial implications

Our study yields interesting insights for practitioners and policymakers who aim to enhance
their organisation’s competitiveness in a dynamically changing environment through the
implementation of Cloud ERP. This SLR collects a range of past research findings on the
factors that could hinder or drive Cloud ERP implementation. Such findings could be useful
for firm managers in making more informed investment decisions. We argue that firm
managers should carefully consider the following impeding forces or barriers when deciding
on Cloud ERP implementation: organisational issues, policies and regulations, economic
constraints, personnel-related challenges and technology constraints.
Organisational issues often arise from a lack of motivation from top executives and
difficulties in customer–vendor relationships. Policies and regulations are external barriers
that result from a lack of government support and a convenient regulatory framework.
Economic constraints, which refer to a lack of investment, could also impede Cloud ERP
implementation initiatives. Personnel-related challenges become critical when an
organisation lacks skilled people to implement and operate the system. Technology
constraints, such as data security problems and a lack of proper technology infrastructure,
can also be barriers.
These barriers could seriously hinder Cloud ERP implementation and require the special
attention of managers for effective remedies. In addition to barriers, there are also positive
forces or enablers that could help managers accelerate the Cloud ERP implementation
process. These include economic opportunities, system quality and performance,
accessibility and collaboration, policies and programmes and capability enablers.
While the implementation of Cloud ERP leads to innovation in the organisation, the
synthesis of past literature has allowed us to establish a nexus between the enablers and
barriers of Cloud ERP implementation and four innovation outcomes: product, service,
process and business model innovations. The proposed framework (Figure 3) is a valuable
reference tool for managers to understand how the barriers and enablers of Cloud ERP
implementation would affect the desired innovation outcomes.
In a nutshell, if managers effectively control the barriers and leverage the enablers, Cloud
ERP implementation can be achieved smoothly, thus enhancing the competitiveness and
innovation outcomes of their organisations.

3.3 Theoretical implications and future research avenues

Our systematic review makes several contributions to the literature surrounding Cloud ERP
implementation. Firstly, given the nascent topic of research, scholars stress that determinants
of Cloud ERP implementation should be explored in future studies (Chang, 2020; Alshamaila
et al., 2013). Following this, we explore barriers and enablers involved in the implementation
of Cloud ERP. Taking a multidisciplinary perspective, we identify five enablers of Cloud ERP
implementation, including economic opportunities, system quality and performance,
accessibility and collaboration, policies and programmes and capability enablers.
Similarly, implementing Cloud ERP would be challenging, if not impossible, without an
JEIM understanding of the barriers that could impede the process. This study advances the current
literature by integrating critical barriers scattered across different studies, including
organisational issues, policy and regulation barriers, economic constraints, personnel-related
challenges and technology constraints. By reviewing enablers and barriers, we also respond
to recent calls from Schreieck et al. (2021) and Kyriakou and Loukis (2019), who highlight the
need for a better concentration on influential determinants before Cloud ERP implementation.
Secondly, existing studies suggest that technology investment results in innovation within an
organisation (Ali et al., 2023; Gupta et al., 2018b; Senarathna et al., 2016; Raut et al., 2018b). To this
end, our SLR analyses the enablers and barriers of Cloud ERP implementation and their inter-
relationship with four key innovation outcomes: process, product, service and business model
innovations. We find that technological constraints and policy and regulation barriers of Cloud
ERP implementation have negative influences on these four innovation outcomes. Alternatively,
we explore that accessibility and collaboration, capabilities, policies and programmes, which are
the key enablers of Cloud ERP implementation, can enable product, process, service and business
model innovations. We devise a novel framework at the intersection of enablers and barriers of
Cloud ERP implementation and innovation outcomes. Previous studies missed the opportunity to
offer such a comprehensive framework demonstrating enablers and barriers to the Cloud ERP
implementation process and their associated innovation outcomes. In doing so, our SLR allows
for cumulative knowledge development on the implementation of Cloud ERP.
Thirdly, this study is motivated by the implementation of Cloud ERP along with four
different types of innovation. However, the context is equally attractive to any enterprise
seeking to deploy the cloud service model. Research on Cloud ERP in both MSMEs and large
companies has covered various critical themes and issues, involving different types of
innovation that should be considered while assessing strategic decisions to implement cloud
infrastructure, along with enablers and barriers for MSMEs and large companies (Raut et al.,
2019; Li and Sun, 2021; Li et al., 2022). As such, the use of Cloud ERP to achieve innovation has
received growing attention in both academia and practice in contemporary societies.
