ERP Non-implementation: A Case Study of a UK

Furniture Manufacturer

Julie Dawson¹ and Jonathan Owens²

¹Research and Commercial Partnerships, University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool, Lincoln

LN6 7TS, United Kingdom

² Lincoln Business School, University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool, Lincoln

LN67TS, United Kingdom

Abstract. Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems are pervasive

information systems that have been fundamental in organisations for the past

two decades. ERP systems may well count as the most important development

in technology in the 1990s’. There are many ERP success stories; equally there

are as many failure stories. This paper reviews current literature of the Critical

Success Factors (CSF) of ERP implementations. This review will be used in

conjunction with the case of a UK furniture manufacturer’s (Company X)

implementation of an ERP system. This paper considers the factors that

resulted in the failure of the ERP at Company X in the initial phase of the

implementation.

1 Introduction

November 2005, the authors were brought into a UK furniture manufacturer

(Company X) to implement an integrated financial, manufacturing and distribution

package; an ERP system. April 2006, Company X decided not to continue with the

ERP adoption. The ERP system failed to be implemented.

Company X’s case is not unusual; the Gartner Group (1998) reported that seventy

percent of all ERP projects fail to be fully implemented, even after three years [16].

Soh et al [14] aid for support, they state that many companies that have installed an

ERP system have had to abandon their efforts.

ERP failures have received a great deal of attention in literature [7]. Buckhout et

al [1] found that seventy percent of ERP implementation projects fail to achieve their

corporate goals. Ross [13] later found that most ERP systems fail to deliver their

anticipated benefits. This problem is still profound in recent years, Ho et al [4]

reported that currently there are relatively few ERP success stories, Kansel [6] also

stated that a large number of ERP implementations still fail to meet expectations.

This paper addresses the issue of ERP failure. It considers nine critical success

factors (CSFs) in the initial phase of ERP implementation. The case of Company X is

analysed with respect to the identified CSFs. The findings allow conclusions to be

made as to why the implementation of the ERP system at Company X failed in its

initial phase.

Dawson J. and Owens J. (2007).

ERP Non-implementation: A Case Study of a UK Furniture Manufacturer.

In Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Workshop on Technologies for Collaborative Business Processes and Management of Enterprise

Information Systems, pages 52-63

DOI: 10.5220/0002426400520063

 SciTePress

2 What is an ERP System?

An Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system is a commercial software package [2,

10, 7] that promotes seamless integration of all the information flowing through a

company [2]. Laudon et al [8] explain that an ERP system collects data from various

key business processes, he states that the key business processes are: manufacturing

and production, finance and accounting, sales and marketing, and human resources.

The system then stores the data in a single comprehensive data repository where they

can be used by other parts of the business. Managers have precise and timely

information for coordinating the daily operations of the business and a firm wide view

of business processes and information flows.

Davenport [2] explains how an ERP system can work, ‘A Paris-based sales

representative for a U.S. computer manufacturer prepares a quote for a customer

using an ERP system. The salesperson enters some basic information about the

customer’s requirements into his laptop computer, and the ERP system automatically

produces a formal contract, in French, specifying the products configuration, price

and delivery date. When the customer accepts the quote the sales rep hits a key; the

system after verifying the customer’s credit limit, records the order. The system

schedules shipment; identifies the best routing; and then working backward from the

delivery date, reserves the inventory; orders needed parts from suppliers; and

schedules assembly in the company’s factory in Taiwan’.

3 Why an ERP System?

During the 1990’s, ERP systems became the de facto standard for the replacement of

legacy systems

[5]. Somers et al [15] claim there are numerous reasons for the

increasing demand of ERP systems, for example, competitive pressures to become a

low cost producer, expectations of revenue growth, ability to compete globally and

the desire to re-engineer the business. Markus et al [10] explains that ERP systems

are rich in terms of functionality and potential benefits. She continues to explain that

companies are implementing ERP systems for many different reasons, some

companies have largely technical reasons for investing in ERP systems, other

companies have mainly business reasons (Table 1).

Legacy systems are existing computer systems, often referred to in this way to refer to

existing systems as ‘antiquated’.

Table 1. Reasons for Adopting Enterprise Systems, Markus et al [10].

