Business Intelligence Implementation from a User Perspective – A case study of an international company implementing BI in the procurement function

Master’s Thesis 30 credits Programme: Master’s Programme in Accounting and Financial Management Specialisation: Management and Control Department of Business Studies Uppsala University Spring Semester of 2021

Date of Submission: 2021-06-02

Malin Ahlqvist Lisa Jansson Supervisor: Jan Lindvall

Abstract This case study investigates what factors are important during the business intelligence

implementation, and also how those factors affect the perception of the BI project according to

the end-users. The study was conducted as a qualitative single case study where the data was

mainly collected using semi-structured interviews in two rounds. The studied case was a proof

of concept project in an international company, where they implemented business intelligence

within the procurement function in three of their subsidiaries to determine if they would

implement BI in the whole group. During the first round of interviews, three factors were

identified as important namely, ownership, involvement and evaluation. During the second

round, the end-users expressed some deficiencies that could be improved in regard to the three

factors. The study concludes that the factors ownership, involvement and evaluation were

important even though evaluation was the only factor that affected the end-users’ perception

of the implementation. However, their acceptance of the project was not affected due to the

fact that they had expressed such a strong need for BI a long time before the project.

Keywords: Business intelligence, Business intelligence implementation, Digital

transformation, End-user, Ownership, Involvement, Evaluation, Case study.

Acknowledgements First, we would like to express our gratefulness to the company and the consulting firm for

having the possibility to follow this project, as well as your commitment to bring us the insights

we needed. We would especially like to thank all the respondents as well as the project leader

from the consulting firm for their time and efforts to answer all our questions. Without you,

this thesis would not have been possible. Secondly, we would like to thank our supervisor Jan

Lindvall and the seminar group for providing valuable feedback during the process. Finally,

we want to thank members of our families for taking the time to proof-read as well as your

support during the writing of this thesis.

Table of contents

1. Introduction 11.1 Background 11.2 Problem discussion 21.3 Problem formulation and research question 3

2. Literature review 42.1 Business intelligence 4

2.1.1 Usage and purpose of BI 42.1.2 Data warehouse 5

2.2 Implementation aspects in BI projects 62.2.1 Ownership 62.2.2 Involvement 82.2.3 Evaluation 9

2.3 Summary of literature review 123. Method 13

3.1 Research approach 133.2 Research design 14

3.2.1 Case study method 143.2.2 Case description 14

3.2.2.1 Company description 143.2.2.2 Project description 15

3.3 Data collection 173.3.1 Literature review 173.3.2 Semi-structured interviews 183.3.3 Additional sources 20

3.4 Operationalization 203.5. Data analysis 223.6 Ethical considerations 23

4. Empirical findings and Analysis 244.1 Starting phase of the project 24

4.1.1 Ownership 274.1.2 Involvement 284.1.3 Evaluation 31

4.2 Ending of the project 334.2.1 Ownership 34

4.2.2 Involvement 374.2.3 Evaluation 41

4.3 Final views of the project 445. Discussion 456. Conclusion 48

6.1 Addressing the research question 486.2 Contributions 48

7. Limitations and future research 497.1 Limitations 497.2 Future research 50

Bibliography 51Appendix 1. Interview guide 1. 56Appendix 2. Interview guide 2 58Appendix 3. Interview guide 3 60Appendix 4. Interview guide 4 63

1

1. Introduction

This chapter introduces the reader to the identified research problem and research question.

First, digitalization and Business Intelligence are discussed in a broader sense, followed by a

deeper understanding of why the identified problem is in need of further research. The chapter

ends with the problem formulation and research question.

1.1 Background

Digitalization and technological innovation is going on faster than ever before (Schwab, 2016)

which puts more pressure on companies, and only those who can meet the requirements are

likely to survive (Felin & Powell, 2016). To meet the challenges of a changing business

landscape, Erceg and Zoranović (2020) have argued that not only technical skills are important

but also other competences among the workers. For example, social skills and employees who

can handle continuous changes are becoming increasingly important in meeting the challenges

of the changing business landscape (ibid.).