Specifically, a group of four different types of cloud computing services, including Software
as a Service (SaaS), Platform as a Service (PaaS), Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) and
Desktop as a Service (DaaS), can offer several strategic solutions (Lee et al., 2021; Maga~ na
et al., 2019; Jarraya and Elloumi, 2022). Therefore, enterprises can utilise such cloud service
models to efficiently generate a digital workspace.
Fourthly, most businesses have been implementing fully automated technological
innovations recently, drawing upon digital transformation. The effects of such technologies
pave the way for firm performance towards innovation in future research studies. Some
instances of digital transformation include big data analytics (Gupta et al., 2020a, b; Sivarajah
et al., 2020), blockchain (Janssen et al., 2020; Behl et al., 2022) and artificial intelligence (AI)
(Gupta et al., 2022a; Williamson et al., 2023). Thus, future directions can expand our model to
explore the significance of digitalisation alongside Cloud ERP towards innovation types.
In particular, Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) embedded Cloud ERP,
delivered by Microsoft Azure Open AI Service, can improve cognitive technological
infrastructure (e.g. technologies and data) and cognitive business infrastructure
(e.g. processes and capabilities) to deliver real-time and quality information processing for
better decision-making (Gupta et al., 2022b; Boyd, 2023; Williamson et al., 2023). For instance,
Microsoft plans to announce software for governments, schools and companies to generate
their own bots with ChatGPT, aiming to tackle unexpected questions, automate claims
processing and facilitate faster customer support resolutions (Boyd, 2023; Novet, 2023).
Additionally, Cloud ERP deploying semi-structured or unstructured data generated by end-
users can process such data into a cleaner and more structured dataset, which is
subsequently processed by intelligence services (e.g. text mining or modeling sentiment
analysis), assisting in understanding unexpected patterns and thereby providing decision-
making for innovative solutions (Romero and Abad, 2022). Hence, future research directions Enablers and
are tremendously solicited to take advantage of Cloud ERP for innovation outcomes and pave barriers to
the way for decision-makers to appreciate the importance of automated technologies for
streamlining operations and driving innovation.
Cloud ERP

3.4 Limitations of the study

Firstly, it is important to note that our analysis only considered journal articles with DOI
numbers and excluded books and conference proceedings. However, such academic
opportunities could have provided a unique perspective to our study and offered specific
information. Secondly, we utilised Scopus as our preferred database for article collection.
Although Scopus is considered the largest and most comprehensive database (Ali and
G€olgeci, 2019), future research should cross-check the data by using other databases such as
Web of Science and EBSCOhost, among others. Thirdly, the data source was investigated and
collected on 1 February 2022. As a result, there is a minor risk that some insightful studies
may have been missed out. However, since our sample size is reasonably large, we believe
that the overall findings will not be significantly affected.
Finally, our study followed the SLR methodology as described by Tranfield et al. (2003)
and Gupta et al. (2020a, b). For future studies, we recommend using a meta-analysis method to
explore quantitative studies and determine the relevant significance of the enablers and
barriers and their association with innovation outcomes.

References
Abd Elmonem, M.A., Nasr, E.S. and Geith, M.H. (2016), “Benefits and challenges of cloud ERP
systems–A systematic literature review”, Future Computing and Informatics Journal, Vol. 1 Nos
1-2, pp. 1-9.
Accenture (2020), Turning Intelligence into Value: 2020 ERP Trends, Accenture, available at: https://
www.accenture.com/_acnmedia/PDF-119/Accenture-ERP-Report-2020.pdf (accessed 15
February 2023).
Ahmed, R., Oliver, G. and Rahim, M. (2020), “Understanding potentials of cloud ERP adoption by large
organisations: a case study”, PACIS, Vol. 2 No. 5, pp. 83-98.
Ahn, B. and Ahn, H. (2020), “Factors affecting intention to adopt cloud-based ERP from a
comprehensive approach”, Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 16, pp. 6426-6439.
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
Al-Shboul, M.A. (2019), “Towards better understanding of determinants logistical factors in SMEs for
cloud ERP adoption in developing economies”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 25
No. 5, pp. 887-907.
Alali, F.A. and Yeh, C.L. (2012), “Cloud computing: overview and risk analysis”, Journal of
Information Systems, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 13-33.
Albelaihi, A. and Khan, N. (2020), “Top benefits and hindrances to cloud computing adoption in Saudi
Arabia: a brief study”, Journal of Information Technology Management, Vol. 12 No. 2,
pp. 107-122.
