HESITANCY IN COMMITTING TO LARGE-SCALE
ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS SOLUTIONS
Experiences at a Multi-national Corporation
Chris Barry and Wojtek Sikorski
Department of Accountancy and Finance, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland
Keywords: Enterprise systems, Enterprise Resource Planning, ERP benefits, ERP myths, ERP misfits, systems
implementation.
Abstract: While early cited benefits of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) or enterprise systems remain for the most
part highly desirable, it is often the case that the promise of delivery differs from reality. Many now agree
that achieving enterprise systems benefits is complex, cumbersome, risky and expensive. Furthermore many
ERP projects do not fully achieve expectations. This paper takes a critical lens to the prospect of a firm
achieving enterprise systems’ benefits and presents the findings of a case study that examines the underlying
managerial and organizational reasons of one multi-national enterprise for, at least, postponing ERP
implementation. It reveals a rich picture of implementation motivators, inhibitors and the perceived and real
benefits of enterprise systems.
1 INTRODUCTION
Key benefits of enterprise systems have long been
cited (Koch, Slater and Baatz, 1999; Sumner, 2005)
– they can improve the effectiveness of firms
through the automation and integration of business
processes, allowing information to be shared across
the organisation. Enterprise systems have been
promoted as a solution to: remove the backlog;
overcome IS staffing problems; and institutionalize
best practice. However, the mass wave of
implementations in the 1990s when most Fortune
500 firms installed enterprise systems has, for some,
delivered a reality that differs from expectations.
The task of enterprise systems implementation is
now recognized as complex and cumbersome - and
there are legendary failures that make salutary
reading (Davenport, 1998; Chen, 2001). In order to
realise anticipated value from ERP investments,
simple assembly of the raw technical components is
just not enough (Davenport, Harris and Cantrell,
2004). Scholars now agree that ERP benefits never
come easily nor cheaply (Robey, Ross and
Boudreau, 2002; Daneva and Wieringa, 2005) and
many ERP projects do not achieve expectations
(Holsapple, Wang and Wu, 2005).
It would appear that little research has been
conducted that looks at reasons why firms do not
adopt integrated enterprise systems – not because
they have failed to consider doing so, but following
deliberate analysis. In light of growing evidence of
the dangers of a head-long rush into implementation,
the experiences of one firm that has paused for
breath should prove valuable.
2 BACKGROUND TO THE
RESEARCH
2.1 ERP Decision Rationale
The rationale for implementation varies between,
and even within, companies. This situation reflects
multiple factors affecting an ERP implementation
decision (Ross, Vitale and Willcocks, 2003) and the
richness of enterprise systems in terms of
functionality and potential benefits (Markus and
Tanis, 2000). Ross et al (2003) group motivators
into three major categories: infrastructure, capability
and performance. Organisations quoting IT
infrastructure as a major ERP motivator hope to
solve their information and business fragmentation
problems (Themistocleous, Irani, O’Keefe and Paul,
2001) and reduce the vast quantities of data spread
across hundreds of separate legacy systems
282
Barry C. and Sikorski W. (2008).
HESITANCY IN COMMITTING TO LARGE-SCALE ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS SOLUTIONS - Experiences at a Multi-national Corporation.
In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - DISI, pages 282-289
DOI: 10.5220/0001706402820289
Copyright
c
 SciTePress

(Davenport, 1998). Some perceive improvement in
organisational capability as the underlying
motivation for ERP implementation (Mabert, Soni
and Venkataramanan, 2001), while others want to
improve specific processes, such as logistics, human
resources or customer service (Ross et al., 2003).
Additional motivators are the need to improve
and standardize complex, inconsistent, and
ineffective business processes to ensure the quality
and predictability of global business processes
(Deloitte Consulting, 1999; Markus and Tanis, 2000;
Ross et al., 2003). A final group of motivators look
at ERP as a tool to ‘fix’ declining organisational
performance or to gain a competitive advantage
(Mabert et al., 2001; Bajwa et al., 2004).
