INTEGRATION, FLEXIBILITY AND TRANSVERSALITY :

ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ERP SYSTEMS

Sylvestre Uwizeyemungu, Louis Raymond

Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, C.P. 500, Trois-Rivières, Qc, Canada G9A 5H7

Keywords: ERP, enterprise systems, integration, flexibility,

process orientation, transversality, information system.

Abstract: The interest of firms in ERP systems has been echoed in both the scientific and professional literature. It is

worth noting however that while this literature has become increasingly abundant, there does not yet exist

an operational definition of the ERP concept that is, if not unanimously, at least widely accepted. This

constitutes a handicap for both the research and practice communities. The present study outlines what

could be considered as an ERP by first determining the essentially required characteristics of such a system :

integration, flexibility and transversality. Indicators are then provided in order to operationalise these three

characteristics. The study concludes by proposing a research framework on the impact of an ERP’s key

characteristics upon the performance of the system in a given organisational setting.

1 INTRODUCTION

Since their appearance on the packaged software

market in the 1990s, ERP (Enterprise Resources

Planning) systems have grown rapidly, be it in terms

of their relative importance in the market (Truex,

2001; Rosemann et Wiese, 1999; AMR Research,

1998) or in terms of their adoption by large firms

(Hitt, Wu and Zhou, 2002) and even by small and

medium-sized enterprises (Greenemeier, 2001;

Willis, Willis-Brown and McMillan, 2001;

Everdingen, Hillegersberg and Waarts, 2000).

Both the professional and academic literature has

sho

wn a great interest in ERP, based on the high

hopes placed in these systems, but also on the

serious difficulties encountered by firms that have

adopted these. Numerous cases of ERP project

failure have been documented, including cases

leading to the bankruptcy of the adopting

organisations (Scott, 1999; Jesitus, 1997).

Whatever the organisational impacts of ERP as

seen

in the literature, one fundamental question

remains however : What can be qualified as an

enterprise system (ES)? This can seem surprising

given the abundant literature on ERP [see Esteves

and Pastor’s (2001) annotated bibliography for an

illustration of this abundance]. This question

appears nonetheless founded as an analysis of this

literature shows that there lacks a widely-accepted

operational definition of what is considered to be an

ES. Klaus, Rosemann and Gable (2000), following a

three-level analysis, that is (i) an historical analysis,

(ii) a meta-analysis of the representative IS literature

on the subject, and (iii) a survey of academic

experts, conclude on the existence of wide-ranging

perspectives on the ERP phenomenon, and above all

on the absence of a commonly accepted definition. It

is however essential that there be a consensus in the

research community on the definition of the research

object, or at least on a set of common indicators.

Klaus et al. (2000) give three reasons for seeking

this consensus: (i) it facilitates communication

among researchers, and between researchers and

practitioners, (ii) it allows for the development of

teaching material on ERP and related concepts in

university curricula and in professional training, and

(iii) it facilitates communication between ERP

system vendors, consultants, and their clients.

The present paper aims to contribute to the

scussion on the meaning of ERP systems. In order

to do this, the next section of the paper focuses on

the terminological ambiguity surrounding the term

ERP itself. In another section are then examined the

characteristics generally attributed to ES in the

literature, and a regrouping of these is proposed, in

order to refine their analysis. This leads to the

identification of three characteristics judged to be

Uwizeyemungu S. and Raymond L. (2004).

INTEGRATION, FLEXIBILITY AND TRANSVERSALITY: ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ERP SYSTEMS.

In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, pages 70-77

DOI: 10.5220/0002622800700077

 SciTePress

indispensable if a system is to be qualified as an

ERP system, namely integration, flexibility, and

transversality. Indications for the operationalisation

of these characteristics are then proposed. Finally,

the paper concludes on limitations and research

orientations.

2 ERP: A TERMININOLOGICAL

AMBIGUITY

In the research literature on the ERP phenomenon,

even the term « ERP » itself is not unanimously

accepted. However, there is a largely-established

consensus (Klaus et al., 2000; Forest, 1999; Tuteja,

1998) on first considering MRP (Material

Requirements Planning), and then MRP II

(Manufacturing Resources Planning) systems as the

precursors of ERP. Hence, the « ERP » appellation

directly follows « MRP II », with the word

« enterprise » replacing « manufacturing » to signify

that the system extends to the whole of the

organisation.