Ali, I., Balta, M. and Papadopoulos, T. (2023), “Social media platforms and social enterprise:
bibliometric analysis and systematic review”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 69 No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2022.102510.
Ali, I. and G€olgeci, I. (2019), “Where is supply chain resilience research heading? A systematic and co-
occurrence analysis”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management,
Vol. 49 No. 8, pp. 793-815.
JEIM Ali, O. and Osmanaj, V. (2020), “The role of government regulations in the adoption of cloud
computing: a case study of local government”, Computer Law and Security Review, Vol. 36,
pp. 2662-2674.
Ali, A.M.H.A., Hussein, H.A., Albadri, R.A.K. and Dayef, O.M. (2019), “Cloud computing application
and its advantages and difficulties in the teaching process”, Journal of Information Technology
Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 29-45.
Ali, I., Arslan, A., Chowdhury, M., Khan, Z. and Tarba, S.Y. (2022), “Reimagining global food value
chains through effective resilience to COVID-19 shocks and similar future events: a dynamic
capability perspective”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 141, pp. 1-12.
Alismaili, S.Z., Li, M., Shen, J., Huang, P., He, Q. and Zhan, W. (2020), “Organisational-level assessment
of cloud computing adoption: evidence from the Australian SMEs”, Journal of Global
Information Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 73-89.
Altin, M. and Yilmaz, R. (2021), “Adoption of cloud-based accounting practices in Turkey: an empirical
study”, International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 45 No. 11, pp. 819-833.
Alshamaila, Y., Papagiannidis, S. and Li, F. (2013), “Cloud computing adoption by SMEs in the north
east of England: a multi-perspective framework”, Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 250-275.
Alsharari, N.M., Al-Shboul, M. and Alteneiji, S. (2020), “Implementation of cloud ERP in the SME:
evidence from UAE”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 299-327.
Aulia, R., Putri, A.N., Raihan, M.F., Ayub, M. and Sulistio, J. (2019), “The literature review of cloud-
based enterprise resource planning”, Materials Science and Engineering, Vol. 589 No. 1,
pp. 413-431.
Anderson, E.W. and Sullivan, M.W. (1993), “The antecedents and consequences of customer
satisfaction for firms”, Marketing Science, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 125-143.
Asadi, S., Nilashi, M., Husin, A.R.C. and Yadegaridehkordi, E. (2017), “Customers perspectives on
adoption of cloud computing in banking sector”, Information Technology and Management,
Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 305-330.
Bandara, F., Jayawickrama, U., Subasinghage, M., Olan, F., Alamoudi, H. and Alharthi, M. (2023),
“Enhancing ERP responsiveness through big data technologies: an empirical investigation”,
Information Systems Frontiers, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 1-25.
Barrow, C.W. (1998), “State theory and the dependency principle: an institutionalist critique of the
business climate concept”, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 107-144.
Behl, A., Jayawardena, N.S., Pereira, V. and Sampat, B. (2022), “Assessing retailer readiness to use
blockchain technology to improve supply chain performance”, Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/JEIM-07-2022-0242.
Bhardwaj, B.R. (2021), “Adoption, diffusion and consumer behavior in technopreneurship”,
International Journal of Emerging Markets, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 179-220.
Bieser, J.C.T. and Hilty, L.M. (2018), “Assessing indirect environmental effects of information and
communication technology (ICT): a systematic literature review”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 8,
pp. 27-46.
Bouaynaya, W. (2020), “Cloud computing in SMEs: towards delegation of the CIO role”, Information
and Computer Security, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 199-213.
Boyd, E. (2023), General Availability of Azure OpenAI Service Expands Access to Large, Advanced
AI Models with Added Enterprise Benefits, Microsoft Azure, Microsoft Azure, available at: https://
azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/general-availability-of-azure-openai-service-expands-access-to-
large-advanced-ai-models-with-added-enterprise-benefits/ (accessed 19 February 2023).
Brender, N. and Markov, I. (2013), “Risk perception and risk management in cloud computing: results
from a case study of Swiss companies”, International Journal of Information Management,
Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 726-733.
Carlsson-Wall, M., Goretzki, L., Hofstedt, J., Kraus, K. and Nilsson, C.J. (2021), “Exploring the Enablers and
implications of cloud-based enterprise resource planning systems for public sector management
accountants”, Financial Accountability and Management, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 177-201. barriers to
Chang, Y.W. (2020), “What drives organizations to switch to cloud ERP systems? The impacts of
Cloud ERP
enablers and inhibitors”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 33 No. 3,
pp. 600-626.