2.2 ERP Benefits
In order to understand the value of ERP systems for
an organisation, perceived benefits were explored.
Shang and Seddon (2002) present a comprehensive
framework of potential benefits that can be used as a
communication tool and check list for consensus
building within the firm. It may also be used as an
instrument for managing value realization issues.
The first dimension of the framework describes
operational benefits which include: improvements in
efficiency, effectiveness and the productivity of
business processes (Trott and Hoecht, 2004);
reductions of cycle time (Deloitte Consulting, 1999;
Gupta, 2000; Gattiker and Goodhue, 2005); as well
as decreases in data collection and processing
duplication (Trott and Hoecht, 2004). A second
dimension numerates managerial benefits like:
access to more accurate, high quality and real-time
data; operating information (Davenport, 1998; Chen,
2001; Mabert et al., 2001; Hitt, Wu and Zhou, 2002;
Trott and Hoecht, 2004) which improves the
decision making process; and facilitating cost
tracking capabilities and generally improving
managerial and operational control (Palaniswamy
and Frank, 2002; Trott and Hoecht, 2004). A third
dimension looks at strategic benefits where ERP
systems with their large scale business involvement
and internal/external integration capabilities present
a new opportunity for achieving competitive
differentiation. A forth dimension categorizes IT
benefits like the potential to standardize interfaces
(Mabert et al., 2001) and facilitating business
flexibility for current and future changes like growth
and expansion (Bajwa et al., 2004). The last
dimension of the framework describes organisational
benefits which include improved employee
satisfaction by removing tedious activities, improved
employee involvement in decision making processes
(Barker and Frolick, 2003) and lowered barriers
between business functions and departments by
providing a unified enterprise view of the business
(Gupta, 2000; Umble, Haft and Umble, 2003).
2.3 ERP ‘Misfits’
The benefits from ERP adoption cited above may
seem encouraging for organisations, however many
firms fail to achieve them (Markus, Axline, Petrie
and Tanis, 2000; Wang, Klein and Jiang, 2006). This
may be explained by the idea of a ‘misfit’ between
the functionality of the package and organisations’
needs (Soh, Sia, Boh and Tang, 2003; Holsapple et
al., 2005). These gaps are more likely to happen
where enterprise systems are commercial packages
from software vendors rather than tailor-made, in
house applications (Markus and Tanis, 2000). Mass
production of ERP software separates the process of
development and use between different
organisations. This means that when an organisation
decides to acquire off-the-shelf ERP, the choices
made at the design stage have inevitably achieved a
certain level of closure and thus have a heavy
influence on the shaping of the system at the
implementation stage (Wang et al., 2006).
Kien and Soh (2003) numerate a few sources of
misfits: country specific misfit - focuses on the
unique regulatory, economic, social, or cultural
practices among the countries; industry specific
misfits - caused by incompatibilities between
practices assumed by the ERP system and the unique
practices specific to some industries; and sector
specific misfits. Finally organisational misfit is more
widely described as incompatibilities between ERP
package functionality and the organisational
structure, strategy, user composition, management
styles and procedures.
According to Davenport (1998) a key ERP
selling point of ‘integration across the enterprise’
may itself be the reason for organisation-specific
misfits. Chen (2001) claims that the organisation
might simply not be positioned for integration. ERP
systems are a better fit for rigid, disciplined,
centralized structures with hierarchical, command-
and-control organisations and uniform cultures as
they force centralization of control over information
and the standardization of processes (Davenport,
1998). Further misfits might occur in organisations
with a strong functional orientation as ERP packages
compel staff to work within an expanded work
environment where consideration of inter-related
processes becomes unavoidable. This stimulant may
involve changes in workflow since the handling of
transactions is no longer limited by functional
boundaries. The system and employees now see a
HESITANCY IN COMMITTING TO LARGE-SCALE ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS SOLUTIONS - Experiences at a
Multi-national Corporation
283

transaction through from start to finish. These
changes may simply not fit the organisation’s
practices. Furthermore many features of ERP
systems are simply at odds with flexibility and
innovation in organisations - this is a key mismatch.
