The Evolution of Original ERP Customization: A Systematic Literature

Review of Technical Possibilities

Adrian Abendroth

, Benedict Bender

and Norbert Gronau

Chair of Business Informatics, esp. Processes and Systems, University of Potsdam,

August-Bebel-Str. 89, 14482 Potsdam, Germany

Keywords:

Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Systems, Customization, Modiﬁcation, Tailoring, Literature Review.

Abstract:

Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system customization is often necessary because companies have unique

processes that provide their competitive advantage. Despite new technological advances such as cloud com-

puting or model-driven development, technical ERP customization options are either outdated or ambiguously

formulated in the scientiﬁc literature. Using a systematic literature review (SLR) that analyzes 137 deﬁnitions

from 26 papers, the result is an analysis and aggregation of technical customization types by providing clear-

ance and aligning with future organizational needs. The results show a shift from ERP code modiﬁcation in

on-premises systems to interface and integration customization in cloud ERP systems, as well as emerging

technological opportunities as a way for customers and key users to perform system customization. The study

contributes by providing a clear understanding of given customization types and assisting ERP users and ven-

dors in making customization decisions.

1 INTRODUCTION

According to (Davenport, 1998), an ERP system is

an IT system that enables organizations to map their

business processes holistically and integrate and auto-

mate them with the aid of uniform data management.

The capability of an ERP system is that best prac-

tices of industries are mapped in the form of a soft-

ware package with different modules satisfying dif-

ferent industries. ERP systems, when designed and

implemented well, can improve productivity, provide

reliable information, reduce costs and improve global

reach (Ziani and AlShehri, 2015). Additionally, they

can enable companies to be more agile, ﬂexible and

better equipped to meet market demands, leading to

a competitive advantage (Koh and Simpson, 2007).

Furthermore, they can deliver improved decision sup-

port (Utecht et al., 2004), optimized inventory man-

agement (Goeke and Faley, 2009), and better infor-

mation and knowledge management such as staff ed-

ucation and training (Ram et al., 2014).

Despite extensive research, the successful imple-

mentation of ERP systems remains a challenge (Mah-

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1625-0376

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3797-926X

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8966-0731

mood et al., 2020). For these complex projects to be

successful, critical design issues as well as project ex-

ecution are critical (Ngai et al., 2008). The advan-

tage of packaged enterprise systems is that they have

a wide range of out-of-the-box functionality available.

The challenge of implementation begins at the selec-

tion stage. Given the variety of systems available, se-

lecting an ERP system that best suits the needs of the

company is known to be a critical success factor (Had-

dara, 2018). Once the right system has been selected,

the level and approach of customisation is critical to

the success of the implementation.

From a project perspective, adapting business pro-

cesses to the ERP standard is the simplest approach.

However, companies are not willing or able to fully

adopt system functionality as they strive to main-

tain their competitive advantage through differentia-

tion (Hansen et al., 2023). Adapting the system to

the needs and practices of the business is therefore an

important part of implementation projects.

To address the gap between ERP systems

functionalities and companies requirements, two

approaches of customization can be distinguished.

Companies need to ﬁnd the right balance be-

tween the approaches (Luo and Strong, 2004;

Rothenberger and Srite, 2009; Davis, 2005).

Abendroth, A., Bender, B. and Gronau, N.

The Evolution of Original ERP Customization: A Systematic Literature Review of Technical Possibilities.

DOI: 10.5220/0012305500003690

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2024) - Volume 1, pages 17-27

ISBN: 978-989-758-692-7; ISSN: 2184-4992

(i) Process Customization. The company adapts its

procedures to the processes speciﬁed in the sys-

tem and thus uses the standard software intended

by the vendor. Often, other technical forms of cus-

tomization are not encouraged.

(ii) Technical Ccustomization. Refers to alter-

ations encompassing both technical adjustments

and conﬁguration changes to the underlying as-

pects of the system. These customizations can

vary in their nature, complexity, and associated

expenses.

Extensive research is conducted on process cus-

tomization, treating it as a complex multi-criteria

decision-making problem, with the aim of identifying

the ’right’ ERP system (Singh and Pekkola, 2021).

Moreover, ERP research focuses on success factors

and how to mitigating organisational ERP ’misﬁts’

(Hustad et al., 2016).

On the other site, heavy technical modiﬁcation to

the ERP system are often advocated against (Dav-

enport, 1998; Holland and Light, 1999), leading

to increased cost during implementation and post-

implementation (maintenance) phase, software qual-

ity issues (Parthasarathy and Sharma, 2017) busi-

ness operations continuity and long-term ownership

risk (Davenport, 1998; Koch and Mitteregger, 2016;

Khadrouf et al., 2018). Notwithstanding, companies

are using technical customization to gain a competi-

tive advantage over other companies using a similar

ERP system by implementing technical customiza-

tions based on the companies individual processes,

which are not part of ERP vendors intended processes

(Balint, 2017). Other potential reasons are change re-

sistance, ownership type and ERP maturity (Khadrouf

et al., 2018; Zach and Munkvold, 2012).

Despite extensive research on process customiza-

tion, the ﬁeld of technical customization is still a vi-

brant one. For this reason, a systematization and clear

understanding of technical customization is crucial,

but still lacking. Technical customization is fueled by

an increasing variety of new technologies such as low-

code programming (Picek, 2023)), on-premise as well

as cloud ERP systems (Uppstr

om et al., 2015; Al-

Shardan and Ziani, 2015; Nowak and Kurbel, 2017).