Technical reasons Business reasons

• Solve Y2K and similar problems

• Integrate applications cross- functionally

• Replace hard-to-maintain interfaces

• Consolidate multiple different systems of the

same type (e.g., general ledger packages)

• Reduce software maintenance burden through

outsourcing

• Eliminate redundant data entry and

concomitant errors and difficulty analyzing

data

• Improve IT architecture

• Ease technology capacity constraints

• Decrease computer operating costs

• Accommodate business growth

• Acquire multi language and multicurrency

IT support

• Provide integrated IT support

• Standardize different numbering, naming,

and coding schemes

• Improve informal and/or inefficient

business processes

• Clean up data and records through

standardization

• Standardize procedures across different

locations

• Reduce business operating and

administrative expenses

• Present a single face to the customer

• Reduce inventory carrying costs and

stockouts

• Acquire worldwide “available to promise”

capability

• Streamline financial consolidations

4 Understanding Critical Success Factors and Failure Factors

Gargeya et al [3] reported on the success and failure factors of adopting SAP, a

popular ERP system. Six factors that contributed to the success and failure of ERP

implementation were identified in total.

1. Working with SAP functionality/maintained scope

2. Project team/management support/consultants

3. Internal readiness/training

4. Deal with organisational diversity

5. Planning/development/budgeting

6. Adequate testing

They noted that the primary factors for success (Factor 1 and Factor 2), were

different to the primary factors for failure (Factor 3 and Factor 5). Gargeya et al [3]

noted the factors that contribute to the success of SAP implementation are not the

same as the factors that contribute to the failure. This point states that this paper

should be focusing on one set of factors to understand failure and another set of

factors to understand success.

Umble et al [17] claim there are nine CSFs, from these they proposed ten reasons

why ERP implementations failed within a manufacturing environment (Table 2). This

work contradicts the conclusions of Gargeya et al [3] because nine of the reasons for

failure are the same as what they define to be CSF. They are in fact stating that the

factors for success and failure are the same.

Table 2. CSFs and reasons for failure, Umble et al [17].

Critical Success Factors Reasons for Failure

1. Clear understanding of strategic goals 1. Strategic goals are not clearly defined

2. Commitment by top management 2. Top management not committed

3. Excellent project management 3. Implementation project management is poor

4. Organisational change management 4. The organisation is not committed to change

5. A great implementation team 5. A great implementation team is not selected

6. Data accuracy 6. Data accuracy is not ensured

7. Extensive education and training 7. Inadequate education and training

8. Focused performance measures

8. Performance measures are not adopted to

ensure that the organisation changes

9. Multi site issues 9. Multi site issues are not properly resolved

10. Technical difficulties

Researchers have focused extensively on the CSF’s of ERP implementations. Loh

et al [9] state that there is an increasing amount of research in this area. Somers et al

[15] suggest that the failure of ERP implementations calls for a better understanding

of CSFs. So indeed it has been a common trend in research, to understand and

compile CSFs in order to help practitioners avoid failure.

Although Gargeya et al’s [3] work states that different factors contribute to

success and failure of ERP implementation. Umble et al’s [17] work contradicts this.

In this vein, this paper believes it is logical to consider the CSFs of ERP

implementations in terms of Company X in order to understand why the project

failed.

5 The Initial Phase of an ERP Implementation

Somers et al [15] suggest that CSFs are much richer when viewed within the context

of their importance in each stage of the implementation process. This paper will

concentrate on ERP CSFs at what it defines to be the ‘initial phase’ of

implementation, as this is the relevant research in relation to the case study of

Company X. This paper defines the initial phase as a mixture of what Parr et al [12]

consider to be called the ‘planning phase’ and Markus et al [10] label as the

‘Chartering phase’.

Table 3. The Planning Phase [12] and the Chartering Phase [10].

Parr et al (2000) Planning Phase Markus et al (2000) Chartering Phase

• Assembly of a steering committee • Building a business case

• Determination of high level project scope and

broad implementation approach

• Selecting a software package

• Selection of a project team manager • Identifying a project manager

• Resource determination • Approving a budget and a schedule

Table 3 outlines what Parr et al [12] and Markus et al [10] believe is involved in

this phase. To clarify, the initial stage of ERP implementation in this paper is defined

as involving; building a business case, the assembly of a steering committee and a

project manager, approving a budget and a schedule and selecting a software package.