In parallel with more digitalization, today’s accessibility of “big data” and the introduction of

intelligent computing power has led to a far-reaching interest in business intelligence (BI) in a

number of business areas (Trieu, 2016). BI can be applied in several fields and therefore has

several definitions, but the one proposed by Chaudhuri, Dayal and Narasayya (2011, p. 88) is

that “Business intelligence (BI) software is a collection of decision support technologies for

the enterprise aimed at enabling knowledge workers such as executives, managers, and

analysts to make better and faster decisions.”. This definition indicates that multiple levels of

the organization are able to use BI as a support in decision making.

Furthermore, the need for having real-time data to support decision-making on the operational

level in a timely manner is increasing (Chaudhuri, Dayal & Narasayya, 2011). Felin and Powell

(2016) have also argued for the importance of having current information available to identify

market changes and respond accordingly. The fast changing market and need of timely

information therefore puts pressure on companies to have well-functioning BI systems in place

who can provide them with updated and valuable information. Gaardboe and Svarre (2018, p.

7) have argued that “[…] BI is no longer ‘nice-to-have’ but rather a ‘need-to-have’ technology

due an increasingly globally competitive market”, indicating that many organizations need to

2

implement BI to their business to remain competitive. The interest and importance of BI is

further highlighted by the fact that BI was the largest IT investment in 2017 and has been highly

prioritized among CIOs during many years (Arnott, Lizama & Song, 2017; Yeoh & Popovič,

2016). With this background, the conclusion is that BI is of great importance and interest for

many companies.

1.2 Problem discussion

As mentioned, BI is a prioritized IT investment (Arnott Lizama & Song, 2017; Yeoh &

Popovič, 2016) but still, the failure rate of BI projects is very high, meaning that the systems

are not used to their full capability (Gurjar & Rathore, 2013; Audzeyeva & Hudson, 2016).

Several scholars have explored critical success factors (CSF’s) of BI implementations to

identify important aspects in order to achieve successful projects (Yeoh & Koronios, 2010;

Garzía & Pinzón, 2017; Yeoh & Popovič, 2016). Gaardboe and Svarre (2018, p. 6) has stated

that “[…] achieving success with even the best BI system is difficult if employees are unskilled

with the technology.”, indicating that technical skills play an important role in BI

implementations. However, many modern BI platforms are characterized by easy-to-use tools

with integrated visualization with the aim to support the entire analytical workflow (Howson,

Richardson, Sallam & Kronz, 2019). Still, as previously stated many BI projects are failing

(Gurjar & Rathore, 2013; Audzeyeva & Hudson, 2016) which indicates that other aspects in

BI implementations rather than just technical play an important role.

To create long-term BI success, Audzeyeva and Hudson (2017) conclude that technical factors

have to be combined with the organization's so-called “deep structure” in interaction with the

BI system. The “deep structure” consists of power relations, control systems, core beliefs and

the structure of the organization (ibid.) which can be described as ‘soft factors’. Another

important ‘soft factor’ is the people or social perspective, where a central concept is user

satisfaction, which according to Trieu (2016) and Ain, Vaia, DeLone and Waheed (2019) is

often overlooked in BI research. Gaardboe and Svarre (2018) also conclude that previous

research primarily has focused on organizational structure and technology and that the factors

such as user- and social characteristics have been overlooked. Common difficulties in BI

projects are too much focus on technological aspects, too little understanding of the

organizational needs (Yeoh & Popovič, 2016) and unclear goals or targets (Hasan, Rahman &

3

Lahad, 2016). Additionally, a common reason for failure in BI projects is that the users’ needs

are not met which leads to user resistance (Venter, 2019; Seah, Hsieh & Weng, 2010).