There are numerous different interpretations of tech-

nical customization types in research and practice.

Deﬁnitions have evolved over time and are not con-

sistent.

The goal is to provide a comprehensive under-

standing of technical customization types, focusing

on the evolving deﬁnitions and interpretations. Ad-

ditionally, the study provides practitioners with a

decision-making aid into the evolving landscape of

technical customization types hat align with future or-

ganizational needs. Thus, our contributions comprise

(I) an overview about current technical customiza-

tions, and (II) gives concrete guidance for further,

missing technical customization research.

To harmonize these deﬁnitions, an aggregation is

conducted to give an overview of common ERP cus-

tomization types in the scientiﬁc literature. Taken

together, different understandings and deﬁnitions of

ERP customization options exist within the scientiﬁc

community, revealing a research gap to aggregate an

overview of the scientiﬁc deﬁnitions and graduations

of the ERP customization options. To ﬁll this research

gap, the following research questions are formulated,

which will be answered in this study:

RQ1. Which ERP customization options in the scien-

tiﬁc community do exist?

RQ2. How do the ERP customization options change

over time?

This paper ﬁrst introduces and classiﬁes techni-

cal ERP customization types showcasing the exist-

ing diversity. The paper then explains the method-

ology used, which includes deﬁning the scope of the

study, describing the process of searching relevant

databases, selecting the appropriate literature, and an-

alyzing the selected sources. The paper then presents

the ﬁndings in the form of aggregated ERP customiza-

tion types and describes the evolution of these. Fi-

nally, the results are discussed and possible limita-

tions of the research are identiﬁed and concluded.

2 PREVIOUS RESEARCH OF

TECHNICAL CUSTOMIZATION

Previous research shows, that a distinction can be

made in ERP customization types dealing with tech-

nological advances. In the 2000s, the focus lay on

on-premise ERP system customization in the 2000s.

(Davenport, 1998) is one of the ﬁrst publications de-

scribing and deﬁning three types of technical cus-

tomization (modules, conﬁguration of tables and

codemodiﬁcation). The author argues that business

goals are driving the need for customization. (Glass,

1998) deﬁnes similar types, adding extensions such as

user exits and bolt-ons. The author raises the question

that customization is maintenance heavy and that ERP

clients will undergo changes in the future. (Brehm

et al., 2001) employ the term ’tailoring’ to encom-

pass both conﬁguration (setting parameters without

altering underlying technical aspects) and modiﬁca-

tion (changing package code and technical elements).

They delineate 7 tailoring types adding extended re-

porting, workﬂow programming and interfaces by

ICEIS 2024 - 26th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

categorizing each type to its layer involved and the

given effort for system maintenance and post imple-

mentation. Further publication adapted customization

types to show level of support (Haines, 2003), cus-

tomization options (Luo and Strong, 2004), strate-

gic alignment (Davis, 2005), likelihood of redoing

customization after upgrade (Rothenberger and Srite,

2009). Moreover, publications combined technical

customization with AHP-techniques to structure cus-

tomization types based on hierarchy levels to show

efforts for used customizations (Sarfaraz et al., 2012;

Parhizkar and Comuzzi, 2015). In the mid 2010s,

technical customization options are adapted to the rise

of cloud ERP systems. One study of (Uppstr

om et al.,

2015) modiﬁed the technical customization types of

(Brehm et al., 2001) accordingly to changes to the rise

of cloud ERP systems and suggested the 3 new cus-

tomization options packaged customization, conver-

sion and mobile platforms for on-premise and cloud

ERP. SaaS ERP ﬁnding are added by (Al-Shardan

and Ziani, 2015) showing conﬁguration boundaries in

SaaS ERP as well as by (Nowak and Kurbel, 2017)

describing customization approaches adopted by ven-

dors and the resulting level of ﬂexibility for adapt-

ing speciﬁc system elements. (Picek, 2023) is de-

scribing the areas where low-code platforms can be

used to create extensions or small apps for improv-

ing ERP systems. It shows the possibilities of low-

code extensions in ERP systems through new techni-

cal advancements, rising business needs, and digital

transformation-based shifts.

3 METHODOLOGY

In order to address the research question at hand,

we conducted a SLR using the methodology pro-

posed by (vom Brocke et al., 2009). Additionally,

we employed the taxonomy framework developed by

(Cooper, 1988) to provide a comprehensive context

for our study. This framework is depicted in Figure 1,

which aids in delineating the scope of our work.

Figure 1: Taxonomy according to (Cooper, 1988).

The focus of this SLR hereby lies in the identiﬁ-

cation of ERP customization types. The goal of this

SLR is to aggregate the various deﬁnitions. This in-

volves organizing this SLR conceptually and from a

neutral perspective. We address specialized scholars

as well as practitioners in the ERP context. In this

SLR, deﬁnitions and descriptions of ERP customiza-

tion types are systematically retrieved from the liter-

ature and presented to answer the research question.

An up to date SLR is necessary to explore potentially

new approaches for technical customization as there

seem a lack of up to date general customization op-

tions.

3.1 Keyword and Database Deﬁnition

To capture a broad spectrum of the literature, a

systematic search of the following 7 bibliographic

databases was conducted: ACM digital library, AIS

electronic library, Ieeeexplore, ProQuest, Sciencedi-

rect, Web of Science and Wiley online library. To

query these databases a search string was developed

and, as required, tailored for each database:

(ERP OR ’Enterprise Resource Planning’) AND

(customization OR modiﬁcation OR conﬁguration

OR parametrization OR individualization)

The search string was performed at the abstract level

only to ﬁnd relevant paper dealing with deﬁning of

customization types.