6 Critical Success Factors in the Initial Phase of an ERP

Implementation

Loh et al [9] considered twenty one CSFs in SMEs. The CSFs were deduced to ten

based on the grouping of similar factors together and the need for referral by five

references. These ten critical success factors were then linked to their particular phase

of ERP implementation adapted from the phases of Markus et al [10]. Loh et al’s [9]

CSFs for the chartering phase are:

1. Project Champion 3. Project Management

2. Business Plan and Vision 4. Top Management Support

Based on the work of earlier papers, Nah et al [11] identified eleven factors that were

critical to ERP implementation success. They too classified their CSFs into Markus et

al’s [10] phases of the ERP project lifecycle. In the chartering phase the factors noted

by them are:

1. ERP Teamwork and Composition 5. Project Management

2. Top Management Support 6. Project Champion

3. Business Plan and Vision 7. Appropriate Business and

4. Effective Communication Legacy systems

Parr et al [12] considered two organisations implementing an ERP system and what

CSFs they used in each stage. The CSFs identified at the planning phase were:

1. Management Support 3. A Champion for the Project

2. Commitment to the Change 4. A Vanilla ERP Approach

This paper intends to combine the work of Loh et al [9], Nah et al [11] and Parr et al

[12] to obtain a unified framework of CSFs for the initial phase of an ERP

implementation (Table 4).

Table 4. Unified framework of CSFs at the initial phase of an ERP implementation.

CSFs at the Initial Phase Loh et al (2004) Nah et al (2001) Parr et al (2000)

Project Champion

3 3 3

Project Management

3 3

Business Plan and Vision

3 3

Top Management Support

3 3 3

ERP teamwork and

Composition

3 3

Effective Communication

3 3

Appropriate Business & Legacy

systems

Commitment to the Change

A Vanilla ERP Approach

6.1 Project Champion

Parr et al [12], state that a project champion is an advocate for the system who is

unswerving in promoting the benefits of the new system. The project champion

should be a high-level executive sponsor who has the power to set goals and

legitimise change [11]. It is a CSF that there is a project champion with these

attributes is involved in an ERP implementation.

6.2 Project Management

According to Loh et al [9], good project management is vital and that the scope of the

ERP implementation project should be established and controlled. This includes the

system implemented, the involvement of business units and the amount of project

reengineering needed. They continue to explain that the project should be defined in

terms of milestones and critical paths. Deadlines should also be met to help stay

within the schedule and budget and to maintain credibility [9].

6.3 Business Plan and Vision

A clear business plan and vision to steer the direction of the project is needed

throughout the ERP lifecycle [1]. There should be a clear business model, a

justification of investment, a project mission and identified goals and benefits [11].

6.4 Top Management Support

Parr et al [12] describe top management support as top management advocacy,

provision of adequate resources and commitment to the project. Top management

need to publicly and explicitly identify the project as a top priority [11]. Senior

management must be fully committed with its own involvement and have a

willingness to allocate valuable resources to the implementation effort [5].

6.5 ERP Teamwork and Composition

The ERP team should consist of the best people in the organisation [1]. Building a

cross functional team is also critical [11]. The team should have a mix of consultants

and internal staff so the internal staff can develop the necessary technical skills for

design and implementation. Both business and technical knowledge are essential for

success [11]. Managers should be assigned full time to the implementation and

partnerships should be managed with meetings scheduled regularly [9].

6.6 Effective Communication

Effective communication is critical to the success of ERP implementations [9].

Communication includes the formal promotion of project teams and the advertisement

of project progress to the rest of the organisation [5]. Expectations at every level need

to be communicated [11]. Nah et al [11] state that communication should penetrate all

levels in the company, from upper managers to bottom operators, everyone should

know what to expect in the business process change. They continue to explain that

communication increases the willingness of people to change and take part.

6.7 Appropriate Business and Legacy Systems

Nah et al [11] believe that appropriate business and legacy systems are important in

the initial phase of the project as a stable and successful business setting is essential.

They continue to explain that business and IT systems involving existing business

processes, organisational structure, culture, and information technology effect

success. The existing business and legacy systems determine the IT and

organisational change required for success [5].

6.8 Commitment to the Change

Parr et al [12] define the commitment to the change as perseverance. They state that a

company should have determination in the face of inevitable problems with

implementation.