The most successful and widely recommended
misfit ‘resolution strategy’ is to align the firm’s
processes to the ERP strategy using business process
reengineering (BPR). This approach was widely
used in extensive ERP implementations in the
1990s. While some scholars commonly agree there
are potential benefits from BPR (Davenport, 1998;
Chen, 2001; Sumner, 2005), others warn that it is a
very delicate process and must be carefully aligned
with organisational strategy (Gattiker and Goodhue,
2002; Somers and Nelson, 2003). To reap the
greatest benefits companies should have
“management structures in harmony, rather than at
war, with their core processes” (Hammer and
Stanton, 1999; p.2).
2.4 ERP ‘Myths’
Literature also reveals ERP ‘myths’ that are based
on a generic view of how the system was intended to
work. In reality many implementations result in
much dissatisfaction and misalignment
(Dowlatshahi, 2005). Initially software vendors
offered ERP packages as a complete integrated
solution capable to address every information
processing need of the organisation (Markus and
Tanis, 2000; Themistocleous et al., 2001; Davenport
et al., 2004). In reality limited functionality meant
ERP systems instead of being a single, integration
solution, became a great integration challenge
(Linthicum, 1999). Firms were forced to source third
party software in order to integrate ERP with other
systems. Implementation of core enterprise
functionality is just the beginning of an ongoing
integration process (Davenport et al., 2004). The
universal and ‘holistic’ purpose of ERP software
made them very complex to use as well as extremely
difficult to implement (Markus and Tanis, 2000).
Another misconception of ERP software
concerns its decision support capabilities. Although
improved decision making capabilities are cited as
one of the benefits, ERP typically lack decision
support functionality. ERP packages cannot be
perceived as decision support systems (DSS) as they
originated as integrated collections of transaction
processing systems. They were not intended to fulfil
companies’ needs for business reporting and
decision support (Sprague, 1980; Markus and Tanis,
2000). Lack of decision support in an ERP package
forces organisations to struggle to create operational
and management reports - sometimes resulting in the
re-keying of data into spreadsheets. Separate or bolt-
on applications like business intelligence or business
analytics are the contemporary successor to DSS.
Additionally ERP implementation brings: a
variety of hidden costs like training, integration,
testing, customization, data conversion, data
analysis; ‘sticky’ consultants; the loss of key staff; a
prolonged implementation phase; unachieved ROI;
and finally post-ERP depression (Koch et al., 1999).
3 OBJECTIVES OF THE
RESEARCH
The broad objective of the research presented in this
paper was to explore factors inhibiting the adoption
of fully integrated enterprise systems in a
multinational organisation in Ireland. A number of
other objectives were: to assess the historical context
of IT infrastructure and its current functionality; to
understand senior management rationale in
undertaking ERP decisions in respect of the
framework discussed earlier by Ross et al (2003); to
identify perceived benefits of ERP implementation
in respect of the framework introduced by Shang
and Seddon (2003); and finally to explore the
perceived challenges of ERP implementation.
IS solutions are usually described from the
perspective of adoption issues. Much of the relevant
ERP literature on information systems makes a near-
automatic assumption that new technologies are
necessary. What are rarely contemplated are the
reasons for non-adoption - not the absence of
consideration, but the rationale why a firm decides
to hold back from falling in line with industry-wide
consensus. This case study attempts to identify those
reasons from the perspective of an organisation who
decides to delay or reconsider ERP investment.
4 RESEARCH METHOD
The case study looked at a multinational
organisation, Baxter Healthcare, with two
manufacturing subsidiaries based in Ireland.
Triangulation of multiple sources of data was used
in order to ensure robust data collection. The
following data collection techniques were used:
semi-structured interviews with local and European
level managers; observation, to understand existing
procedures and day to day duties at the local level;
ICEIS 2008 - International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
284

and an examination of extant documentation and the
organisational intranet.