3.2 Inclusion Criteria

Studies were included if they (i) developed or ex-

tended an original deﬁnition of ERP customization

types (ii) are reported in English; and (iii) are pub-

lished in a peer-reviewed outlet or conference pro-

ceedings.

3.3 Exclusion Criteria

Studies were excluded when (i) they solely referenced

a prior original ERP customization type deﬁnition

without extension and elaboration and (ii) lacked a

clear, detailed description of the customization type

in question.

3.4 Conducting the Search Process

The search was carried over a three-week period be-

ginning at start of 2023. A total of 1542 relevant pa-

pers were obtained from the search process. In this

context, each obtained paper is referred to as a ’hit’.

The ﬁnal selection consists of hits that met the criteria

for inclusion in the study.

Initially, the database search yielded a set of hits,

where each hit represents a publication found during

The Evolution of Original ERP Customization: A Systematic Literature Review of Technical Possibilities

Phase 1 - Deﬁning Hits

Hits

Without Duplicates

Records after reading title

Records after reading abstract

Final Hits after reading full-text

1542

1255

200

Phase 2 - Filtering Hits and Deﬁning Final Hits

Phase 3 - Backwards Search

Hot Pics

Final Hits

Phase 4 - Forward Search

Hot Pics 8

Final Hits

Database Hits

ProQuest

ieeeexplore

ACM digital library

ScienceDirect

Total

AIS electronic library

357

478

187

Wiley online library

Web of Science

145

237

1542

Figure 2: Search process.

the search process across multiple databases. As a

result, the ﬁnal collection of literature consisted of

1542 hits. After removing duplicates, the remain-

ing records title (n=1255) were scanned, and ineligi-

ble records (n=1055) were removed not dealing with

the topic of ERP systems. After reviewing the ab-

stracts of the remaining records (n=200), ineligible

records (n=128) were removed. This was due to other

adjoining topics dealing with ERP systems such as

success factors or process mining. After reviewing

the full-texts of the remaining reports (n=73), 19 ini-

tial ﬁnal hits were found. To identify the ﬁnal selec-

tion of 19 relevant studies, a backwards search was

conducted utilizing the tool citationchaser (Haddaway

et al., 2021). The backwards search yielded 364 af-

ter eliminating duplicate entries and excluding papers

written in languages other than English. a compara-

tive analysis was undertaken to assess the remaining

papers in relation to the articles screened during the

initial search phase. The abstracts of the remaining

364 search results were thoroughly reviewed, leading

to the identiﬁcation of 14 ’Hot Pics’. After reading

the full-texts, 4 additional papers were included.

Employing the same methodology, a forward

search in Google Scholar with initial 1649 hits was

conducted. After eliminating duplicates (n=420), the

remaining 1229 articles title were screened and 1190

paper eliminated. The remaining 39 articles full-texts

were screened leading to 3 added ﬁnal hits. The over-

all SLR resulted in 26 ﬁnal articles.

4 ANALYSIS PROCEDURE AND

SEARCH RESULTS

For the analysis, a table was created with the name of

technical customization type, the given category and

its description. After that, the descriptions of each

ERP customization type was read. If no concrete

description for the customization type was made,

the customization type name was used as a descrip-

tion. Each description was read, and categories were

formed according to (Mayring, 2014). It was possi-

ble, that a given customization type of a hit was given

more than one tagged customization type. The reason

is that the descriptions were not distinctly speciﬁed,

so that a description could have more than one cate-

gory.

The distribution of years of ﬁnal hits indicate two

phases, in which ERP customization types were de-

ﬁned (Figure 3). Firstly, the phase in the 2000s, where

ERP systems where research in this areas was grow-

ing and topics in on-premise ERP systems were dis-

cussed; and secondly in the 2015-present, where the

rise of cloud ERP systems rose questions to customiz-

ing.

Figure 3: Yearly distribution of ﬁnal hits.

Out of the 26 deﬁnitions, 137 technical customiza-

tion types were identiﬁed. The minimum number of

technical customization type per deﬁnition is 1, the

maximum 13 and the average 5.27 (SD=2.88). Based

on the technical customization types, an aggregation

took place in the form of a bottom-up procedure to

consolidate and eliminate redundancies. For this pur-

pose, the individual categories of the customization

types with the descriptions were considered and as-

signed to the respective references. A total of 13 tech-

nical customization types (tct) in the area of ERP were

ICEIS 2024 - 26th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

aggregated.

(tct01) Module selection. Selection of a suitable

module from the ERP provider.

(tct02) Parametrization (table). Setting parameters

in tables.

(tct03) Screen masks. Creating screen masks for in-

put and output of data.

(tct04) Reporting. Programming advanced data out-

put and reporting options.

(tct05) Bolt-ons. Extensions in the form of third-

party packages.

(tct06) User exits. A user exit is a subroutine called

by a software package for a predeﬁned event

when the package is executed.

(tct07) Workﬂow programming. Creation of non-

standard workﬂows.

(tct08) ERP-internal programming language.

Programming additional applications with-

out changing the source code (in the vendor’s

computer language, e.g. ABAP from SAP).

(tct09) Code generation. Automatic generation of

program code and/or database schemas based

on an information model.