Some object to the ERP label, judging it to be

doubly restrictive in that it descends from MRP II

and alludes only to planning. Alternative

appellations have thus been proposed, including

EWS (Enterprise Wide Systems), or simply ES

(Enterprise Systems) (Markus and Tanis, 2000;

Davenport, 1998) to highlight the coverage and

integration of all organisational functions, or yet

again ERM (Enterprise Resources Management)

(Österle et al., 2001: p. 25) to highlight the support

for all of the firm’s management activities and not

only planning.

While these objections are founded, the ERP

appellation remains widely used in both the research

and professional literature, seemingly for reasons of

convenience and antecedence. Being gradually

accustomed to its use, people do not seem to be

bothered by the weak correspondence between the

appellation and its content. One must also note that

since it was first coined in 1992 (Klaus et al., 1992),

the term ERP has preceded the alternative terms that

appeared a few years later. In the rest of this paper,

the term in-use will be employed, namely “ERP”,

whatever its imperfections, with the aim of better

defining the content of this term.

3 CHARACTERISTICS

GENERALLY ATTRIBUTED TO

ERP SYSTEMS

If one refers to various authors (Brown, 2001; Rowe,

1999; Davenport, 1998), an ERP system can be

defined as an adaptable and evolutive commercial

package that supports, in real time and in an

integrated manner, the management of most if not all

of a firm’s business processes. One can attempt to

better define it by looking at its characteristics. In

this regard, an attentive observer of both the research

and professional literature will denote quite a

number of attributes deemed to be possessed by ERP

systems.

3.1 Identification of ERP

characteristics

Characteristics generally attributed to ERP systems

in the literature are presented in Table 1. In doing so,

an attempt has been made to include all

characteristics, notwithstanding the different

terminologies used by different authors in describing

them.

3.2 Regrouping ERP Characteristics

For a better understanding, ERP characteristics have

been regrouped under three dimensions in regards to

their nature, namely technical, organisational and

informational, as presented in Figure 1. The

technical dimension regroups characteristics that

refer to the capabilities or facilities for applications

development offered by ERP systems in comparison

to traditional systems. This includes two basic

characteristics : flexibility (adaptability) and

openness (evolutionary).

The organisational dimension refers to the

system’s deployment in the firm. These are the

characteristics that best reflect the impact of an ERP

system on the organisation, on its structure as well

as its practices. This includes integration,

completeness (generic function), homogenisation,

transversality (process-oriented view) and best

practices. The informational dimension regroups

characteristics that relate to the quality and

usefulness of the information provided by the

system, namely real-time (update and consultation)

and simulation (of actual business processes).

This regrouping justifies the assertion that ERP

systems can be qualified as organisational systems

rather than as technical or information systems

(Besson, 1999). Also, existing ERP systems are built

INTEGRATION, FLEXIBILITY AND TRANSVERSALITY: ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ERP SYSTEMS

upon diverse hardware and software platforms, such

as Windows or Unix. For Klaus et al. (2000), this is

an argument for characterising an ERP system more

by its functionalities than by its design or technical

exigencies.

Table 1: Recapitulation of the main characteristics of ERP systems

Characteristics Explanatory elements Authors

1. Integration

− Interconnections between functions and

hierarchical levels

− Interaction between the various processes

Barki and Pinsonneault, 2003 ; 2002 ;

Brown, 2001; Deloitte Consulting, 1999;

Lequeux, 1999; Rowe, 1999.

2. Completeness

(generic function)

− Wide range of functions

− Applicable to various types of firms

− Connectivity with the outside

Brown, 2001; Deloitte Consulting, 1999;

Lequeux, 1999; Rowe, 1999; Tuteja,

1998.

3. Homogenisation

− Unique data referential

− Uniformity of human-machine interfaces

− Unicity of the system’s administration

Brown, 2001; Deloitte Consulting, 1999;

Lequeux, 1999; Rowe, 1999.

4. Real-time

− Real-time update and consultation

Österle et al., 2001; Deloitte Consulting,

1999.

5. Adaptability

(flexibility)

− Capability to follow rule and organisation

changes (made possible by parametering)

Lequeux, 1999; Rowe, 1999; Tuteja,

1998.

6. Openness

(evolutionary)

− Modularity

− Portability

Lequeux, 1999; Rowe, 1999; Tuteja,

1998.