It was felt that the methods described above
(personal interviews, observation and documentation
review) would deliver rich information demanded by
a case study research strategy. The information
collected facilitated in-depth analysis and was
helpful in gaining a deep understanding of the
context of the research and the processes being
performed in the case study organisation. It is
believed that the investigation of complex issues like
the perceived value of ERP systems and
understanding the rationale of IS decision making
were ensured by this research strategy.
5 CASE STUDY FINDINGS AND
ANALYSIS
5.1 Organisational Background
Baxter Healthcare is a global healthcare company
manufacturing products used in the treatment of
complex medical conditions including haemophilia,
immune disorders, kidney disease, cancer, trauma
and other conditions. It employs 48,000 employees
worldwide and generated over $10 billion net sales
in 2006. The two Irish manufacturing units employ
about 1200 people. These plants are well
established, successful and have managed to gain a
competitive advantage over competitors on Irish and
global market for over thirty years.
The organisation does not use a ‘global ERP
system’ - instead it operates using multiple, highly
customized systems as well as many legacy systems.
The systems are old, badly integrated, have lots of
interfaces with poor flow of data and transparency.
Each function in every system works within its own
‘load’ of systems and applications – there is no real
time data flow. Data is transmitted manually
between ‘loads’ using Excel spreadsheets and
Access queries.
Despite numerous inefficiencies associated with
the IT infrastructure and data fragmentation, the
organisation manages to deliver superior service to
its final customers. The general manager of Irish
operations tellingly reported: “…we still manage to
be very effective in terms of customer service,
quality, and continuously reducing our costs. We
probably have the most successful track records at
not only offsetting inflation but reducing our costs
every year.”
5.2 Historical Development of IS
Infrastructure
Participants in this study mention historical reasons
as one of the biggest factors influencing the current
state of IT in the organisation. Initially when the
organisation started investing in Europe, it was
granted a lot of IT and business independence for
each manufacturing subsidiary in every country. A
continuation of this policy, fast growing European
business, mergers and acquisitions (not well-
managed from an IT point of view) resulted in 51
instances of enterprise systems with 321 bolt-ons
and 773 different interfaces around the globe.
In 1999 and 2000 the Finance Department alone
operated 22 different financial systems across
Europe. A similar situation was identified in the
supply chain and manufacturing applications. As the
result of incoherent policy, three major systems
evolved: a common, regional distribution system but
working only on the supply chain, and two different
manufacturing systems used to manage in-house
finished products and raw materials. Each of these
systems has separate installations in every plant.
In addition to IT systems dispersion,
organisational structure was also decentralized from
the organisational point of view. One of the
managers said “we had few expanded divisions with
independent captains on the ship. In Europe we had
five captains and one ship.” At that point in time,
having committed large amounts of money to in-
house developed systems and with decentralized
business processes, the firm began to consider global
ERP implementation. The only ERP module that
was implemented since then however was JD
Edwards Financials that combines all 22 existing
financial systems into one common platform.
5.3 Considering ERP
The motivators and rationale for implementation
identified in this case study varied amongst
respondents. Similar experience was described in the
literature by Ross et al (2003). This situation was
claimed to reflect a variety of factors affecting an
ERP implementation decision. The biggest
differences in motivators were found to be between
headquarters and the local level.
HESITANCY IN COMMITTING TO LARGE-SCALE ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS SOLUTIONS - Experiences at a
Multi-national Corporation
285

5.3.1 Technical Infrastructure
Technical infrastructure is perceived as one of the
greatest motivators to implement an ERP system in
the literature. Reasons cited are the lack of
integration and compatibility of existing systems,
and lack of standardization (Markus et al., 2000;
Chen, 2001; Mabert et al., 2001; Palaniswamy and
Frank, 2002; Bajwa et al., 2004). Respondents in the
case study perceived IT infrastructure motivators as
a benefit of ERP implementation. However it was
clearly stated that the IT infrastructure should not
drive ERP implementation - rather it should be seen
as a catalyst to achieving business benefits.