(tct10) Interfaces. Development of code extensions

that use pre-built system components.

(tct11) ERP-code modiﬁcation. Modiﬁcation of the

ERP source code to program additional func-

tionalities.

(tct12) Query customization. Direct modiﬁcation

of ERP database entities and relationships.

(tct13) Other. Other categories not ﬁtting the previ-

ous mentioned.

Table 1 presents the identiﬁed and aggregated cus-

tomization types, along with references that mention

non-unique instances, contrasted with references that

mention uniquely identiﬁed references. When look-

ing at the distribution of the aggregated customiza-

tion types, parametrization was tagged the most with

32 times of the 137 identiﬁed customization types,

followed by ERP code modiﬁcation (n=25) and in-

terfaces (n=13). Interestingly, ERP code modiﬁ-

cation was mentioned more when accounting only

unique references (m=22) compared to parametriza-

tion (m=19). The least tagged customization types

were code generation (n=2), query customization

(n=3), followed by the category other (n=6).

Subsequently, the aggregated technical types of

customization were categorized into 3 categories.

Three categories were adapted to (Hansen et al., 2019,

pp.171-172) and (Leimeister, 2021, p. 332) and than

matched to the tcts.

(a) Modularization. Incorporating the vendor’s pro-

gram modules without altering the underlying

technical aspects.

(b) Parametrization. Conﬁguring functions

through standard software parameters, also

known as conﬁguration, without impacting the

underlying technical aspects.

replacing components with programming code

that affects the technical aspect of ERP.

Table 1: Count of tagged ERP customization types and

unique references.

Technical customiza-

tion type

Count of

tagged

cus-

tomiza-

tion

types (n)

Count

unique

reference

(m)

Modularization tct01 13 13

Parametrization

tct02 32 19

tct03 5 3

tct04 7 6

Complementary

Programming

tct05 12 12

tct06 5 5

tct07 7 6

tct08 7 7

tct09 2 2

tct10 13 10

tct11 25 22

tct12 3 3

tct13 6 3

Total 137 26

tct01 corresponds to ’Modularization’, tct02 to

tct04 fall under the ’Parametrization’ category, and

tct05 to tct12 are categorized as ’Complementary Pro-

gramming’ with detailed explanations provided in the

accompanying table 2. The distribution of the tcts ac-

cording to the ﬁnal hits can be found at Table 3 in the

Appendix.

5 DISCUSSION

To contribute to the further development of techni-

cal ERP customization, an overview and systemati-

zation is provided. The interplay between customiza-

tion needs and the possibilities offered by technologi-

cal advances brings hope to customization. Especially

for heavy efforts, dependence on system experts and

inﬂexibility of customization’s.

The Evolution of Original ERP Customization: A Systematic Literature Review of Technical Possibilities

Table 2: ERP customization options matched to tcts.

tct Explanation for Categorization

tct01

Selecting a suitable module from the ERP provider, which ﬁts the idea of organizing or modularizing

the ERP system by choosing speciﬁc modules.

tct02

Setting parameters in tables, which are conﬁgurations that can alter the behavior of the ERP system.

tct03

Creating screen masks for input and output of data typically involves conﬁguring how data is

displayed and entered, which can be considered a form of parameterization.

tct04

It involves programming advanced dataoutput and reporting options, which are often conﬁgurable

settings within an ERP system.

tct05

Bolt-ons refer to adding external third-party packages to extend ERP functionality, which

is a form of complementary customization.

tct06

User exits are used to inject custom code into predeﬁned events in the ERP system,

extending its functionality without modifying the core code.

tct07

Workﬂow programming involves creating non-standard workﬂows, which is a form of

customizing the ERP system’s behavior.

tct08

It involves programming additional applications using the ERP system’s internal

language without changing the core code.

tct09

Automatic generation of program code can be a way to enhance the ERP system’s capabilities

without direct manual coding.

tct10

It involves developing code extensions that use pre-built system components (interfaces)

to integrate with other systems.

tct11

Directly modifying the ERP source code to add additional functionalities is

complementary programming.

tct12

Directly modifying ERP database entities and relationships can involve modifying the

code or using custom queries.

5.1 The Start: On-Premise

Customization

In the early days (ﬁrst half of the period), on-premise

ERP systems played an important role, and customi-

sation was mainly achieved through parameterisation,

ERP-internal programming languages or direct mod-

iﬁcations to the ERP code. These methods allow

organisations to tailor the ERP system to their spe-

ciﬁc needs, but they often require extensive technical

expertise and are time consuming (Uppstr

om et al.,

2015; Rothenberger and Srite, 2009).

5.2 ERP Customization in the Cloud

Era

The second half of the period witnessed the rise of

cloud ERP systems, which brought about transfor-

mative changes in the ERP landscape. With cloud-

based implementations, organizations could leverage

the ﬂexibility and scalability of the cloud, enabling

access to ERP functionalities through responsive de-

signs that support mobile devices. This shift in fo-

cus towards mobile use opened up new opportunities

for increased productivity, real-time decision-making,

and improved user experience (Hansen et al., 2023;

Nowak and Kurbel, 2017).