Chang, Y.W., Hsu, P.Y., Shiau, W.L. and Hsu, M.C. (2019), “An empirical study on factors affecting
switching intention to cloud enterprise resource planning: a comparison between public and
private clouds”, Journal of Global Information Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 46-69.
Chen, P.T. and Chen, J.H. (2015), “Implementing cloud-based medical systems in hospitals and
strategic implications”, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 198-218.
Chen, C.S., Liang, W.Y. and Hsu, H.Y. (2015), “A cloud computing platform for ERP applications”,
Applied Soft Computing Journal, Vol. 27, pp. 127-136.
Chofreh, A.G., Goni, F.A. and Klemes, J.J. (2018), “Sustainable enterprise resource planning systems
implementation: a framework development”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 198,
pp. 1345-1354.
Christopher, J. (2010), “Corporate governance-A multi-theoretical approach to recognizing the wider
influencing forces impacting on organizations”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 21
No. 8, pp. 683-695.
Compeau, D.R. and Higgins, C.A. (1995), “Computer self-efficacy: development of a measure and initial
test”, MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 189-210.
DaSilva, C.M., Trkman, P., Desouza, K. and Lindic, J. (2013), “Disruptive technologies: a business
model perspective on cloud computing”, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management,
Vol. 25 No. 10, pp. 1161-1173.
Deloitte (2021), ERP-as-a-service: Reducing Complexity, Powering Momentum, Deloitte, available at:
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/process-and-operations/us-erp-
as-a-service-report.pdf (accessed 16 February 2023).
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.
Dinca, V.M., Dima, A.M. and Rozsa, Z. (2019), “Determinants of cloud computing adoption by
Romanian smes in the digital economy”, Journal of Business Economics and Management,
Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 798-820.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S.J., Papadopoulos, T. and Wamba, S.F. (2017), “World class
sustainable supply chain management: critical review and further research directions”,
International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 332-362.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Agency theory: an assessment and review”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 57-74.
European Commission (2022), Recovery and Resilience Facility, European Commission, European
Commission (accessed 30 April 2022).
European Council and Council of the European Union (2022), The General Data Protection Regulation,
European Council and Council of the European Union: European Council and Council of the
European Union, available at: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/data-protection/
data-protection-regulation/ (accessed 19 February 2023).
Feeny, D.F. and Ives, B. (1990), “In search of sustainability: reaping long-term advantage from
investments in information technology”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 7
No. 1, pp. 64-83.
Ferri, L., Spano, R. and Tomo, A. (2020), “Cloud computing in high tech startups: evidence
from a case study”, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 32 No. 2,
pp. 146-157.
JEIM Floerecke, S., Lehner, F. and Schweikl, S. (2021), “Cloud computing ecosystem model: evaluation and
role clusters”, Electronic Markets, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 923-943.
Gangwar, H., Date, H. and Ramaswamy, R. (2015), “Understanding determinants of cloud computing
adoption using an integrated TAM-TOE model”, Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 107-130.
Garrison, G., Wakefield, R.L. and Kim, S. (2015), “The effects of IT capabilities and delivery model on
cloud computing success and firm performance for cloud supported processes and operations”,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 377-393.
Gartner (2020), Gartner Identifies Top Five Areas in Digital Commerce that COVID-19 Will Change,
Gartner, available at: https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2020-10-08-gartner-
identifies-top-five-areas-in-digital-commerce-that-covid-19-will-change (accessed 16
February 2023).
Gutierrez, A., Boukrami, E. and Lumsden, R. (2015), “Technological, organisational and environmental
factors influencing managers’ decision to adopt cloud computing in the UK”, Journal of
Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 788-807.
Gupta, P., Seetharaman, A. and Raj, J.R. (2013), “The usage and adoption of cloud computing by small
and medium businesses”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 33 No. 5,
pp. 861-874.
Gupta, S., Misra, S.C., Singh, A., Kumar, V. and Kumar, U. (2017), “Identification of challenges and
their ranking in the implementation of cloud ERP: a comparative study for SMEs and large
organizations”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 34 No. 7,
pp. 1056-1072.
Gupta, S., Kumar, S., Singh, S.K., Foropon, C. and Chandra, C. (2018a), “Role of cloud ERP on the
performance of an organization: contingent resource-based view perspective”, International
Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 659-675.