7. Transversality

(process-oriented

view)

− System designed in regard to the business

processes necessary to achieve objectives

− Focus on value rather than authority flows

Carbonel, 2001; Klaus et al., 2000;

Besson, 1999.

8. Best practices

− System imbeds best practices in the field

Smyth, 2001; Tuteja, 1998.

9. Simulation

− Business processes can be simulated

Rowe, 1999; Tuteja, 1998.

ERP

Technical

Informational

Organisational

Real-time

Simulation

Adaptability

Openness

Dimension Characteristic

Integration

Completeness

Homogenisation

Transversality

Best practices

Figure 1: ERP characteristics regrouped under three

dimensions

4 ESSENTIAL

CHARACTERISTICS OF AN ERP

SYSTEM

If one carefully considers the characteristics

enumerated above, a number of questions arise.

First, are these characteristics truly universal ? In

other words, do they all apply to all ERP systems ?

Second, are all of these characteristics equal, or are

some more determinant than others in defining

ERP systems? And what would be the indispensable

or minimal characteristics required for a system to

be qualified as an ERP system ? The discussion that

follows attempts to answer these questions.

4.1 Discussion of ERP system

characteristics

In analysing the characteristics attributed to ERP

systems in the literature, one is attempting to

identify those that are most significant and common

to all. A characteristic can then be kept or discarded

ICEIS 2004 - DATABASES AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS INTEGRATION

on the basis of its discriminating power in regard to

other characteristics. Redundant attributes can thus

be eliminated.

A flexible organisation is one that can use its

existing resources and competencies to quickly

respond to changing conditions in its environment

without significant decreases in performance

(D’Souza and Williams, 2000). The flexibility of the

IT infrastructure is a characteristic deemed to be

determinant if these technologies are to be at the

source of a sustained competitive advantage for the

firm (Duncan, 1995). This explains the importance

accorded to this issue by IT managers (Byrd and

Turner, 2000). Flexibility is even more important in

the case of ERP systems, given the size of the

investment they require and the breadth of their

organisational coverage. If an ERP system was not

adaptable, it would limit the organisation’s

development potential in a changing environment.

Also, given that the ERP system integrates

various functions of the organisation (production,

finance, HRM, etc.), there seems to be both an

opposing and a complementary relationship between

flexibility and another characteristic, namely

integration. On one hand, the more an organisation

is integrated, the harder it is to “disconnect” itself

(Markus, 2000). Indeed, Brandyberry, Rai and

White (1999) have found that the more firms adopt

integrated technologies, the less flexible they are.

On the other hand, integrated processes allow for

greater sharing of new information, thus insuring

quicker response to changes in the environment and

increasing the organisation’s flexibility.

Openness is a characteristic that appears to be

redundant in regard to flexibility. The modularity

and portability (openess) that allow an ERP system

to evolve with the organisation can be considered as

factors of flexibility. In fact, Byrd and Turner (2000)

include modularity in their definition of flexibility.

Integration is without a doubt the most important

ERP characteristic, as all authors concur on this

(Barki and Pinsonneault, 2002; Rowe, 1999 ;

Lequeux, 1999 ; Davenport, 1998). It distinguishes

ERP systems from traditional IS whose

« informational fragmentation » has been criticized

(Caldas and Wood Jr, 1999) in that it reflects a

vision of the organisation as a set of islands or

functional silos that cannot coummunicate with each

other, or that communicate little or with great

difficulty.

Completeness (the generic functionality) is a

characteristic that, pushed to the extreme, becomes

unrealistic. A generic system that would work for all

types of firms and industries is in fact very difficult

if not impossible to design. Forest (1999) shows for

example that depending upon the nature of their

physical flows, manufacturing firms will have IS

needs, and ERP needs in particular, that are specific

to them. One could in fact develop a typology of

ERP systems by taking into account the specificities

of the adopting organisations and industries.

Whereas Parr and Shanks (2000) show that by

choosing a specific type of implementation, given

their initial motivation for adopting an ERP system,

organisations wind up with systems that are not

comparable. For their part, Klaus et al. (2000) note

that in its strictly generic form, the ERP system

needs to be configured before being used. By adding

or eliminating certain elements, the configuration

thus creates distinct product types and makes it very

difficult to have a standard or common description.