5.3.2 Organisational Capability
From the organisational capability point of view the
need to improve and standardize the quality of
global business processes as well as process
automation and redesign were identified in the
literature as a major motivator for ERP
implementation. Participants in this case study
agreed that they considered the improvement of
global business processes in their ERP feasibility
study. However since hardly any global business
process was discovered, it was decided that this
would not drive an ERP decision. In the
manufacturing units automation and redesign was
believed to be the major motivator to implement not
only ERP but any other IT system providing that it
delivers an adequate return on investment.
5.3.3 Organisational Performance
Declining organisational performance is also cited in
the literature as a motivator in the rationale for ERP
investment. However, respondents were very
sceptical about this motivation. Huge initial
investment and project challenges were given as the
main reasons for this benefit to be unachievable in
the short term. They expressed the view that
declining organisational performance would instead
inhibit large-scale ERP investment. While they
considered ERP a good long term solution to
improving organisational performance, in the short
term managerial skills were perceived as the crucial
ones.
Additionally, management underlined the
significant influence of risk factors on the ERP
decision. This aspect of the ERP decision rationale
was not described in the literature reviewed. The risk
factors were felt to be particularly important in such
a fragile business like healthcare. Concern was
expressed that failures in ERP implementation could
affect, for example, delivery of product to patients
with critical kidney diseases.
5.4 Perceived ERP Benefits
5.4.1 Operational Benefits
From the research conducted, the most important
perceived benefit and driver for ERP
implementation in the organisation is the possibility
of general operating cost reduction which correlates
with the literature reviewed (Deloitte Consulting,
1999; Bajwa et al., 2004; Ragowsky et al., 2005;
Sumner, 2005). It was felt that the only possible way
to reduce the general operating cost is to lower the
headcount. All the other benefits revealed by the
literature were said to be components that, combined
together, could bring about general operating cost
reduction.
Managers at both European and local level
mentioned automation benefits coming from ERP
implementation. This finding correlates with
Themistocleous et al (2001). It was highlighted
however on the local level that custom built stand
alone systems might address automation needs better
and cheaper than ERP systems.
Benefits of cycle time reduction was commonly
agreed by respondents in line with the literature
findings. Some of the reductions were believed to
come from BPR and some from having only one
system. Opportunities for further reductions were
determined if more ERP modules were
implemented.
Reduction of data collection and processing
duplication efforts were perceived as an ERP benefit
by all respondents. While some savings were
identified from this benefit they were not noted as
being significant compared to the amount of money
that would have to be invested in an ERP system.
Total savings achieved on headcount reduction
enabled by combined operational advantages were
said to be insufficient to ensure an adequate return
on an ERP investment.
5.4.2 Managerial Benefits
On the European level it was agreed that ERP can
improve the decision making process for senior
management. This benefit was felt to be a result of
the combined advantages of improved visibility and
consistency of higher quality data. Those advantages
mentioned by European level managers correlate
with literature findings. On the local level it was
believed that ERP has a positive influence on
ICEIS 2008 - International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
286

operational and managerial control in the
organisation in general, as claimed in the literature
(Palaniswamy and Frank, 2002; Trott and Hoecht,
2004). Although it was agreed by managers that
ERP facilitates achievement of the benefits stated
above, it was stressed that managerial skills and
quality of personnel are equally important.
Other benefits cited in the literature like:
improved inventory turnover; improved bill of
material and routing accuracy; and faster decision
making process were not perceived as benefits
stemming from ERP implementation. These were
said to be dependent on good management practices.
5.4.3 Strategic Benefits
As noted by the literature, benefits of alignment,
standardization and improvements to business
processes were achieved at Baxter via the JD
Edwards Financials implementation. Managers at
the European level commonly claimed that this is
one of the biggest benefits of ERP. At the local level
however it was felt that the benefit of standard
business processes was achieved as a trade off for
lost customization and overemphasis of the systems’
importance rather than business fundamentals.