Gupta, S., Misra, S.C., Kock, N. and Roubaud, D. (2018b), “Organizational, technological and extrinsic
factors in the implementation of cloud ERP in SMEs”, Journal of Organizational Change
Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 83-102.
Gupta, S., Qian, X., Bhushan, B. and Luo, Z. (2019), “Role of cloud ERP and big data on firm
performance: a dynamic capability view theory perspective”, Management Decision, Vol. 57
No. 8, pp. 1857-1882.
Gupta, S., Meissonier, R., Drave, V.A. and Roubaud, D. (2020a), “Examining the impact of Cloud ERP
on sustainable performance: a dynamic capability view”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 51.
Gupta, S., Modgil, S. and Gunasekaran, A. (2020b), “Big data in lean six sigma: a review and
further research directions”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 58 No. 3,
pp. 947-969.
Gupta, S., Modgil, S., Kumar, A., Sivarajah, U. and Irani, Z. (2022a), “Artificial intelligence and cloud-based
Collaborative Platforms for Managing Disaster, extreme weather and emergency operations”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 254, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2022.108642.
Gupta, S., Modgil, S., Lee, C.K., Cho, M. and Park, Y. (2022b), “Artificial intelligence enabled robots for
stay experience in the hospitality industry in a smart city”, Industrial Management and Data
Systems, Vol. 122 No. 10, pp. 2331-2350, doi: 10.1108/IMDS-10-2021-0621.
Habjan, K.B. and Pucihar, A. (2017), “Cloud computing adoption business model factors: does
enterprise size matter?”, Engineering Economics, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 253-261.
Hachicha, Z.S. and Mezghani, K. (2018), “Understanding intentions to switch toward cloud computing
at firms’ level: a multiple case study in Tunisia”, Journal of Global Information Management,
Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 136-165.
Hannan, M.T. and Carroll, G.R. (1992), Dynamics of Organizational Populations: Density, Legitimation,
and Competition, Oxford University Press.
Herzberg, F. (1965), “The motivation to work among Finnish supervisors”, Personnel Psychology, Enablers and
Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 393-402.
barriers to
Huang, Q., Rahim, M., Foster, S. and Anwar, M. (2021), “Critical success factors affecting
implementation of cloud ERP systems: a systematic literature review with future research
Cloud ERP
possibilities”, Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,
Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 4683-4692.
IBM (2021), Why ERPs Weren’t Built to Meet Today’s B2B Customer Expectations, IBM, available at:
https://www.ibm.com/watson/supply-chain/resources/b2b-order-management-erp/ (accessed 17
February 2023).
Janssen, M., Weerakkody, V., Ismagilova, E., Sivarajah, U. and Irani, Z. (2020), “A framework for
analysing blockchain technology adoption: integrating institutional, market and technical
factors”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 50, pp. 302-309.
Jarraya, M. and Elloumi, S. (2022), “Load balancing scheduling algorithms for virtual computing
laboratories in a Desktop-As-A-Service Cloud Computing Services”, Computer Communications,
Vol. 192, pp. 343-354.
Kajiyama, T., Jennex, M. and Addo, T. (2017), “To cloud or not to cloud: how risks and threats are
affecting cloud adoption decisions”, Information and Computer Security, Vol. 25 No. 5,
pp. 634-659.
Khalil, S. (2019), “Adopting the cloud: how it affects firm strategy”, Journal of Business Strategy,
Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 28-35.
Khayer, A., Jahan, N., Hossain, M.N. and Hossain, M.Y. (2021), “The adoption of cloud computing in
small and medium enterprises: a developing country perspective”, VINE Journal of Information
and Knowledge Management Systems, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 64-91.
Khayer, A., Bao, Y. and Nguyen, B. (2020), “Understanding cloud computing success and its impact on
firm performance: an integrated approach”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 120
No. 5, pp. 963-985.
Kim, S.H., Jang, S.Y. and Yang, K.H. (2017), “Analysis of the determinants of software-as-a-service
adoption in small businesses: risks, benefits, and organizational and environmental factors”,
Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 303-325.
Kyriakou, N. and Loukis, E.N. (2019), “Do strategy, processes, personnel and technology affect firm’s
propensity to adopt cloud computing?: an empirical investigation”, Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 517-534.
Lacity, M.C., Willcocks, L.P. and Khan, S. (2011), “Beyond transaction cost economics: towards an
endogenous theory of information technology outsourcing”, Journal of Strategic Information
Systems, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 139-157.