Homogenisation refers to the existence of a

unique data referential, the uniformity of human-

machine interfaces, and to the unicity of the

application system’s administration (Rowe, 1999).

Among these elements, the first one is deemed by

Lequeux (1999) to be indispensable in qualifying a

solution as an ERP system, in addition to integration

and adaptablity. One must note however that

homogenisation is subordinate to integration.

Hasselbring (2000) indicates that reducing the

heterogeneity of IS is one dimension on which to

intervene in order to achieve integration. The same

can be said of a unique data referential or data base

that supports the integration of information flows

within the firm, in conjunction with a workflow

management system (Beretta, 2002).

Transversality refers to the process-oriented

view of an ERP system (Carbonel, 2001). Its

importance comes from the fact that ERP systems

are composed of functional modules, and are

generally implemented module by module, that is, in

a vertical manner. If care is not taken, this could

threaten the horizontal design of the organisation, as

it is this design that allows one to remove non value-

adding activities from business processes (Bentley,

1995). Beretta (2002) adds that without a process-

oriented view, the integration advantages to be

obtained from an ERP would remain virtual. A

number of failures of ERP projects are in fact due to

a lack of transversality in the installed system ; for

instance, « balkanisation » appears when each

organisational entity uses the installed ERP software

to consolidate its power base by accentuating its

differences (Besson, 1999).

Imbedding best practices would not be

considered as an essential characteristic of ERP

systems. The reason is that this notion is based on

INTEGRATION, FLEXIBILITY AND TRANSVERSALITY: ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ERP SYSTEMS

adopting generic processes that, despite being

exemplary, offer few possibilities of gaining a

competitive advantage (Davenport, 1998). Certain

authors go further by questioning the universal

applicability of so-called « best practices » (Soh,

Kien and Tay-Yap, 2000; Harrington, 1997).

The capacity for real-time operation and

simulation in an ERP system are consequences of

successful integration. It is this integration that

allows the same information to be communicated in

real time to all parts of the organisation, and allows

simulating the effect of an input on all activities of

the organisation. Markus (2000) notes for instance

that non-integration limits the capacity of a firm, or

of a group of cooperating firms, to take important

decisions, even when the necessary data reside

somewhere in a system.

4.2 Operationalisation of ERP

characteristics

The preceding discussion leads us to limit essential

characteristics to three : integration, flexibility, and

transversality. One could say that these are the

minimal requirements for a system to be qualified as

an ERP or enterprise system.

4.2.1 Operationalisation of integration

In the IS field, integration is defined from three

perspectives (Barki and Pinsonneault, 2002): one is

technical, referring to the interconnectivity of IT and

a shared conceptual schema for data bases ; a second

perspective is inter-organisational, referring to IT-

based links between business processes of two or

more independent organisations; a third perspective

envisages integration in the form of co-ordination

and co-operation within project teams and between

these teams and other entities in the organisation.

For her part, Markus (2000) distinguishes

organisational integration (both internal and

external) from systems integration. The first is

viewed as a tight co-ordination of the various

activities undertaken by different individuals, work

groups or organisations such that a unified business

process is formed. Systems integration is viewed as

creating strong links between different IS and data

bases.

The integration of an ERP system can be

envisaged from two angles, considering the

integration perimeter (organisational coverage) and

the intensity of integration (depth of integration). In

the first view, integration can be vertical, horizontal,

or inter-organisational (Prosser and Ossimitz, 2000).

Vertical integration refers to the degree of

interconnection (connectivity, compatibility)

between hierarchical levels in the organisation.

Horizontal integration is ascertained by the

interconnection between various organisational

functions or departments, whereas inter-

organisational integration refers to the firm’s

interconnection with its business partners. In the

second view, one distinguishes the extent to which

integration is achieved, be it vertical, horizontal, or

inter-organisational. In this regard, Toussaint et al.

(2001) mention the quality of integration, this being

ascertained through the co-ordination of behaviours

(presentation, execution, and data access) and of

communication (tracking of messages between

sender and receiver, structure of the information

exchanged, way in which information is exchanged

and processed).

4.2.2 Operationalisation of flexibility

Recaping different points of view in the literature,

Golden and Powell (2000) propose a four-

dimensional view of flexibility: a temporal

dimension, range, intention, and focus. The first

dimension refers to the time it takes the organisation

to react to change. The second is ascertained by the

variety of responses available to the organisation in

order to face both foreseen and unforeseen changes.