5.4.4 IT Infrastructure Benefits
This category of benefits was most widely
acknowledged by respondents. The following
advantages were associated with ERP systems:
elimination of fragmentation of data; support in
integrating mergers and acquisitions; and easier
upgrades and standardization of interfaces. Although
these benefits were clearly visible for management it
was decided at the headquarters level that perceived
IT benefits should not drive ERP implementation
decisions.
Other benefits cited in the literature: support for
organisational needs and support for business
growth were perceived as dependent on good
business management and people skills rather than
on IT systems.
5.4.5 Organisational Benefits
Although the literature numerates a few
organisational advantages like: removing
redundancy and tediousness from day to day
activities; facilitating more time for value added
duties; employee involvement in decision making
process; and lower barriers between business
functions and departments, respondents did not
associate any of those benefits with ERP
implementation. This finding reveals, once again, a
common management view that these types of issues
depend on organisation and management and not on
IT.
5.5 Perceived ERP Challenges
Misfits between ERP and organisational needs
highlighted by the literature (organisational
integration misfit, organisational orientation misfit
and business strategy misfit) were also discovered in
the researched organisation. Those issues however
were said to be managerial challenges that need to
be solved prior to ERP implementation. They were
said not to be prohibitive to the implementation
decision.
Strategic misfit discovered at the local level was
felt to be inhibitive to the organisation implementing
ERP. This finding corresponds with literature
reviewed (Davenport, 1998; Markus and Tanis,
2000; Hitt et al., 2002). Scholars agreed that
organisations realizing a cost leadership strategy
should not invest in ERP systems as it was not
proven that it is able to bring about a return on
investment. The situation in the organisation being
studied seems to be similar to Air Product and
Chemicals (Davenport, 1998) who decided not to
implement ERP since management was afraid that
huge investment with no guaranteed return would
force prices increases.
Respondents were aware of ERP disadvantages
like: hidden costs of ERP implementation; lack of
functionality and integration issues; and lack of
decision support. Combining all the disadvantages
together the high total cost of ERP was believed to
be the most serious and prohibitive one for the
organisation.
6 CONCLUSIONS
It is concluded that the current state of information
systems in the organisation evolved as a result of: an
historical decentralization of business processes;
enormous independence granted to autonomous
strategic business units; rapid business growth; and
the lack of a clear acquisition policy. Most of the
legacy systems currently operating in the
organisation are very highly customized,
regionalized and developed in-house by independent
strategic business units. The combined value of
these systems and investments was perceived as
being hugely significant. The idea of treating these
as a sunk cost that the firm would have to bear in
HESITANCY IN COMMITTING TO LARGE-SCALE ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS SOLUTIONS - Experiences at a
Multi-national Corporation
287

discarding them seriously mitigated against the
adoption of large-scale, global ERP.
Respondents were commonly aware of multiple
benefits and improvements that ERP implementation
could bring for the IT infrastructure. It was
concluded however that IT infrastructure should not
drive ERP implementation. ERP should be looked at
as a business catalyst to achieve business benefits.
This was a mature and reflective view, distinctively
counter-consensual.
In terms of organisational capabilities,
standardization of business processes across the
regions was stated as a motivation for ERP
implementation. On the manufacturing level every
opportunity to automate processes was stressed as a
major motivator. It was concluded however that
stand alone systems can meet this need better as they
are cheaper and highly customized. Organisational
performance is concluded to be a factor affecting the
ERP decision. In the short and medium term
however, ERP was not perceived as an appropriate
tool to improve organisational performance. While it
was believed that ERP could increase global
organisational performance in the long term,
respondents felt that increased overall performance
would not ensure a return on the combination of a
huge initial investment and the sunk cost of
discarded legacy systems. In this situation it was
concluded that the organisation could get more value
for its money investing in product development
rather than IT.
All the operational benefits of ERP for the firm
were perceived as enabling headcount reduction in
the organisation. This was felt to be the only way to
achieve major saving in operating costs.