As user resistance is a common difficulty in BI implementations it is crucial to focus on creating

satisfaction among the end-users who will work with the new technology in their everyday job

after the implementation. Hou (2012, p. 561) defines an end-user as “any person who has an

interaction with computer-based IS as a consumer of information” and even though the

research on this subject is limited, there are examples of studies which have measured user-

satisfaction as a factor (Wieder, Ossimitz & Chamoni, 2012; Hou, 2012, Trieu, 2016; Garzía

& Pinzón, 2017). However, the study by Wieder, Ossimitz and Chamoni (2012) used a survey

method which was answered by IT-managers who estimated the end-user satisfaction, thus, the

end-users were not actually a part of the respondents and their perspective was rather an

estimation from the managers’ point of view. In a similar manner, Garzía and Pinzón (2017)

conducted their study of success factors in business intelligence implementation from the

managers’ and experts’ perspectives and thereby not end-users’. This background concludes

that the field of BI implementations needs more empirical studies where not only managers are

included but also the end-users of the BI system.

1.3 Problem formulation and research question

The problem we have identified is that BI is very common in organizations and almost a

necessity for companies to survive but still, previous research has found that so many BI

implementations are failing (Arnott, Lizama & Song, 2017; Gurjar & Rathore, 2013).

According to our review it is clear that a number of scholars agree that a deeper understanding

of the user perspective is missing in previous BI research (Trieu, 2016; Gaardboe & Svarre,

2018; Garzía & Pinzón, 2017; Ain et al., 2019). Therefore, we believe that this perspective can

bring more light into why BI implementations are failing and also help companies in avoiding

user resistance and make sure that the systems are used to their full capabilities.

The aim with this case study is to understand what factors are important during the business

intelligence implementation, but also how those factors affect the perception of the BI project

according to the end-users. Therefore, we have formulated the following research question:

What factors are important for the business intelligence implementation project according to

the end-users, and how do those factors affect the end-users' perception of the project?

4

2. Literature review

This chapter presents the overall theoretical framework for this study. First, the concept

Business intelligence is presented and discussed followed by a short section about data

warehouse. Second, three themes of business intelligence implementation are discussed which

were identified from our abductive research method, namely ownership, involvement and

evaluation. Finally, this section is summarized and three expectations for the study are

presented.

2.1 Business intelligence

2.1.1 Usage and purpose of BI

The term Business Intelligence (BI) is believed to have appeared the first time in 1958 and was

at that time a term for data analysis tools (Olszak, 2016). The interest and market for BI

solutions has increased during many years and only in the year 2017, the world market for BI

increased by 7,3 % (Ain et al., 2019). There are a number of different explanations of BI but

in a more technical sense one can describe BI as “an integrated set of tools, technologies, and

software products that are used to collect heterogenic data from dispersed sources, and then

to integrate and analyze data to make them commonly available.” (Olszak, 2016, p. 107).

Additionally, BI can be seen as an organizational element and can in that sense be described as

a supporting tool for decision making in all organizational levels (ibid.). Initially, BI was

available only to top management and was used to control the company, but now it has spread

to more levels of the company meaning that everyone can get access to the same information

(Jamoussi & Niamba, 2016; Wixom & Watson, 2010). This democratization of BI can be

argued to put even more pressure on organizations since not only top managers or experts are

the end-users but also other people in the company.

The use of BI has increased over the years due to the availability of big data and the need for

analytics of business data (Vugec, Vukšić, Bach, Jaklić & Štemberger, 2020). Over the years,

the cost for companies to both get access to large amounts of data and to store that data in

efficient ways has decreased dramatically (Chaudhuri, Dayal & Narasayya, 2011). This has

enabled the use of BI in many organizations and today almost every successful company has

5

implemented BI technology in its business model (ibid.). BI provides management with a

number of ways to process huge amounts of data which can improve decision making by

transforming raw data into useful information (Teixeira, Oliveira & Varajão, 2019). Before, BI

was mainly focused on historical data but today the focus is rather on providing current data to

support operational decisions (Wixom & Watson, 2010). As companies have increasing

volumes of data and information it is critical that the organization can make use of and benefit

from all data in order to stay competitive, and that is something that many companies are

struggling with (Olszak, 2016).