6.9 A Vanilla ERP Approach

According to Parr et al [12], a company should have a vanilla ERP approach in order

to be successful. Parr explains that essentially a vanilla approach involves a minimum

customisation and an uncomplicated implementation strategy. Organisations should

be willing to change the business to fit the software with minimal customisation [5].

Holland et al [5] state that an organisation should try to purchase the package that fits

best into its business processes.

7 Case Study: ERP Non-Implementation at Company X

7.1 Project Champion

The project management (the author) was mainly responsible for the role as the

project champion. As a new employee solely employed to project manage the project,

most questions and queries were directed towards her. The product Company X had

chosen to implement was a well known ERP system, implemented in many

companies worldwide. The project manager was able to promote the product knowing

the functionality and the quality of the ERP system. However, as the project

progressed and the project managers confidence in the system dropped due to the

mismatch of the system and the companies requirements, the project manager no

longer felt the same way about the system and this fact was picked up on by other

members of staff.

7.2 Project Management

Project management at Company X could have been better. At the beginning of the

project there was much uncertainty of the tasks that needed to be involved to

complete the project. Communication errors had led the ERP vendors to believe they

were implementing a smaller system than was required, for example, they had not

been informed that any manufacturing modules were required. They were also not

enlightened as to the timescales that the company wished to work to, so consequently

their initial implementation dates and plans were effectively useless. The company

created their own project plan including milestones. Again this suffered from being

produced with communication errors as the ERP vendors input was not used. The

plan was created not knowing any detail of the ERP system and how long the

implementation of the software would actually take. Once the differing project plans

were recognised, the problem was addressed. New plans were not drawn up however

because the problem of the ERP system not fitting the company was highlighted, and

this problem needed to be addressed before any further plans could be made.

7.3 Business Plan and Vision

Upon investigation it was evident Company X did not have a clear business plan and

vision for the ERP system. Although some goals and benefits were identified, nothing

was documented properly and defined in a united format. In November 2005, at the

beginning of the project manager’s recruitment, there was no clear idea what the ERP

systems intention was. The modules of the ERP system that were purchased

contradicted the majority of senior managers’ ideas of what the system would do and

what was actually required by the system. It was established that a project mission

was non existent. The justification of investment was also a subject not approached in

great detail.

7.4 Top Management Support

The senior management at Company X were committed to the project. Three of the

four Directors were members of the steering committee, which meant they gave their

input on the project on a regular basis. All of the steering committee members were

encouraged to be committed to the project by the Directors. The budget for the ERP

system had been approved and committed in the form of a contract between Company

X and the ERP vendor. Overall time and money was allocated. The project however,

may have benefited from top management publicly and explicitly identifying the

project as their top priority. As the project progressed, the existing Managing Director

left the company. A new Managing Director joined the company. The resources that

had previously been allocated for the project were now in question. Especially as the

project scope looked as if it was going to increase which of course meant the cost of

the project would increase. The concerns from the new Managing Director made the

commitment of the other Directors involved in the projects waver. This was portrayed

in lack of attendance in meetings.

7.5 ERP Teamwork and Composition

The steering committee was cross functional. It consisted of the senior manager of

each department and all of the directors that were available. An ERP consultant was

also involved at the initial phase of the project. The ERP consultant’s knowledge

regarding the chosen ERP system was limited, although he still contributed well to the

team. It would have been preferable to assign more than one person to the project full

time, however because Company X is a SME this was simply not feasible. All the

team were committed and meetings were scheduled regularly. Overall Company X

achieved well in terms of teamwork and composition.

7.6 Effective Communication

Company X communicated well within the steering committee group. However,

communication to outside of the steering committee was limited. Users could find out

about the ERP project by asking questions of the steering committee, however no

other formal way of communication was identified. In hind sight the project should

have had newsletters or made use of notice boards and intranets.

7.7 Appropriate Business and Legacy Systems

Company X had its business faults prior to the ERP system implementation. Some

business processes were duplicated or ineffective, especially processes that stretched

over departments. Employees were allowed to carry out tasks in their own ways,

which led to array of formats and systems. Business processes did not seem to be the

businesses priority, rightly or wrongly the opinion seemed to be that as long as the job

got done, it was ok. The organisational culture was not completely open to a new

computer system either. Previous failed implementations of an ERP system had left

the organisation guarded. Company X possibly was not the right company to adopt an

ERP system, especially at that time.