As the adoption of cloud ERP systems has grown,

so has the need for customization. Cloud infras-

tructures, especially in newer forms of SaaS archi-

tectures, require different forms of customization, as

vendors are interested in running similar client in-

stances within an infrastructure to achieve efﬁciency

gains. As a result, parameterization has taken on a

new importance, levelling the conﬁguration possibili-

ties of ERPs. More individual customization has been

done by using interfaces for seamless integration of

external applications. These approaches allowed or-

ganizations to connect their ERP systems with other

systems, portals, or cloud functions through well-

designed APIs (Uppstr

om et al., 2015; Hustad et al.,

2016). Moreover, customization of reporting often re-

quires integration with business intelligence systems,

ICEIS 2024 - 26th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

as these systems require data from external sources

to generate meaningful insights. Moreover, work-

ﬂow programming utilizes microservices to reconﬁg-

ure processes, requiring integration capabilities (Ben-

der et al., 2021). The integration aspect becomes

crucial in achieving seamless interoperability and en-

abling efﬁcient reporting customization and workﬂow

programming. This shift not only facilitated data ex-

change but also enabled the integration of specialized

systems, forming an interoperable ecosystem. The

ERP system acts as the central focal point for orches-

trating and synchronizing processes, ensuring seam-

less collaboration between the ERP system and its

specialized counterparts (Bender et al., 2022; Vyawa-

hare et al., 2018; Arulraj et al., 2016).

5.3 Empowerment of (Key) Users

To address the reliance on vendor experts to perform

customizations, there was a growing interest in en-

abling customers to perform customizations. The

availability of pre-deﬁned application components

simpliﬁes the development process by providing a li-

brary of ready-to-use functionalities. Users can lever-

age these components to assemble and conﬁgure ap-

plications according to their speciﬁc requirements,

signiﬁcantly reducing the need for custom program-

ming (Ali et al., 2019).

This is added by the use of model-based code gen-

eration techniques such as low-code (Picek, 2023).

Instead of writing code from scratch, users can cre-

ate models or visual representations of their de-

sired applications. These models capture the de-

sired functionalities, business logic, and data struc-

tures, which are then automatically translated into ex-

ecutable code. This approach reduces the reliance on

manual coding, streamlines the development process,

and enhances the maintainability of the ERP system

(Bender et al., 2021).

5.4 Recommendations Against and for

Customisation Options

Organizations must balance the potential beneﬁts,

such as return on investment (Light, 2001) and com-

petitive advantages (Koch and Mitteregger, 2016),

against the cost drivers of implementation (Brehm

et al., 2001), including higher maintenance (Ng,

2001; Haines, 2003; Koch and Mitteregger, 2016) and

upgrade expenses (Brehm et al., 2001). If the bene-

ﬁts outweigh the disadvantages, customization should

be pursued (Ng, 2001). Strategic alignment should

precede customization (Davenport, 1998), and thor-

ough planning (Rothenberger and Srite, 2009) is es-

sential to understand potential pitfalls. Customiza-

tion should only be undertaken when it adds value to

value-adding processes (Oseni et al., 2013). Stake-

holder engagement enhances the outcomes of cus-

tomization (Huang et al., 2021). Purely technical cus-

tomization is discouraged (Luo and Strong, 2004; Os-

eni et al., 2013). (Parhizkar and Comuzzi, 2015) em-

phasize that making modiﬁcations to function code,

data queries, and workﬂows typically incur higher ex-

penses whereas conﬁguration is least expensive. Mi-

nor adjustments in conﬁguration typically incur lower

costs compared to functional changes (Light, 2001).

Therefore, conﬁguration is often the preferred option

(Davenport, 1998).

(Luo and Strong, 2004) provide nuanced rec-

ommendations regarding customization, which vary

based on the organizational context They suggest

moderate customization when an organization pos-

sesses high technical change capacity but limited

process change capability. It is cautioned against

solely technical-driven modiﬁcations that may not di-

rectly impact transformative ERP capabilities. High

customization in the form of code modiﬁcation is

only advised for companies with both technical high

change capacity and high process change capability.

(Uppstr

om et al., 2015) advocate for conﬁguring a

cloud ERP system over modifying it, citing the lack of

custom modiﬁcation options and the accompanying

high risk. Moreover it is recommended to use new

types of customisation for cloud ERP systems such as

mobile platforms.

Conversely, (Nowak and Kurbel, 2017) propose

the differentiation of various cloud-based architec-

tures and argue that these systems should be dis-

tinguished based on their maturity level or the un-

derlying cloud architecture and maturity. Addition-

ally, they recommend leveraging built-in customiza-

tion tools. They highlight that a development plat-

form with services surrounding the underlying ERP

system enables vendors to substantially extend cus-

tomization capabilities.

The structured literature review highlights the

emergence of new technologies that facilitate modiﬁ-

cations in ERP systems and their processes. These ad-

vancements generally simplify the adoption and cus-

tomization of established protocols, underscoring the

importance of discerning when to implement system

modiﬁcations. These innovations reduce the need

for specialists and external collaborators, allowing for

more extensive customization. However, it empha-

sizes the importance of effective governance to pre-

vent the risks associated with the easy adoption of

systems and processes. These ﬁndings reveal new op-

portunities for organizations using standard software,

The Evolution of Original ERP Customization: A Systematic Literature Review of Technical Possibilities

emphasizing the dependent nature of their beneﬁts on

careful implementation.