As competition is increasing on the market there is more pressure on companies to have access

to real-time data, also called ‘just-in-time BI’ (Chaudhuri, Dayal & Narasayya, 2011) to enable

faster decision making. Benefits from BI can occur in both the short and long term, looking at

the short term perspective it is most likely that the conditions on the market are the same

(Audzeyeva & Hudson, 2017). However, in the longer perspective it is more likely that the

conditions are changing in a way that can’t be predicted, therefore the benefits in the long run

are dependent on the organization’s capabilities to be agile and adapt to a changing

environment (ibid.).

2.1.2 Data warehouse

Business intelligence systems (BIS) are very reliant on data that comes from a data warehouse

(Bouchana & Idrissi, 2015). A data warehouse is defined as “an integrated collection of

enterprise‐wide data that generally includes several years of nonvolatile data, used to support

management in decision making and planning.” (Turner, Weickgenannt & Copeland, 2017, p.

12). On the other hand, “A data mart contains a subset of corporate data that is of value to a

specific department or set of users.” (Pipe, 1997, p. 252), meaning that the difference, in

comparison to a data warehouse, is that a data mart is only centered to one function in the

company instead of being enterprise wide. As managers and other employees in an organization

might demand data from different parts of the business and from different periods, the data

warehouse is a very efficient tool to provide this information (Turner, Weickgenannt &

Copeland, 2017). By using the data warehouse, people in the organization can identify trends

or other types of information to guide the company and make more accurate plans (ibid.).

6

One goal with implementing a data warehouse is to create a so-called ‘single version of the

truth’, this means that the data is consistent and that the data means the same thing within the

organization (Ariyachandra & Watson, 2010) which makes the data comparable between

subsidiaries. Before implementing a data warehouse, it is important to choose the right type of

architecture for the data warehouse, otherwise the implementation can turn out unsuccessful

and the goal of ‘one single version of the truth’ might not be fulfilled (Ariyachandra & Watson,

2010). One type of architecture is independent data marts (IDM) and this means that the marts

are not dependent on other stores of data and thereby only meet the needs on a local level rather

than enterprise-wide. In this architecture it is common that there exist a number of different

definitions and measures that makes cross-analysis in the organization very difficult. Another

architecture is data mart bus architecture with linked dimensional data marts (DBA) which

starts with a specific business process. Dimensions and measures are thereafter defined in a

conformed way that are used with other data marts and then additional marts are created using

the same dimensions. In this way, data can be used enterprise wide (ibid.).

2.2 Implementation aspects in BI projects

Digital transformation is defined by Gong and Ribiere (2021, p. 12) as “A fundamental change

process, enabled by the innovative use of digital technologies accompanied by the strategic

leverage of key resources and capabilities, aiming to radically improve an entity* and redefine

its value propositions for its stakeholders.”. Since the implementation of a BI system in an

organization is an innovative use of digital technologies with the aim of improving the value

propositions, it can be described as a part of a digital transformation.

2.2.1 Ownership

When an organization goes through a digital transformation such as a BI implementation it

often has a huge impact on the company in regard to both structure and operations. In any

project, it is important that all roles are specified as soon as the project gets started so that

vagueness about the roles do not appear (Camilleri, 2011, p. 112). As the digital transformation

process is complex it is of great importance to have assigned responsibilities and make sure

that the one person who has the operational responsibility is experienced within major

transformations (Matt, Hess & Benlian, 2015). Additionally, Melan (1992) has stated that no

7

matter what change process and no matter how complex the process is, the first step should be

to establish ownership.

The importance of ownership is shared by many scholars. Meredith and Zwikael (2020) claim

that one of the factors that is most critical to realize benefits from organizational change is

having personal responsibility in the project. To avoid lack of personal responsibility it is

important to appoint a project owner who is responsible for the project during four phases: “1.

Initiation up to approval of the business case; 2. Project planning for output development; 3.

Execution, monitoring, and controlling of the project plan; and 4. Closing and benefits

realization for securing a permanent and sustainable change.” (Meredith & Zwikael, 2020, p.

66). One appropriate candidate as the project owner is a senior manager related to the functional

area the change will affect (ibid.). For example, if the project is conducted in the procurement

function, the procurement manager is well suited to be the project owner (Zwikael, Meredith

& Smyrk, 2019). This strategy for choosing the project owner can strengthen the performance

of the project and additionally have a positive effect for the organization in the long run (ibid.).