Respondents agreed that JD Edwards Financials
implementation achieved less than 50 percent of the
headcount reduction target at the country level. This
saving was not seen as being satisfactory in
achieving an adequate return on investment. It is
concluded that while respondents were aware of
most benefits ERP could bring, their value was not
deemed enough to justify the investment.
Respondents were aware of all the misfits and
challenges of ERP systems cited in the literature.
Most of these however were considered managerial
challenges that need to be solved prior to ERP
implementation. Thus, organisational integration
misfits, organisational orientation misfit and BPR
were not thought to be inhibitors of ERP
implementation. Lack of functionality, integration
problems and lack of decision support were
identified as disadvantages of ERP systems.
Management felt however that those disadvantages
could be overcome by using middleware software to
integrate ERP back to other existing systems and
implementing reporting tools to sit on top of an
ERP. Those solutions were however perceived as
adding to a vast ERP cost outlay. Concern was also
expressed that a massive investment without the
certainty of a fast return could cause misalignment
with the cost leadership strategy of manufacturing
units.
For many businesses ERP implementation is now
almost a de facto position towards which they
inexorably gravitate. For Baxter Healthcare, all the
above points to a firm that is acting counter to an
industry-wide consensus. It is not a laggard, resistant
to new technologies and unaware of the potential of
enterprise systems. It is not the contemplation of
disruptive organisational change that worries them.
The pragmatism of the organisation in focussing on
cost and stability, in spite of their acknowledged
understanding of the benefits of standardized
business processes and the potential to improve
organisational performance, runs against the
apparent sentiment evidenced in widespread ERP
adoptions. A contrary view, revealed here, is that
there are wholly rational reasons why a firm decides
to stand back from adoption in consideration of
maintaining organisational alignment, forgoing
potential benefits and avoiding risk by emphasising
a medium rather than a longer term perspective.
REFERENCES
Bajwa, D. S., Garcia, J. E., & Mooney, T. (2004). An
Integrative Framework for the Assimilation of
Enterprise Resource Planning Systems: Phases,
Antecedents, and Outcomes. Journal of Computer
Information Systems, 44(3), 81-90.
Barker, T., & Frolick, M. N. (2003). ERP Implementation
Failure: A Case Study. Information Systems
Management, 20(4), 43-49.
Chen, I. J. (2001). Planning for ERP systems: analysis and
future trend. Business Process Management Journal,
374-386.
Daneva, M., & Wieringa, R. J. (2005). Requirements
Engineering for Cross-organisational ERP
Implementation: Undocumented Assumptions and
Potential Mismatches. Proceedings of the 13th IEEE
Requirements Engineering Conference, Paris.
Davenport, T. (1998). Putting the Enterprise into the
Enterprise System. Harvard Business School Press,
76(4), 121-131.
Davenport, T. H., Harris, J. G., & Cantrell, S. (2004).
Enterprise systems and ongoing process change.
Business Process Management Journal, 10(1), 16-26.
ICEIS 2008 - International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
288

Deloitte Consulting (1999). ERP’s Second Wave:
Maximizing the Value of ERP-Enabled Processes.
Dowlatshahi, S. (2005). Strategic success factors in
enterprise resource-planning design and
implementation: a case-study approach. International
Journal of Production Research, 43(18), 3745–3771.
Gattiker, T. F., & Goodhue, D. L. (2002). Software-driven
changes to business processes: an empirical study of
impacts of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
systems at the local level. International Journal of
Production Research, 40(18), 4799-4814.
Gattiker, T. F., & Goodhue, D. L. (2005). What Happens
After ERP Implementation: Understanding the Impact
of Interdependence and Differentiation on Plant-Level
Outcomes. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 559-585.
Gupta, A. (2000). Enterprise Resource Planning: the
emerging organisational value systems. Industrial
Management and Data Systems, 100(3), 114-118.