7.8 Commitment to the Change

Company X was committed to the project. All the steering committee gave the project

their full attention in terms of attending all the required meetings, doing all of the

work required and being positive about the project. When problems occurred with the

fit of the ERP system, the steering committee focused on all of options that were

available at the time and came up with the most appropriate solution. The company

can be seen as being committed to the change from this perspective.

7.9 A Vanilla ERP Approach

Company X had a vanilla ERP approach. They realised the time and cost implications

of customising an ERP system extensively. They were extremely anti –customisation,

this was made clear in all of the initial meetings.

Reviewing the business processes began shortly after the employment of the project

manager. It immediately became apparent that the ERP system selected was a bad fit

for Company X. Company X manufacture make to order furniture, they need the

flexibility to make almost anything requested. This means that Company X needed an

ERP system with a good product configurator. The ERP system selected did not have

a product configurator. The vendors did not suggest using an external configurator or

integrating the system with the existing bill of material system. It was later discovered

that this may have been because the ERP vendor had never implemented the system

in a similar manufacturer and the system was mainly marketed towards service

organisations not manufacturing. Although Company X had a vanilla ERP approach.

This approach was distorted because of the current situation. Company X could not

implement the chosen ERP system in a vanilla format because it was a bad fit for the

company.

Table 4: Summary of the extent Company X achieved each CSF.

8 Discussion

Company X’s ERP system failed to be implemented, it failed in the initial phase.

What constitutes ERP failure can be questioned. However it is almost irrefutable that

the ERP system at Company X failed.

So why did it fail? Company X successfully achieved the CSFs, teamwork and

composition and commitment to the change. They had a cross functional steering

committee who were committed to the project, attended scheduled meetings regularly

and faced the problems with the ERP system with determination. However, Company

X’s ERP implementation failed to be implemented; so it appears that achieving two

CSFs, teamwork and commitment to change were not enough to make a successful

ERP implementation in the initial phase.

It can be said that Company X only partly achieved the CSFs, project champion,

project management, top management support, effective communication and a vanilla

ERP approach. There was a project champion, however as the project progressed, the

project champions promotion for the project diminished. Project Management of the

ERP implementation was not admirable; the project plans differed between the ERP

vendor and Company X so the timescales were not defined. The project was clearly

supported by three Directors, however top management support was hindered by the

CSFs at the Initial Phase

Company

X achieved

Company X

partly achieved

Company X

did not achieve

Project Champion

Project Management

Business Plan and Vision

Top Management Support

ERP Teamwork and Composition

Effective Communication

Appropriate Business & Legacy systems

Commitment to the Change

A Vanilla ERP Approach

existing Managing Director leaving the company. His replacement was a new

Managing Director who did not support the project. Communication within the

steering committee was good, however, communication outside of the steering

committee outside of the project was limited. There was no formal way of

communicating the project to users. Although the company had a vanilla ERP

approach, the selected ERP system was not a good fit to the companies processes so

the vanilla approach was distorted. Company X only partly achieved five CSFs. A

partly achieved CSF could have been a reason for the ERP failure. For example, the

Project Champion’s diminishing support for the project could have led to the rejection

of the ERP system to the users which then progressed to the rejection of the system by

the steering committee and a discontinuation of the whole project. Effectively, to only

partly achieve can be said to fail in some way, and that partial failure could have led

or contributed to the whole system failure.

Company X did not achieve the CSFs, business plan and vision and appropriate

business and legacy systems. Although some goals and benefits were identified,

nothing was documented properly and defined in a unified format. The company did

not have the appropriate business and legacy systems. The culture at Company X was

guarded against a new IT system. Failing to achieve these CSFs could have been the

reasons for the failure of the ERP in the initial phase.

This research has distinguished that there is not one reason for the failure of

Company X’s ERP system. This research has defined seven reasons (five partly

achieved CSFs and two not achieved CSFs) out of nine reasons that may have caused

failure. Gargeya [3] found that factors leading to success and failure are complex and

do not occur alone. This research clearly supports this assumption.

9 Conclusion

Considering CSFs has allowed the authors to explore a wide variety of explanations

for the ERP failure in the initial phase of implementation at Company X. Prior to this

research, it was deemed by the authors that Company X’s ERP demise was simply

due to lack of support of the project by the Managing Director. However, looking at

the case in terms of CSFs, it was discovered that although lack of top management

was a critical factor, it was not the only factor that led to the ERP failure. Company X

only partly achieved and did not achieve in total seven CSFs. So in total, this paper

has identified seven reasons for the failure of the ERP implementation at Company X.