Furthermore, the area of change agency has achieved a lot of attention over the years but the

role of change agents has been criticized as being one-dimensional and thereby ignoring the

complexity that change agents face (Caldwell, 2003). Similar to the role of the project owner,

change agents are key in organizational changes since these individuals or groups of people are

responsible for taking the commando, guiding and leading the followers through the change

(ibid.). Specific for change agents is that they should construct a vision for the change that is

communicated to the followers with the purpose of showing the way forward, aligning the

people and helping them deal with obstacles (Vos & Rupert, 2018). However, having followers

that are resistant to the change is one of the most common challenges for change agents so a

shared understanding of the change is not something that should be taken for granted (ibid.)

but rather something to continually work with during the project.

Furthermore, research within change management has shown that leaders and their roles in

change processes will have a meaningful influence on whether the change is successful or not

(Higgs & Rowland, 2011). To be able to successfully lead change and handle resistance the

leaders need to communicate about the change, and the relevance of it, openly and continually

through different channels (Wrede, Velamuri & Dauth, 2020). Kotter (1995, p. 63) describes

seven errors as to why transformations fail and one of them is: “Undercommunicating the

8

Vision by a Factor of Ten”. This means that if the leader of change does not communicate the

vision frequently and convincingly they don’t convince the followers that the transformation is

necessary which might create resistance. Additionally, Kotter (1995, p. 60) explains another

important error in transformations which is “Not Establishing a Great Enough Sense of

Urgency”. This illustrates that all people in the transformation need to be convinced that the

change is motivated and needed, and that business-as usual is not sufficient anymore (ibid.).

Creating a sense of urgency is done by creating an atmosphere of fear or crisis, which

contributes to the feeling that immediate action is necessary for survival (Dess, Picken & Lyon,

1998). The leader needs to communicate the crisis straightforward, however, the crisis also

needs to be supported by facts (ibid.). Heim and Sardar-Drenda (2020) claim that a sense of

urgency as well as understanding of the challenges the organization is facing will contribute to

making individuals ready to change. When the sense of urgency is felt within the organization

the leader can take action and communicate a common direction throughout the crisis (Dess,

Picken & Lyon, 1998).

2.2.2 Involvement

Material and technical dimensions are important within IT, but as previously mentioned the

social side or ‘soft factors’ are crucial too. IT has therefore been described as socio-material

where involvement of the affected people is valuable (Lindvall & Iveroth, 2011). When a new

system is being implemented it is important that the employees perceive it as useful and that

the system satisfies their needs, therefore the users should be involved when a new system is

developed (Lee, Rhee & Dunham, 2009). In the context of BI, Hou (2012, p. 560) has stated

that “The realization of business benefits from BI investments depends on supporting effective

use of BI systems and satisfying their end user requirements.”. Ain et al. (2019) further

highlight that difficulties on the individual level need to be taken into account in BI

implementations to achieve better results. This further highlights the importance of including

the end-users and individual opinions in BI projects.

When a company goes through a digital transformation it will affect the whole company,

including end-users, and naturally there might be some people that are resistant to the change

(Matt, Hess & Benlian, 2015). To consider a system implementation as successful it must be

accepted by the organization and be integrated to work processes (Wixom & Watson, 2001).

System implementations might change the company in a substantial way and lead to resistance

from both managers and end-users (ibid.). The reasons for resistance can be many but some

9

examples are uncertainty, anxiety about what will happen or not feeling motivated enough (Vos

& Rupert, 2018). A study by Seah, Hsieh and Weng (2010) actually showed that resistance

from the employees as well as difficulties related to change management can often explain the

failure of system implementation and should therefore be considered in implementation

projects.

Users’ attitudes towards the change can further depend on whether they believe that the change

is necessary or not and if they believe that the company has the abilities needed to make a

successful implementation (Lee, Rhee & Dunham, 2009). As these perceptions are very

individual there can be a lot of different views of the same project. Additionally, the specific

context is always important as it can determine how the change will be received by the affected

employees, what management perceives as a minor change might be a major change according

to the user (Clampitt & Berk, 1996).