5.5 Implications for Practice

For companies that use or are considering an ERP

system, new customization technologies can be a sig-

niﬁcant enabler, allowing for more precise tailoring

of ERP systems to their operational needs. However,

this capability requires the design and development

of appropriate governance mechanisms, particularly

given that adoption and customization processes were

previously centrally coordinated. The rise of low-

code/no-code platforms presents an opportunity and

a challenge. While they simplify the customization

process, they also require careful oversight to prevent

uncoordinated modiﬁcations. Therefore, companies

must evaluate the extent of customization capabilities

within the selected ERP system, including considera-

tions for on-premise, SaaS, or PaaS solutions. Each

option provides varying levels of customization ﬂexi-

bility. Cloud-based ERPs, especially SaaS solutions,

often have limited opportunities for deep customiza-

tion. Therefore, it is crucial to thoroughly assess

the need for customization upfront and have a well-

deﬁned system landscape architecture to enable seam-

less integration with external systems or services.

For ERP vendors, integrating customization

options and shifting design capabilities to clients

presents a signiﬁcant challenge that must be consid-

ered in their business model and implementation ap-

proach from the outset. Providing client-side cus-

tomization services, particularly in the cloud mar-

ket, can improve market share. Moreover, exploring

model-based programming options can enable users

to customize standard processes using visual model-

ing tools and predeﬁned templates, eliminating the

need for direct code modiﬁcations. This approach not

only facilitates customization but also requires strate-

gic alignment between the vendor’s IT infrastructure

and database approach. In addition, implementing

collaborative strategies can improve the customiza-

tion process, making it more efﬁcient and aligned

with clients’ speciﬁc needs.

5.6 Prospects for Future Research

The customization of packaged enterprise systems

(PES) other than ERP, such as CRM or SCM sys-

tems, should be further explored, as the research ﬁnd-

ings may be generalizable across different types of

enterprise-level applications. The study by (Singh and

Pekkola, 2021), which conducted a systematic litera-

ture review (SLR) on customization topics for PES,

provides a solid foundation for expansion. In addi-

tion, the categorization of the identiﬁed customization

technologies (tcts) should be validated in subsequent

research. Emerging trends, including the adoption of

low-code platforms due to technological advances, in-

creasing business needs, and developments spurred

by digital transformation, warrant closer examination

(Picek, 2023). Decision-making tools for selecting

the appropriate deployment type based on customiza-

tion needs, options, and associated costs also merit

further development, with the work of (Parhizkar and

Comuzzi, 2015) serving as a potential starting point

for identifying the costs associated with each tct.

Moreover, there is an urgent need for research

on the management processes involved in govern-

ing system adoptions resulting from the democrati-

zation of such adoptions. This includes exploring

how organizations can effectively oversee the adop-

tion and customization of ERP systems in an environ-

ment where these processes are increasingly accessi-

ble to a broader range of stakeholders. Research on

collaborative implementation strategies, speciﬁcally

how companies can work with ERP vendors to fa-

cilitate customization efforts, is crucial. This should

cover mechanisms for ensuring that customization ef-

forts align with both the vendor’s capabilities and the

client’s needs, optimizing the effectiveness and efﬁ-

ciency of the implementation process. This research

would not only address gaps in the literature but also

offer practical insights for organizations and vendors

dealing with the complexities of customizing ERP

systems in the digital age.

5.7 Limitations

The selected keywords are focused on customization

of ERP at abstract level. It is conceivable that the

identiﬁcation of different types of ERP customiza-

tion might have been omitted during the initial search

based on the title or keyword level such as soft-

ware tailoring. The proposed research aims to ad-

dress this gap by conducting a comprehensive back-

wards and forwards search. Furthermore, it is impor-

tant to acknowledge that the current search strategy,

which speciﬁcally focuses on ERP customization,

may not adequately capture emerging customization

paradigms that target areas beyond ERP.

6 CONCLUSION

Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system cus-

tomization is often necessary because companies have

unique processes that provide their competitive ad-

ICEIS 2024 - 26th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

vantage. A systematic literature review (SLR) is used

to identify and systematize technical customizations.

The study presents the aggregation of 13 unique ap-

proaches of ERP spanning over 20 years of ERP

customization. The shift from on-premises to cloud

systems affects customization approaches. Emerg-

ing technology capabilities enable key users to be

empowered to make changes. The study contributes

by providing a clear understanding of customization

types and assisting ERP users and vendors in making

customization decisions.

REFERENCES

Al-Shardan, M. M. and Ziani, D. (2015). Conﬁguration

as a service in multi-tenant enterprise resource plan-

ning system. Lecture Notes on Software Engineering,

3(2):95–100.

Ali, A. Q., Sultan, A. B. M., Abd Ghani, A. A., and Zulzalil,

H. (2019). A systematic mapping study on the cus-

tomization solutions of software as a service applica-

tions. IEEE Access, 7:88196–88217.

Arulraj, J., Pavlo, A., and Menon, P. (2016). Bridging the

archipelago between row-stores and column-stores for

hybrid workloads. In Proceedings of the 2016 Inter-

national Conference on Management of Data, pages

583–598.

Balint, B. (2017). Maximizing the value of packaged soft-

ware customization:a nonlinear model and simulation.

International Journal of Enterprise Information Sys-

tems, 13(1):1–16.

Bender, B., Bertheau, C., and Gronau, N. (2021). Future

ERP systems: A research agenda. In Proceedings of

the 23rd International Conference on Enterprise In-

formation Systems (ICEIS 2021), volume 10, pages

776 – 783.

Bender, B., Bertheau, C., K

orppen, T., Lauppe, H., and

Gronau, N. (2022). A proposal for future data orga-

nization in enterprise systems—an analysis of estab-

lished database approaches. Information Systems and

e-Business Management, 20(3):441–494.