The third is meant to determine if the organisation is

proactive or reactive, offensive or defensive in

regard to change. The last dimension refers to the

internal or external orientation of the organisation’s

flexibility.

The last two dimensions (intention and focus), as

opposed to the first two (temporal and range), could

be considered as qualifiers of flexibility, but not

necessarily as definitional elements of this concept.

Golden and Powell (2000) note that intention and

focus depend on the context. Whatever the intention

or focus, flexibility is not put in question as it is a

strategic choice of the organisation.

To measure flexibility’s temporal dimension,

Golden and Powell (2000) propose efficiency and

responsiveness measures, whereas they propose

measures of versatility and robustness for the range

dimension. Here, efficiency means the ability to

maintain the same performance level while changes

occur. Responsiveness will be ascertained by the

quickness with which the organisation adapts to

change. Versatility and robustness both refer to the

range of activities that can be accomplished by a

system, the first one relating to foreseen changes

whereas the second relates to unforeseen changes.

ICEIS 2004 - DATABASES AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS INTEGRATION

For their part, Byrd and Turner (2000) have

developed a measure of IT flexibility, taking into

account both the technical infrastructure (data,

applications, networks) and the human infrastructure

(competencies for effective management of IT). The

technical infrastructure is measured by four

indicators : connectivity, compatibility, functionality

of applications, and data transparency. Note that the

first two are redundant with the measure of

integration, denoting again the intertwined

relationship between these two concepts. The human

infrastructure is ascertained through : technological

management, business abilities, management

knowledge, and technical knowledge.

The flexibility of an ERP system could thus be

measured by using a combination of the two

preceding approaches. This characteristic could be

operationalised under four dimensions, that is, two

dimensions from Golden and Powell (2000), namely

the temporal dimension (efficiency and

responsiveness of the system) and the system’s

range (versatility and robustness), and two from

Byrd and Turner (2000), namely part of the technical

dimension that is not redundant with integration

(functionality of system applications and data

transparency), and the human dimension

(managerial and technical knowledge, business and

managerial abilities in regard to the ERP system).

4.2.3 Operationalisation of transversality

The process notion is central to transversality. This

notion is defined as an activity or a set of activities

that are linked in an ordered fashion, and that

transform inputs into outputs for customers in a

repetitive flow (Forsberg, Nilsson and Antoni,

1999). Such a definition emphasises value-adding

activities, repetitiveness, and a customer-orientation.

The process is thus a conceptual scheme that helps

managers to assess the utility or value of each

specific activity (Beretta, 2002).

Various aspects of a process cannot be

apprehended through traditional accounting

measures but rather through performance indicators

such as production cycle times, delivery delays,

output quality, productivity, customer satisfaction,

and learning (McCormack and Johnson, 2001).

Understanding their activities from an horizontal

rather than vertical perspective would thus allow

business firms to get closer to their customers while

simultaneously increasing the quality of their

organisation and their competitiveness (APQC,

1996 ; Forsberg et al., 1999). Operationalising the

transversality of an ERP system requires measuring

the extent to which it is process-oriented. For

Forsberg et al. (1999), there are various

manifestations of an ERP infrastructure’s

embodying a process-orientation : use of a common

language, customer focus, cooperation, holistic or

« big picture » view, reduction of costs and delays,

increased learning, standardisation and co-

ordination.

5 LIMITATIONS AND

IMPLICATIONS FOR

RESEARCH

IS research can profit from a more precise definition

of ERP systems. In this paper, we have attempted to

take stock on what is actually meant by the ERP

appellation. To do this, we have placed an emphasis

on determining the minimal or indispensable

characteristics that a system should possess to be

qualified as an ERP system. We have then tried to

define these characteristics in order to facilitate their

operationalisation. This approach is strictly

theoretical however, and would require empirical

validation based on the characterization of ERP

systems actually implemented in organisations.

Another research avenue would be to further pursue

the operationalisation of ERP integration, flexibility

and transversality in order to measure these

characteristics across actual ERP systems.

Other research paths are summarised in Figure 2.