To handle different perceptions and resistance to change it is important to include all

stakeholders that are involved in the project and also have support from top management (Matt,

Hess & Benlian, 2015). To minimize resistance, management has to actively work to create

acceptance for the transformation within the organization and this is done by signaling personal

commitment, involving others in the transformation as well as creating commitment through

communication (Wrede, Velamuri & Dauth, 2020). Additionally, support from top

management is a clear and motivating signal to the organization that the transformation is a

priority (Matt, Hess & Benlian, 2015) and by communicating the vision and the purpose of the

change, employee support can further be strengthened (Wrede, Velamuri & Dauth, 2020;

Kotter, 1995).

2.2.3 Evaluation

To be able to perform a digital transformation it is important to evaluate the transformation

through control points, measures and feedback (Matt, Hess & Benlian, 2015; Melan, 1992).

Control points and milestones is a tool used to steer the employees towards the targets of the

transformation project (Davenport & Harris, 2010). Furthermore, control points, or milestones,

is a set of steps within the project where the organization performs checks and reviews the

progress of the project (Melan, 1992).

10

To be able to assess the progress at the control points it is important that the organization has

developed measurements beforehand that they will follow up at the control point (Melan,

1992). When deciding on the measures for the project, the measures have to reflect the progress

and the effectiveness of the process (ibid.). Furthermore, the decision about what measures to

use is made in the initial phase of the project and the metrics should be measurable to some

degree, distinct and representative for the vision (Meredith & Zwikael, 2020). One common

model for project evaluation is the so-called ‘iron triangle’ meaning that the evaluation is done

in regard to whether the project is finished on time, according to budget and meets the

specifications (Zwikael, Meredith & Smyrk, 2019). However, even if a project has clear and

predefined goals in regards of time, budget and quality it is not certain that the project is

successful anyway (Meredith & Zwikael, 2020; Zwikael, Meredith & Smyrk, 2019). One

example of this is a project at Ford where they developed a new generation of cars and the

project was completed in accordance to the predefined goals but did not reach the expected

sales and return on investment (ibid.). It is therefore clear that goals and evaluation metrics

should cover both the short- and long-term perspectives.

Furthermore, when the measurements are evaluated at the control point, the review must lead

to feedback and corrective action and through these actions the organization can stabilize and

improve the process which will ensure that the project is on the right track (Melan, 1992).

Without corrective actions and feedback the project will decline in effectiveness, efficiency

and quality. This implies that corrective actions cannot be performed without sufficient

measurements and control points (ibid.).

To know if the project is on the right track and make correct evaluations there has to be a clear

target to strive for in the project. Wixom and Watson (2010) have presented three different

types of targets in BI implementation that organizations use. The first type is a specific target

with the aim to satisfy business needs in a particular unit meaning that people and processes

are only affected in that specific business unit. The second type is to build a BI infrastructure

in the organization meaning that the whole organization uses the same applications. Having

this target affects all of the company and results in analytical work and decision making that is

supported by facts. The third type of target is to transform the organization and use BI to lead

towards a new business model. This target definitely has the most effect on the organization

and the culture and requires high commitment and a lot of resources (ibid.). The target that is

11

chosen and strived for will therefore affect the implementation and also what control points

and measurements are needed for the specific organization.

When targets or goals in a project are not fulfilled it can be considered as a failure. Yeoh and

Popovič (2016) made a study where they investigated BI system implementations and where

one of the projects was described as failing to meet the requirements. According to the study,

one of the reasons for the failure in this project had occurred already in the beginning. The

company had not decided clearly enough what the business was in need of and what

requirements that the BI system should have, thus highlighting the importance of having clearly

defined goals before starting the project. Additionally, there was a strong focus on the cost in

the project that failed which also indicates a need to have more than just monetary or fixed

measurements and also include other requirements for the project (ibid.). Another study by

Hasan, Rahman and Lahad (2016) supports the results from Yeoh and Popovič (2016) where

they found that vague and unclear objectives and goals in a BI project can lead to the project

failing.