Lee, L.S. and Mautz, R.D. Jr. (2012), “Using cloud computing to manage costs”, Journal of Corporate
Accounting and Finance, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 11-15.
Lee, K., Shin, J., Kwon, S., Cho, C.-S. and Chung, S. (2021), “BIM environment based virtual desktop
infrastructure (VDI) resource optimization system for small to medium-sized architectural
design firms”, Applied Sciences, Vol. 11 No. 13, p. 6160.
Li, S. and Sun, W. (2021), “Utility maximisation for resource allocation of migrating
enterprise applications into the cloud”, Enterprise Information Systems, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 197-229.
Li, S., Liu, H., Li, W. and Sun, W. (2022), “An optimization framework for migrating and deploying
multiclass enterprise applications into the cloud”, IEEE Transactions on Services Computing,
Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 941-956.
L
opez, C. and Ishizaka, A. (2017), “GAHPSort: a new group multi-criteria decision method for sorting a
large number of the cloud-based ERP solutions”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 92-93, pp. 12-25.
Lomba, N., Jancov
a, L. and Fernandes, M. (2022), Digital Transformation: Cost of Non-europe,
European Parliamentary Research Service, European Parliamentary Research Service (accessed
29 April 2022).
JEIM Loukis, E., Janssen, M. and Mintchev, I. (2019), “Determinants of software-as-a-service benefits and
impact on firm performance”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 117, pp. 38-47.
na, E., Sesma, I., Morat
o, D. and Izal, M. (2019), “Remote access protocols for Desktop-as-a-
Maga~
Service solutions”, PLoS ONE, Vol. 14 No. 1, p. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.
0207512.
Mahmood, F., Khan, A.Z. and Bokhari, R.H. (2020), “ERP issues and challenges: a research synthesis”,
Kybernetes, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 629-659.
Marinho, M., Prakash, V., Garg, L., Savaglio, C. and Bawa, S. (2021), “Effective cloud resource
utilisation in cloud erp decision-making process for industry 4.0 in the united states”,
Electronics, Vol. 10 No. 8, p. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.3390/electronics10080959.
MarketsandMarkets (2022), Cloud ERP Market Worth $130.0 Billion by 2027, MarketsandMarkets,
available at: https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/cloud-erp-market-190169866.
html?gclid5Cj0KCQiA3eGfBhCeARIsACpJNU-jVw5RemJEfECydoik4r1NmHAFpON_XctdLimJ-
Gclcb4O9PVv4F4aAvyvEALw_wcB (accessed 16 February 2023).
Meghana, H.L., Mathew, A.O. and Rodrigues, L.L.R. (2018), “Prioritizing the factors affecting cloud
ERP adoption – an analytic hierarchy process approach”, International Journal of Emerging
Markets, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 1559-1577.
Myers, B.L., Kappelman, L.A. and Prybutok, V.R. (1997), “A comprehensive model for assessing the
quality and productivity of the information systems function: toward a theory for information
systems assessment”, Information Resources Management Journal (IRMJ), Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 6-26.
Najmaei, A. (2016), “How do entrepreneurs develop business models in small high-tech ventures? An
exploratory model from Australian IT firms”, Entrepreneurship Research Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3,
pp. 297-343.
Nieuwenhuis, L.J.M., Ehrenhard, M.L. and Prause, L. (2018), “The shift to Cloud Computing: the impact
of disruptive technology on the enterprise software business ecosystem”, Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 129, pp. 308-313.
Novet, J. (2023), Microsoft Will Let Companies Create Their Own Custom Versions of ChatGPT, Source
Says, CNBC, available at: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/07/microsoft-will-offer-chatgpt-tech-
for-companies-to-customize-source.html (accessed 2nd March 2023).
Olson, J.C. and Dover, P.A. (1979), “Disconfirmation of consumer expectations through product trial”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 2, p. 179.
Oliveira, T., Thomas, M. and Espadanal, M. (2014), “Assessing the determinants of cloud computing
adoption: an analysis of the manufacturing and services sectors”, Information and
Management, Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 497-510.
Panorama Consulting Group (2020), The 2020 ERP Report, Panorama Consulting Group, available at:
https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/4439340/Panorama-Consulting-Group-The-2020-ERP-Report.pdf
Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G.R. (2003), The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence
Perspective, Stanford University Press.
Pincus, J. (2004), “The consequences of unmet needs: the evolving role of motivation in consumer
research”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour: An International Research Review, Vol. 3 No. 4,
pp. 375-387.