Given that previous studies have suggested the

existence of mutually dependent relationships

between ERP chasracteristics, notably between

flexibility and integration (Markus, 2000 ;

Brandyberry et al., 1999), it would be interesting to

pursue such analysis further by examining the nature

of the interdependencies between flexibility,

integration and transversality, and by assessing the

impact of such relationships on the ERP system’s

performance.

One could also envisage research that aims to

evaluate a system’s performance level as determined

by its levels of flexibility-integration-transversality.

Hitt et al. (2002) suggest that there is an optimal

level of functional integration beyond which

diseconomies of scale begin to appear. The problem

would then be to determine optimal levels of ERP

flexibility, integration and transversality, if they

exist, in relation to organisational or industry factors.

This paper hoped to contribute to a better

understanding not only of what is actually meant by

the term “ERP” or “enterprise system”, but also to

raise applied research issues that are of interest to

INTEGRATION, FLEXIBILITY AND TRANSVERSALITY: ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ERP SYSTEMS

firms that have implemented or plan to implement

ERP systems, and to vendors and consultants that

assist in their implementation.

Flexibility

Transversality

Integration

Performance

of the ERP

system

Performance

of the ERP

system

Organisational context

Optimal

level ?

Figure 2: Research avenues on the impact of key

characteristics of ERP systems

REFERENCES

AMR Research, 1998. AMR Research predicts ERP

market will reach $52 billion by 2002. Enterprise

Resource Planning Software Report, 1997-2002.

http://www.amrresearch.com/Content/viewpress.asp?i

d=13376&docid=848

APQC's International Benchmarking Clearinghouse, in

partnership with Arthur Andersen & Co., SC, 1996.

Process classification framework. APQC, American

Productivity & Quality Center.

http://www.apqc.org

Barki, H. and Pinsonneault, A., 2002. Explaining ERP

implementation effort and benefits with organizational

integration. Cahiers du GreSI, n° 02-01, 27 pages.

Barki, H. and Pinsonneault, A., 2003. The construct of

organizational integration: A research framework and

its application to enterprise systems research. Cahier

du GreSI, n° 03-04, 31 pages.

Bentley, T., 1995. Systems - A process orientation.

Management Accounting, January, p. 36.

Beretta, S., 2002. Unleashing the integration potential of

ERP systems. The role of process-based performance

measurement systems. Business Process Management

Journal, 8(3), 254-277.

Besson, P., 1999. Les ERP à l’épreuve de l’organisation.

Systèmes d’Information et Management, 4(4), 21-51.

Brandyberry, A., Rai, A. and White, G.P., 1999.

Intermediate performance impacts of advanced

manufacturing technology systems: An empirical

investigation. Decision Sciences, 30(4), 993-1020.

Brown, J. P., 2001. Is ERP a Silver Bullet? APICS – The

Performance Advantage, 10(13).

http://www.apics.org/magazine.

Byrd, T.A. and Turner, D.E., 2000. Measuring the

flexibility of information technology infrastructure :

Exploratory analysis of a construct. Journal of

Management Information Systems, 17(1), 167-208.

Carbonel, M., 2001. Dérives organisationnelles dans les

projets ERP : les cas de Guerbet et Gaumont. Systèmes

d’Information et Management, 6(1), 71-85.

Davenport, T.H., 1998. Putting the enterprise into the

enterprise system. Harvard Business Review, 76(4),

121-131.

D'Souza, D.E. and Williams, F.P., 2000. Toward a

taxonomy of manufacturing flexibility dimensions.

Journal of Operations Management, 18, 577-593.

Deloitte Consulting, 1999. ERP’s second wave:

Maximazing the value of ERP-enabled processes.

Deloitte Consulting, Atlanta.

Duncan, N.B., 1995. Capturing flexibility of information

technology infrastructure : A study of resource

characteristics and their measure. Journal of

Management Information Systems, 12(2), 37-57.

Esteves, J. and Pastor, J.A., 2001. Enterprise Resource

Planning systems research: An annotated

bibliography. Communication of AIS, 7(8).

Everdingen, Y.V., Hillegersberg, J.V. et Waarts, E., 2000.

ERP Adoption by european midsize companies.

Communication of the ACM, 43(4), 27-31.

Forest, G., 1999. Généalogie des ERP et gestion des flux

physiques. Systèmes d'Information et Management,

4(4), 71-89.

Forsberg, T., Nilsson, L., and Antoni, M., 1999. Process

orientation : The swedish experience. Total Quality

Management, 10(4&5), 540-547.