Furthermore, data warehouse, business intelligence and analytics projects overall can be either

plan-driven, agile or a mix of both but traditionally these projects have been mainly plan-based

due to the assumption that systems cannot be adapted to a large extent but are rather fixed and

predetermined (Batra, 2018). Later on, it has been shown that both agile and plan-based

characteristics can be important in BI and analytics projects but are always dependent on the

specific context (ibid.). However, Venter (2019) showed that agile development processes

which are constantly evolved tend to be more accepted than a more traditional approach where

the process is sequential. This is mainly because users are in need of seeing and discovering

the system in order to understand their own needs. The agile process is also preferred because

it is very difficult to define the system requirements in advance and it is therefore better to let

the system evolve over time (ibid.). The previous research presented in this section therefore

highlights the fact that clear goals and evaluation is important but still, it can be considered a

very complex task due to the fact that it might be difficult to establish goals for a BI system in

advance.

12

2.3 Summary of literature review

This literature review presents the overall theoretical framework used for this case study. The

three themes ownership, involvement and evaluation were chosen based on the analysis from

our abductive research method, which identified differences or interesting phenomena in the

interviewees’ answers. Our following analysis will be guided by the three analytical concepts

ownership, involvement and evaluation to identify the end-users’ perceptions of the BI

implementation process.

Based on the previous research and theoretical framework provided in this literature review

three expectations were formulated for this case study of a BI implementation project. Firstly,

our literature review shows that clear ownership is important to succeed with a digital

transformation (Melan, 1992; Meredith and Zwikael, 2020). The review also shows that clear

leadership helps aligning the employees during the change, which increases the success of the

change. Our first expectation is therefore that clear ownership and leadership will decrease

resistance to the change and lead to a positive view of the implementation. Secondly, our

literature review shows that uncertainty and anxiety are reasons for resistance towards the

change (Vos & Rupert, 2018). The review also shows that the uncertainty and anxiety can be

minimized by involving the end-users during an implementation (Vos & Rupert, 2018; Matt,

Hess & Benlian, 2015). Our second expectation is therefore that active involvement of the end-

users during the implementation will decrease resistance to the change and lead to a positive

view of the implementation. Lastly, our literature review shows that clear goals and

measurements can be used to steer employees during a change (Davenport & Harris, 2010),

without a common direction the employees might feel lost. Our last expectation is therefore

that clear goals, milestones and ongoing follow up and adjustments during the process will

drive the implementation forward in a common direction and lead to a positive view of the

project.

13

3. Method

This chapter presents the methodological considerations that have been made in order to

ensure an appropriate study of the research object to answer the research question. The chosen

research approach is discussed followed by the research design and case description.

Additionally, the data collection, operationalization of the study, data analysis and ethical

considerations are presented.

3.1 Research approach

A qualitative research method is preferred when the purpose of the study is to understand social

realities and people's perception of these realities (Bryman & Bell, 2017, p. 372-373).

Qualitative research methods are further preferred when the aim of the study is to understand

a process, how a phenomenon occurs as well as how patterns develop over time (Bryman &

Bell, 2017, p. 387). Since the aim with this case study is to understand what and how different

factors affect the perception of the BI project according to the end-users, the choice was made

to use a qualitative method, using semi-structured interviews as the main source of data

collection.

During the research we have held interviews in two rounds. In the first round of interviews, we

identified three interesting themes from the respondent’s answers. Based on these three themes,

we decided to dig deeper into the literature review to serve as a guide for the second round of

interviews. During this study we have therefore used an abductive approach which is a

combination of an inductive and a deductive approach (Van de Ven, 2007, p. 98) and where

differences between theory and research can be linked together (Taylor, 2018). An abductive

approach is a continuous process during the research where empirical data and analysis of the

data is ongoing and where empirical findings can develop new theory (ibid.) The empirical

findings can also be compared and connected to existing theory to enable understanding of the

specific case (ibid.), theory is thereby constructed using deductive reasoning in iterative cycles

(Van de Ven, 2007, p. 98). The research question has been formulated and reformulated several

times during the research process as we have learned more about the case study, hence iterative

cycles. This approach is typical for qualitative research where the process is flexible, we start

14

with vague research questions and let the specific setting guide us on what to ask and

investigate (Taylor, Bogdan & DeVault, 2016, p. 18), followed by deductive reasoning and

theoretical analysis.