Ratten, V. (2015), “International consumer attitudes toward cloud computing: a social cognitive theory
and technology acceptance model perspective”, Thunderbird International Business Review,
Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 217-228.
Ratten, V. (2016), “Continuance use intention of cloud computing: innovativeness and creativity
perspectives”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 5, pp. 1737-1740.
Raut, R., Priyadarshinee, P., Jha, M., Gardas, B.B. and Kamble, S. (2018a), “Modeling the
implementation barriers of cloud computing adoption: an interpretive structural modeling”,
Benchmarking, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 2760-2782.
Raut, R.D., Priyadarshinee, P., Gardas, B.B. and Jha, M.K. (2018b), “Analyzing the factors influencing Enablers and
cloud computing adoption using three stage hybrid SEM-ANN-ISM (SEANIS) approach”,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 134, pp. 98-123. barriers to
Raut, R.D., Gardas, B.B., Narkhede, B.E. and Narwane, V.S. (2019), “To investigate the determinants of
Cloud ERP
cloud computing adoption in the manufacturing micro, small and medium enterprises: a
DEMATEL-based approach”, Benchmarking, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 990-1019.
Repschlaeger, J., Erek, K. and Zarnekow, R. (2013), “Cloud computing adoption: an empirical study of
customer preferences among start-up companies”, Electronic Markets, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 115-148.
Reddi, S.P., Clemons, E.K. and Row, M.C. (1993), “The impact of information technology on the
organization of economic activity: the ‘move to the middle’ hypothesis”, Journal of Management
Information Systems, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 9-35.
Romero, J.A. and Abad, C. (2022), “Cloud-based big data analytics integration with ERP platforms”,
Management Decision, Vol. 60 No. 12, pp. 3416-3437.
Ross, P.K. and Blumenstein, M. (2015), “Cloud computing as a facilitator of SME entrepreneurship”,
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 87-101.
Sancar Gozukara, S., Tekinerdogan, B. and Catal, C. (2020), “Obstacles of on-premise enterprise
resource planning systems and solution directions”, The Journal of Computer Information
Systems, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 141-152.
Senyo, P.K., Effah, J. and Addae, E. (2016), “Preliminary insight into cloud computing adoption in a
developing country”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 505-524.
Sørheller, V.U., Høvik, E.J., Hustad, E. and Vassilakopoulou, P. (2018), “Implementing cloud ERP
solutions: a review of sociotechnical concerns”, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 138 No. 1,
pp. 470-477.
Safari, F., Safari, N. and Hasanzadeh, A. (2015), “The adoption of software-as-a-service (SaaS): ranking
the determinants”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 400-422.
Sawas, M.S. and Watfa, M.K. (2015), “The impact of cloud computing on information systems agility”,
Australasian Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 19, pp. 97-112.
Schneider, S. and Sunyaev, A. (2015), “CloudLive: a life cycle framework for cloud services”, Electronic
Markets, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 299-311.
Schreieck, M., Wiesche, M. and Krcmar, H. (2021), “Capabilities for value co-creation and value capture
in emergent platform ecosystems: a longitudinal case study of SAP’s cloud platform”, Journal of
Information Technology, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 365-390.
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.
Senarathna, I., Yeoh, W., Warren, M. and Salzman, S. (2016), “Security and privacy concerns for
Australian SMEs cloud adoption: empirical study of metropolitan vs regional SMEs”,
Australasian Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 10-21.
Senarathna, I., Wilkin, C., Warren, M., Yeoh, W. and Salzman, S. (2018), “Factors that influence
adoption of cloud computing: an empirical study of Australian SMEs”, Australasian Journal of
Information Systems, Vol. 22.
Sharma, M. and Sehrawat, R. (2020), “Quantifying SWOT analysis for cloud adoption using FAHP-
DEMATEL approach: evidence from the manufacturing sector”, Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 1111-1152.
Sharma, M., Gupta, R., Acharya, P. and Jain, K. (2021), “Systems approach to cloud computing
adoption in an emerging economy”, International Journal of Emerging Markets, Vol. ahead-of-
print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/IJOEM-04-2021-0501.
Singh, S. and Misra, S.C. (2021), “Exploring the challenges for adopting the cloud PLM in manufacturing
organizations”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 752-766.
JEIM Singh, M., Singh, B.B., Singh, R., Upendra, B., Kaur, R., Gill, S.S. and Biswas, M.S. (2021), “Quantifying
COVID-19 enforced global changes in atmospheric pollutants using cloud computing based
remote sensing”, Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 1-23.