Hammer, M., & Stanton, S. (1999). How Process
Enterprises Really Work. Harvard Business Review,
77(6), 108-118.
Hitt, L. M., Wu, D. J., & Zhou, X. (2002). Investment in
Enterprise Resource Planning: Business Impact and
Productivity Measures. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 19(1), 71-98.
Holland, C. P., & Light, B. (1999). Global Enterprise
Resource Planning Implementation. Proceedings of
the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences. Hawaii.
Holsapple, C. W., Wang, Y. M., & Wu, J. H. (2005).
Empirically Testing User Characteristics and Fitness
Factors in Enterprise Resource Planning Success.
International Journal of Human–Computer
Interaction, 19(3), 323-342.
Kien, S. S., & Soh, C. (2003). An Exploratory Analysis of
the Sources and Nature of Misfits in ERP
Implementations. In Second - Wave Enterprise
Resource Planning Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Koch, C., Slater, D., & Baatz, E. (1999). The ABCs of
ERP. CIO Magazine, December.
Linthicum, D. (1999). Enterprise Application Integration.
Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.
Mabert, V. A., Soni, A., & Venkataramanan, M. A.
(2001). Enterprise Resource Planning: Common
Myths Versus Evolving Reality. Business Horizons,
44(3), 69-76.
Markus, M. L., Axline, S., Petrie, D., & Tanis, C. (2000).
Learning from adopters’ experiences with ERP:
problems encountered and success achieved. Journal
of Information Technology, 15, 245-265.
Markus, M. L., & Tanis, C. (2000). The Enterprise System
Experience - From Adoption to Success. In R.W.
Zmud (Ed.), Framing the Domains of IT Research:
Glimpsing the Future Through the Past. Cincinnati,
OH: Pinnaflex Educational Resources.
Palaniswamy, R., & Frank, T. G. (2002). Oracle ERP and
Network Computing Architecture: Implementation and
Performance. Information Systems Management,
19(2), 53.
Robey, D., Ross, J. W., & Boudreau, M.-C. (2002).
Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An
Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(1),
17-46.
Ross, J. W., Vitale, M. R., & Willcocks, L. P. (2003). The
Continuing ERP Revolution: Sustainable Lessons,
New Modes of Delivery. In Second - Wave Enterprise
Resource Planning Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Shang, S., & Seddon, P. B. (2002). Assessing and
managing the benefits of enterprise systems: the
business manager’s perspective. Information Systems
Journal, 12, 271–299.
Soh, C., Sia, S. K., Boh, W. F., & Tang, M. (2003).
Misalignments in ERP Implementation: A Dialectic
Perspective. International Journal Of Human–
Computer Interaction, 16(1), 81-100.
Somers, T. M., & Nelson, K. G. (2003). The impact of
strategy and integration mechanisms on enterprise
system value: Empirical evidence from manufacturing
firms. European Journal of Operational Research,
146(2), 315-338.
Sprague, R. (1980). A Framework for the Development of
Decision Support Systems. MIS Quarterly, 4(4), 1-26.
Sumner, M. (2005). Enterprise Resource Planning. New
Jersey: Pearson Education.
Themistocleous, M., Irani, Z., O’Keefe, R. M., & Paul, R.
(2001). ERP Problems and Application Integration
Issues: An Empirical Survey. 34th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii.
Trott, P., & Hoecht, A. (2004). Enterprise Resource
Planning (ERP) and its Impact on the Innovative
Capability of the Firm. International Journal of
Innovation Management, 8(4), 381–398.
Umble, E. J., Haft, R. R., & Umble, M. M. (2003).
Enterprise resource planning: Implementation
procedures and critical success factors. European
Journal of Operational Research, 146, 241–257.
Wang, E. T., Klein, G., G., & Jiang, J. J. (2006). ERP
Misfit: Country of Origin and Organisational Factors.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 23(1),
263-292.
HESITANCY IN COMMITTING TO LARGE-SCALE ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS SOLUTIONS - Experiences at a
Multi-national Corporation
289