Brehm, L., Heinzl, A., and Markus, M. L. (2001). Tailoring

ERP systems: a spectrum of choices and their impli-

cations. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii

International Conference on System Sciences, pages

1–9.

Cooper, H. M. (1988). Organizing knowledge syntheses: A

taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society,

1(1):104–126.

Davenport, T. (1998). Putting the enterprise into the en-

terprise system. Harvard business review, 76(4):121–

131.

Davis, A. (2005). ERP customization impacts on strate-

gic alignment and systems alignment. Proceedings of

the 2005 Southern Association of Information Systems

Conference, pages 249–255.

Dittrich, Y. and Vaucouleur, S. (2008). Practices around

customization of standard systems. In Proceedings of

the 2008 international workshop on Cooperative and

human aspects of software engineering, CHASE ’08,

pages 37–40. Association for Computing Machinery.

Glass, R. L. (1998). Enterprise resource planning–

breakthrough and/or term problem? ACM SIGMIS

Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Informa-

tion Systems, 29(2):13–16.

Goeke, R. J. and Faley, R. H. (2009). Do SAP successes

outperform themselves and their competitors? Com-

munications of the ACM, 52(10):113–117.

Haddara, M. (2018). Erp systems selection in multinational

enterprises: a practical guide. International Jour-

nal of Information Systems and Project Management,

6(1):43–57.

Haddaway, N. R., Grainger, M. J., and Gray, C. T. (2021).

citationchaser: an r package for forward and backward

citations chasing in academic searching.

Haines, M. N. (2003). Customization, conﬁguration, or

modiﬁcation? a taxonomy for information system

specialization. Information Technology and Organiza-

tions: Trends, Issues, Challenges and Solutions, pages

899–900. Publisher: IRMA.

Hansen, H. F., Haddara, M., and Langseth, M. (2023).

Investigating erp system customization: A focus on

cloud-erp. Procedia Computer Science, 219:915–923.

Hansen, H. R., Mendling, J., and Neumann, G. (2019).

Wirtschaftsinformatik. De Gruyter Studium. De

Gruyter Oldenbourg, 12th edition.

Holland, C. R. and Light, B. (1999). A critical success fac-

tors model for ERP implementation. IEEE software,

16(3):30–36. Publisher: IEEE.

Huang, Q., Oliver, G. C., Mahbubur, M. M., Anwar, M.,

and Foster, S. (2021). Understanding cloud-based erp

customization from key stakeholders’ perspectives: A

research model. ECIS 2021 Research-in-Progress Pa-

pers.

Hustad, E., Haddara, M., and Kalvenes, B. (2016).

ERP and organizational misﬁts: An ERP customiza-

tion journey. International Conference on ENTER-

prise Information Systems/International Conference

on Project MANagement/International Conference on

Health and Social Care Information Systems and

Technologies, CENTERIS/ProjMAN / HCist 2016,

100:429–439.

Khadrouf, O., Chouki, M., and Talea, M. (2018). ERP sys-

tem customization in moroccan SMEs. 2018 IEEE In-

ternational Conference on Technology Management,

Operations and Decisions (ICTMOD), pages 55–60.

Koch, S. and Mitteregger, K. (2016). Linking customisation

of ERP systems to support effort: an empirical study.

Enterprise Information Systems, 10(1):81–107.

Koh, S. L. and Simpson, M. (2007). Could enterprise re-

source planning create a competitive advantage for

small businesses? Benchmarking: An International

Journal, 14:59–75. Publisher: Emerald Group Pub-

lishing Limited.

Leimeister, J. M. (2021). Einf

uhrung in die Wirtschaftsin-

formatik. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

The Evolution of Original ERP Customization: A Systematic Literature Review of Technical Possibilities

Light, B. (2001). The maintenance implications of the

customization of ERP software. Journal of Software

Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice,

13(6):415–429.

Luo, W. and Strong, D. M. (2004). A framework

for evaluating ERP implementation choices. IEEE

TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGE-

MENT, 51(3):322–333.

Mahmood, F., Khan, A. Z., and Bokhari, R. H. (2020). Erp

issues and challenges: a research synthesis. Kyber-

netes, 49(3):629–659.

Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: theoretical

foundation, basic procedures and software solution.

Ng, C. S. P. (2001). A decision framework for enterprise re-

source planning maintenance and upgrade: A client

perspective. Journal of software maintenance and

evolution: research and practice, 13(6):431–468.

Ngai, E. W., Law, C. C., and Wat, F. K. (2008). Exam-

ining the critical success factors in the adoption of

enterprise resource planning. Computers in industry,

59(6):548–564.

Nowak, D. and Kurbel, K. (2017). Understanding the ﬂex-

ibility of cloud erp software. In Piazolo, F., Geist,

V., Brehm, L., and Schmidt, R., editors, Innovations

in Enterprise Information Systems Management and

Engineering, pages 135–146, Cham. Springer Inter-

national Publishing.

Oseni, T., Rahim, M. M., Smith, S., and Foster, S.

(2013). Exploring ERP post-implementation modiﬁ-

cations and their inﬂuence on business process out-

comes: a theory driven model. ACIS 2013 Proceed-

ings.

Parhizkar, M. and Comuzzi, M. (2015). An AHP-based

analysis of the cost of ERP modiﬁcation. 2015 In-

ternational Conference on Enterprise Systems (ES),

pages 200–205.