Golden, W. and Powell, P., 2000. Towards a definition of

flexibility: In search of the holy grail? Omega, The

International Journal of Management Science, 28,

373-384.

Greenemeier, L., 2001. ERP : It’s not just for big

companies. InformationWeek, October 29.

Harrington, H.J., 1997. The fallacy of universal best

practices. The TQM Magazine, 9(1), 61-75.

Hasselbring, W., 2000. Information system integration.

Communications of the ACM, 43(6), 32-38.

Hitt, L.M., D.J. Wu and Zhou, X., 2002. ERP investment :

Business impact and productivity measures. Journal of

Management Information Systems, 19(1), 71-98.

Jesitus, J., 1997. Broken Promises? FoxMeyer’s project

was a disaster. Was the company too aggressive or

was it misled? Industry Week, November 3, pp. 31-37.

Klaus, H., Rosemann, M. and Gable. G.G., 2000. What is

ERP? Information Systems Frontiers, 2(2), 141-162.

Lequeux, J.L., 1999. Manager avec les ERP. Progiciels de

gestion intégrés et Internet. Éditions d'Organisation,

Paris.

Markus, M.L., 2000. Paradigm shifts - E-business and

business/systems integration. Communications of the

AIS, 4(article10).

Markus, M.L., 2001. Reflections on the systems

integration enterprise. Business Process Management

Journal, 7(3), 171-180.

Markus, M.L. and Tanis, C., 2000. The enterprise system

experience – From adoption to success. In Zmud,

R.W. (Editor) (2000). Framing the domains of IT

ICEIS 2004 - DATABASES AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS INTEGRATION

management. Projecting the future… through the past.

Pinnaflex Education Resources, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio.

McCormack, K. and Johnson, B., 2001. Business process

orientation, supply chain management, and the e-

corporation. IIE Solutions 35(10) , 33-37.

Österle, H., Fleisch, E. and Alt, R. (2001). Business

networking. Shaping collaboration between

enterprises. Éd. Springer, Heidelberg. Second, revised

and extended edition.

Parr, A.N. and Shanks, G., 2000. A Taxonomy of ERP

implementation approaches. Proceedings of the 33rd

Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,

Hawaii.

Prosser, A. and Ossimitz, M.L., 2000. Data Warehouse

Management. Department of Production Management,

University of Economics and Business

Administration, Vienna, Austria. http://www.indi.wu-

wien.ac.at/download/data_warehouse.pdf

Rosemann, M. and Wiese, J., 1999. Measuring the

performance of ERP software : a balanced scorecard

approach. Proceedings of the Australasian Conference

on Information Systems, Wellington, 1-3 december.

Rowe, F., 1999. Cohérence, intégration informationnelle

et changement : esquisse d’un programme de

recherche à partir des Progiciels Intégrés de Gestion.

Systèmes d’Information et Management, 4(4), 3-20.

Scott, J.D., 1999. The FoxMeyer Drugs’ bankruptcy : Was

it a failure of ERP? Proceedings of The Association

For Information Systems, Fifth Americas Conference

on Information Systems.

Smyth, R.W., 2001. Challenges to successful ERP use

(research in progress). Proceedings of the 9th

European Conference on Information Systems, Bled,

Slovenia, June 27-29, 1227-1231.

Soh, C., Kien, S.S. and Tay-Yap, J., 2000. Cultural Fits

and Misfits :Is ERP A Universal Solution?

Communications of the ACM, 43(4), 47-51.

Toussaint, P.J., Bakker, A.R. and Groenewegen, L.P.J.,

2001. Integration of information systems: Assessing

its quality. Computer Methods and Programs in

Biomedecine, 64, 9-35.

Truex, D., 2001. ERP Systems as facilitating and

confounding factors in corporate mergers : The case of

two canadian telecommunications companies.

Systèmes d’Information et Management, 6(1), 7-21.

Tuteja, A., 1998. Enterprise Ressource Planning : What’s

there in it?

http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Library/6045/e

rp.html

Willis, T. H., Willis-Brown, A.H. and McMillan, A.,

2001. Cost containment strategies for ERP system

implementations. Production and Inventory

Management Journal, 42(2), 36-42.

INTEGRATION, FLEXIBILITY AND TRANSVERSALITY: ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ERP SYSTEMS