Sivarajah, U., Irani, Z., Gupta, S. and Mahroof, K. (2020), “Role of big data and social media analytics
for business to business sustainability: a participatory web context”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 86, pp. 163-179.
Son, I., Lee, D., Lee, J.N. and Chang, Y.B. (2014), “Market perception on cloud computing initiatives in
organizations: an extended resource-based view”, Information and Management, Vol. 51 No. 6,
pp. 653-669.
Stewart, H. (2021), “The hindrance of cloud computing acceptance within the financial sectors in
Germany”, Information and Computer Security, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 206-224.
Tan, X. and Kim, Y. (2015), “User acceptance of SaaS-based collaboration tools: a case of Google
Docs”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 423-442.
Teece, D.J. (1988), “Capturing value from technological innovation: integration, strategic partnering,
and licensing decisions”, Interfaces, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 46-61.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-533.
Tongsuksai, S., Mathrani, S. and Taskin, N. (2019), “Cloud enterprise resource planning
implementation: a systematic literature review of critical success factors”, 2019 IEEE Asia-
Pacific Conference on Computer Science and Data Engineering, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1-8.
Trigueros-Preciado, S., P
erez-Gonz
alez, D. and Solana-Gonz
alez, P. (2013), “Cloud computing in
industrial SMEs: identification of the barriers to its adoption and effects of its application”,
Electronic Markets, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 105-114.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review”, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 207-222.
Tsai, J.M. and Hung, S.W. (2014), “A novel model of technology diffusion: system dynamics
perspective for cloud computing”, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management - JET-
M, Vol. 33, pp. 47-62.
Twum-Darko, M. and Sibanyoni, J.L. (2014), “Role of cloud computing as technology innovation in
small and medium enterprises in South Africa”, Corporate Ownership and Control, 1CONT6,
Vol. 12, pp. 557-571.
Wang, Y. and Kogan, A. (2020), “Cloud-based in-memory columnar database architecture for
continuous audit analytics”, Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 87-107.
Wang, R.T. and Lin, C.P. (2012), “Understanding innovation performance and its antecedents: a socio-
cognitive model”, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management - JET-M, Vol. 29 No. 2,
pp. 210-225.
Wang, C., Wood, L.C., Abdul-Rahman, H. and Lee, Y.T. (2016), “When traditional information technology
project managers encounter the cloud: opportunities and dilemmas in the transition to cloud
services”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 371-388.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984), “A resource-based view of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 171-180.
Whetten, D.A. (1989), “What constitutes a theoretical contribution?”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 490-495.
Winkler, T.J. and Brown, C.V. (2013), “Horizontal allocation of decision rights for on-premise
applications and software-as-a-service”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 30
No. 3, pp. 13-48.
Williamson, B., Macgilchrist, F. and Potter, J. (2023), “Re-examining AI, automation and datafication in
education”, Learning, Media and Technology, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 1-5.
Xiao, X., Sarker, S., Wright, R.T., Sarker, S. and Mariadoss, B.J. (2020), “Commitment and replacement Enablers and
of existing saas-delivered applications: a mixed-methods investigation”, MIS Quarterly:
Management Information Systems, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 1811-1858. barriers to
Xu, H. and Mahenthiran, S. (2021), “Users’ perception of cybersecurity, trust and cloud computing
Cloud ERP
providers’ performance”, Information and Computer Security, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 816-835.
Yang, M., Jacob, V.S. and Raghunathan, S. (2021), “Cloud service model’s role in provider and user
security investment incentives”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 30 No. 2,
pp. 419-437.
Yasiukovich, S. and Haddara, M. (2020), “Tracing the clouds. A research taxonomy of cloud-erp in
SMEs”, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 237-304.
Yau-Yeung, D., Yigitbasioglu, O. and Green, P. (2020), “Cloud accounting risks and mitigation
strategies: evidence from Australia”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 421-446.
Yigitbasioglu, O. (2014), “Modelling the intention to adopt cloud computing services: a transaction
cost theory perspective”, Australasian Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 193-210.
Yigitbasioglu, O.M. (2015), “The role of institutional pressures and top management support in the
intention to adopt cloud computing solutions”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management,
Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 579-594.
Yigitbasioglu, O.M., Mackenzie, K. and Low, R. (2013), “Cloud computing: how does it differ from IT
outsourcing and what are the implications for practice and research?”, International Journal of
Digital Accounting Research, Vol. 13, pp. 99-121.

Corresponding author
Shivam Gupta can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]