Parthasarathy, S. and Sharma, S. (2017). Impact of cus-

tomization over software quality in ERP projects: an

empirical study. Software Quality Journal, 25(2):581–

598.

Pestana, E. F., Renyong, H., and Aduamoah, M. (2019).

Analytical procedure for the customization and imple-

mentation of enterprise resource planning in small and

medium sized enterprises in colombia: A design sci-

ence research approach. In 2019 IEEE 14th Interna-

tional Conference on Intelligent Systems and Knowl-

edge Engineering (ISKE), pages 162–167.

Picek, R. (2023). Low-code/no-code platforms and modern

ERP systems. In 2023 International Conference on

Information Management (ICIM), pages 44–49.

Ram, J., Wu, M.-L., and Tagg, R. (2014). Competitive

advantage from ERP projects: Examining the role of

key implementation drivers. International Journal of

Project Management, 32(4):663–675.

Rothenberger, M. A. and Srite, M. (2009). An investi-

gation of customization in ERP system implementa-

tions. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Manage-

ment, 56(4):663–676.

Sarfaraz, A., Jenab, K., and D’Souza, A. (2012). Evaluat-

ing ERP implementation choices on the basis of cus-

tomisation using fuzzy AHP. International Journal of

Production Research, 50(23):7057–7067.

Selmeci, A. and Orosz, T. (2014). Modiﬁcation free exten-

sion of standard software. In 2014 IEEE 12th Inter-

national Symposium on Applied Machine Intelligence

and Informatics (SAMI), pages 185–190.

Singh, C. and Pekkola, S. (2021). Packaged enterprise sys-

tem customization – a systematic literature review. In

Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Confer-

ence on System Sciences, pages 6743–6750.

Sommerville, I. (2008). Construction by conﬁguration:

Challenges for software engineering research and

practice. In 19th Australian Conference on Software

Engineering (aswec 2008), pages 3–12.

Uppstr

om, E., L

onn, C.-M., Hoffsten, M., and Thorstr

om,

J. (2015). New implications for customization of ERP

systems. 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference

on System Sciences, pages 4220–4229.

Utecht, K. M., Hayes, R. B., and Okonkwo, P. A. (2004).

Enterprise resource planning and the competitive ad-

vantage: the ease of integrating information between

corporate headquarters in the united states and facto-

ries in mexico. Competitiveness Review: An Interna-

tional Business Journal, 14(1/2).

vom Brocke, J., Alexander, S., Niehaves, B., Niehaves, B.,

Reimer, K., Plattfaut, R., and Cleven, A. (2009). Re-

constructing the giant: On the importance of rigour

in documenting the literature search process. In ECIS

2009 Proceedings, page 14.

Vyawahare, H., Karde, P. P., and Thakare, V. M. (2018). A

hybrid database approach using graph and relational

database. In 2018 International Conference on Re-

search in Intelligent and Computing in Engineering

(RICE), pages 1–4. IEEE.

Zach, O. and Munkvold, B. E. (2011). ERP System Cus-

tomization In SMEs: A Multiple Case Study.

Zach, O. and Munkvold, B. E. (2012). Identifying reasons

for ERP system customization in SMEs: a multiple

case study. Journal of Enterprise Information Man-

agement, 25(5):462–478.

Ziani, D. (2014). Conﬁguration in erp saas multi-tenancy.

arXiv preprint arXiv:1405.0650.

Ziani, D. and AlShehri, A. (2015). A new framework for

customizing ERP systems in a multi tenant SaaS en-

vironment. In 2015 2nd World Symposium on Web

Applications and Networking (WSWAN), pages 1–7.

IEEE.

ICEIS 2024 - 26th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

APPENDIX

Table 3: Analysis of Final Hits and corresponding technical customization type.

Reference tct01 tct02 tct03 tct04 tct05 tct06 tct07 tct08 tct09 tct10 tct11 tct12 tct13 Total

(Davenport, 1998) 1 1 1 3

(Glass, 1998) 1 1 1 1 4

(Brehm et al., 2001) 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 9

(Light, 2001) 1 1 2 4

(Ng, 2001) 1 1

(Haines, 2003) 1 1 1 1 4

(Luo and Strong, 2004) 1 1 1 3

(Davis, 2005) 1 1 2

(Dittrich and Vaucouleur, 2008) 1 1 1 1 1 5

(Sommerville, 2008) 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 9

(Rothenberger and Srite, 2009) 1 1 1 1 2 6

(Zach and Munkvold, 2011) 1 1 1 3

(Sarfaraz et al., 2012) 1 1 1 3

(Oseni et al., 2013) 1 1 1 1 3 7

(Selmeci and Orosz, 2014) 3 1 1 2 7

(Ziani, 2014) 11 1 1 13

(Al-Shardan and Ziani, 2015) 1 1

(Parhizkar and Comuzzi, 2015) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8

(Uppstr

om et al., 2015) 1 1 1 1 2 1 7

(Hustad et al., 2016) 2 1 1 2 1 7

(Koch and Mitteregger, 2016) 1 1 1 3

(Nowak and Kurbel, 2017) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7

(Khadrouf et al., 2018) 1 1 2

(Ali et al., 2019) 1 1 1 1 1 5

(Pestana et al., 2019) 2 3 1 1 1 8

(Huang et al., 2021) 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

Total 13 32 5 7 12 5 7 7 2 13 25 3 6 137

The Evolution of Original ERP Customization: A Systematic Literature Review of Technical Possibilities