This research is extremely useful for Company X to understand when they undertake

IT projects in the future. Recognising what the CSFs are and that they need to be

achieved will encourage successful IT implementations. This research is also useful

for researchers and practitioners who wish to implement ERP systems. They will

know that nine factors need considering in the initial phase of ERP implementation,

and failure to meet or to only partially meet seven of these factors results in failure.

This paper is limited because it fails to identify the importance of each CSF in the

initial phase of ERP implementation, for example whether the non achievement of

one CSF is more critical to failure than others. This paper proves that the failure and

the partial failure of seven out of nine CSFs cause ERP failure in Company X,

however it does not recognise how many non achieved CSF were actually necessary

to cause failure. This paper also fails to recognise if a particular combination of

factors led to the ERP failure, for example, if the non achievement of two CSFs

together signifies failure.

This research would be validated further if the same conclusions were made by

considering the subject from a different perspective; possibly looking at the ERP

implementation from a user perspective, the Managing Director’s perspective or the

ERP vendor’s perspective.

References

1. Buckhout S, Frey E and Nemec J, ‘Making ERP Succeed: Turning Fear into Promise’,

IEEE Engineering Management Review, Second Quarter, 1999, pp116-123.

2. Davenport T H, ‘Putting the Enterprise Back into the Enterprise System’, Harvard Business

Review, July-August 1998, pp121-131.

3. Gargeya V B and Brady C, ‘Success and Failure factors of adopting SAP in ERP System

Implementation’, Business Process Management Journal, Volume 11, No 5, 2005, pp 501-

516.

4. Ho C F, Wu W H and Tai Y M, ‘Strategies for the Adaptation of ERP systems’, Industrial

Management and Data Systems, Vol 104, No 3, 2004, pp 234-251.

5. Holland C P and Light B, ‘A Critical Success Factors Model for ERP Implementation’,

IEEE Software, May-June 1999, pp 30-36.

6. Kansel V, ‘Enterprise Resource Planning Implementation: A Case Study’, The Journal of

American Academy of Business, Cambridge, Vol 9, No 1, March 2006, pp165-170.

7. Kim Y, Lee Z and Gosain S, ‘Impediments to successful ERP implementation process’,

Business Process Management Journal, Vol 11, No 2, 2005, pp 158-170.

8. Laudon KC and Laudon J P, ‘Management Information Systems’, Pearson Education, New

Jersey, 2006.

9. Loh T C and Koh S C L, ‘Critical Elements for a Successful Enterprise Resource Planning

Implementation in Small and Medium Sized Enterprises, International Journal of

Production Research, Volume 4, 17 September 2004, pp 3433-3455.

10. Markus M L and Tanis C, ‘The Enterprise System Enterprise – From Adoption to Success’,

in R W Zmund, ‘Framing the Domains of IT Research’, Pinnaflex Educational Resources,

2000, pp173-207.

11. Nah F F and Lau J L S, ‘Critical Factors for Successful Implementation of Enterprise

Systems’, Business Process Management Journal, Vol 7, no 3, 2001 pp 285-296.

12. Parr A and Shanks G, ‘A Model ERP project Implementation’, Journal of Information

Technology, Vol 15, 200, pp289-303.

13. Ross J W, ‘Surprising Facts about implementing ERP’, IT Professional, Vol 1, No 4, 1999,

pp 65-68.

14. Soh C, Kien S S and Tay-Yap, ‘Cultural Fits and Misfits: Is ERP a Universal Solution’,

Communications of the ACM, Vol 41, No 4, April 2000, pp 47-51.

15. Somers T M and Nelson K, ‘ The Impact of Critical Success Factors across the Stages of

Enterprise Resource Planning Implementations’, Proceedings of the 34

Hawaii

International Conference on System Sciences, January 3-6 2001.

16. Taube L R and Gargeya V B, ‘An Analysis of ERP System Implementation’, The Business

Review Cambridge, Vol 4, No 1, Summer 2005, pp 1-6.

17. Umble E J, Haft R R, Umble M M, ‘Enterprise Resource Planning: Implementation

Procedures and Critical Success Factors’, European Journal of Operational Research,

Volume 146, 2003, pp 241-257.