Table 2: CSFs in ERP implementation
1.4 CSFs in project management
Although a number of research works have previously
cts of the
pro
quality.
needs and
expectations.
quirements (expectations).
1.4.1
R
personnel for the project team.
The t fluences
the implementation process (Esteves and Pastor,
s the
imp
since the financial
con
t plan or overall
schedule for the entire project
A pro due dates
among the project team members also guarantee the
(RQ4)
dealt with CSFs in ERP implementations using the
organizational and technological dimensions as
reading keys (Esteves and Pastor, 2000), so far none
of these studies has focused the analysis on SMEs.
The reference model showed in paragraph 1.1 allows
classifying the CSFs’ along the ERP life-cycle rather
than by simply grouping the identified CSFs as to the
dimension they belong to. The selection of CSFs in
the light of the characteristics of SMEs is only an
intermediate goal, since the final aim is to provide a
comprehensive framework and the related
methodological steps to support the evaluation of the
most critical issues in ERP implementation.
Project management deals with all aspe
ject, such as planning, organisation, information
system acquisition, personnel selection, and
management and monitoring of software
implementation (Al-Mudimigh, et al., 2001). The
project team’s business and technological competence
play a fundamental part in settling ERP
implementation success or failure (Somers and
Nelson, 2004) since the ERP projects may have to
contend with issues such as:
1. scope, time, cost, and
2. stakeholders with differing
3. identified requirements (needs) and
unidentified re
ecruitment, selection and training of
Dimension Area CSFs
process
management
• Need for establishing the process owner role (Davenport, 2000b)
• Reinforcement of the concept of business process (Beretta, 2002)
• Business Process Change (BPC) team (Beretta, 2002, Motwani, et al., 2002)
• Business Process Reengineering (Davenport, 1993, Hammer, 1999, Hammer and
Champy, 1993, Lucas, et al., 1988)
• Adequate IT infrastructure supporting knowledge sharing and communication
(Motwani, et al., 2002)
project
management
• Project evaluation measures (Umble et al., 2003)
• Project manager/leader profile and skills (Wallace and Kremzar, 2001; Willcocks and
Sykes,2000)
• Presence of super-users (Davenport, 2000b)
• Recruitment, selection and training of personnel for the project team (Mandal and
Gunasekaran, 2003)
• Clear definition of project objectives (Umble et al., 2003; Nelson and Somers, 2004)
• Steering committee’s tasks and responsibilities (Welti,1999; Nelson and Somers, 2004
• Initial ,detailed project plan or overall schedule for the entire project (Wallace and
Kremzar, 2001, Nelson and Somers, 2004)
change
management
• Presence of an executive-level project champion (Mandal and Gunasekaran, 2003)
• Commitment by top management (Esteves, et al., 2002, Somers and Nelson, 2004,
Umble, et al., 2003)
• Clear understanding of strategic goals (Mandal and Gunasekaran, 2003, Umble, et al.,
2003)
• Open communication and information sharing (Aladwani, 2001, Motwani, et al., 2002,
Somers and Nelson, 2004)
Organizational
People
dimension
• Extensive education and training (Umble et al., 2003)
• Cross functional training and personnel movement within the organization (Motwani,
et al., 2002)
• hands-on training (Aladwani, 2001)
• Commitment and motivation of users toward the innovation (Mandal and
Gunasekaran, 2003)
Dimension
CSFs
Technological
• Legacy systems knowledge (Esteves and Pastor, 2000, Themistocleous and Irani, 2001)
• Presence of internal IT capabilities/characteristics (Willcocks and Sykes, 2000; Mandal and
Gunasekaran, 2003)
• Adequate ERP implementation strategy (Davenport, 1998, Esteves and Pastor, 2000, Markus, et
al., 2000, Somers and Nelson, 2004, Umble, et al., 2003)
• Establish ERP selection and evaluation criteria (Esteves and Pastor, 2000, Somers and Nelson,
2004, Willcocks and Sykes, 2000; Verville and Halingten, 2003)
• Implementation consultants (Davenport, 2000; Somers and Nelson, 2004)
• Data accuracy/integrity (Umble et al., 2003; Somers and Nelson, 2004; K.M. Kapp, 1998)
s ructure of the project team deeply in
2000) since skills and knowledge of the project team
are critical in providing expertise in areas where team
members lack knowledge (Somers and Nelson, 2004).
Therefore project team composition demands multiple
skills covering functional, technical, and inter-
personal areas (Al-Mashari, et al., 2003) and top-
notch people who are chosen for their past
accomplishments, reputation, and flexibility (Umble,
et al., 2003). A multifunctional composition should
also count key users, people with bridge-building
interpersonal skills, together with in-house and in-
sourcing of IT specialists (Willcocks and Sykes,
2000) and third-party consultants (Welti, 1999).
Esteves and Pastor (2000) propose that also
consultants should be involved in a way that help
lementation process, in particular by sharing their
expertise and skills with the internal staff through an
adequate knowledge transfer mechanism (Al-Mashari,
et al., 2003). On the other hand, Welti (1999) warns
that even though the resort to external consultants
reduces the internal workload it also drains financial
resources from the company.
It’s very difficult to say which strategy fits better
with SMEs’ characteristics
straints and the available organizational skills are
inevitably context-dependent. Nevertheless, since
managers in SMEs tend to have less computer
experience and training (19), the resort to external
consultants seems not only advisable but even
mandatory. Finally, the limited resources, both human
and financial, devoted by SMEs to the IS department
and the scarce attitude of owner-managers in sharing
information and delegating decision-making (8) are
both reasons that suggest that this CSF must be
seriously kept in consideration.
1.4.2 Initial, detailed projec
per assignment of responsibilities and
availability of key users for those activities in which
they are involved (Wu, et al., 2002). Also unforeseen
changes in the people joining the team and in the
operating environment are both threats for an ERP
implementation. Wallace and Kremzar (2001) noticed
that since companies’ attention span is limited, as the
project priority drops, so the odds for success.
Overlooking this issue may be dangerous in particular
ICEIS 2005 - DATABASES AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS INTEGRATION
288