3.2 Research design

3.2.1 Case study method

The study is designed as a case study where we have followed the project from the starting

phase to the final implementation through meetings, documents and interviews. A case study

is defined as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its

real-life context, especially when the boundaries between object of study and context are not

clearly evident” (Yin, 2003, p.13-14 see Dul & Hak, 2008, p. 4) which is in agreement with

our study. What distinguishes a case study from other studies is that neither the studied object

nor the environment are manipulated in any way but rather observed (Dul & Hak, 2008). This

means that we can study the BI implementation in its true environment and analyze the project

from an outside perspective to gain important insights.

The case study is used to shed light on what factors are important for the end-users during a BI

implementation project and contributes with practical knowledge which can be used in future

BI implementations. External validity corresponds to when a study can be generalized over

variations in persons and settings (Van de Ven, 2007, p. 189). However, the authors of this

thesis do not claim that the knowledge can be generalized on all BI implementations, but rather

generalized within the setting of the study. This degree of validity and generalization is referred

to as construct validity when the study can be generalized on a higher level within the setting

(Van de Ven, 2007, p. 189). In this case, that means that the findings from this case study can

be applied to similar digital implementations in the studied company. As Bryman and Bell

(2017, p. 88) states, a case study can never be generalized in all other cases, however, the case

study can create meaning in abstract propositions which later can be tried in other contexts.

3.2.2 Case description

3.2.2.1 Company description

The company has been anonymized in this thesis and instead of their real name we have

formulated the pseudonym Material Supply for the studied company. Material Supply is a

15

leading supplier of metal- and wood products to the Consumer products sector. The company

had approximately 3000 employees during 2019 and a revenue of approximately 5000 million

SEK during the year of 2020. Material Supply has been continuously growing through

acquisitions since the beginning of 2000. As of March 2021, the company had around 40

majority owned subsidiaries around the world which have been controlled independently

without much management on the group level.

During 2019 the company initiated a new strategy, due to the disruption within the market. The

CEO of Material Supply explained in a video during 2020 that the earnings for the company

are stable and that the company has had stable growth through acquisitions. However, their

organic growth has been negative, which indicates a problem with the underlying profitability.

One part of the strategy is to start to reap the benefits of being a big company. So far, the

subsidiaries have been run separately without taking advantage of the many synergies that exist

within the group but with this initiative they are striving to become one-Material Supply,

meaning that they should be run more as a group to take advantage of synergies across nations.

3.2.2.2 Project description

The project we were observing during this thesis was a part of Material Supply’s strategic

initiative. The project was a BI implementation for the procurement function within the

company. The solution was provided by a management consulting firm called the Consulting

firm in this thesis due to anonymity. The project was a so-called proof of concept, meaning that

Material Supply was trying the BI solution for a limited part of the company to evaluate if it

was a good solution that they wanted to implement for the whole group, hence a pilot project.

The aim of the project was to be able to negotiate more efficiently with suppliers, more

effective cooperation between subsidiaries, and to achieve ‘one single truth’ for company data.

Material Supply chose to start to implement the solution in three subsidiaries during the proof

of concept, one company in Sweden, one in Finland and one in Italy. Two of the subsidiaries

have the same ERP systems and the third has another ERP system, however, they all have

different codes for suppliers and articles. Material Supply started the implementation within

the procurement function and if the solution meets the expectations they will implement the

purchase solution in all subsidiaries as well as implementing BI solutions in other parts of the

16

operations. The BI solution provided by the Consulting firm has different modules, for example

sales and finance, that Material Supply could add on in the future.

The project was carried out in five steps: 1. Initiation/workshop; 2. Source mapping; 3.

Installation; 4. Quality assurance and testing and 5. Education and project delivery. The

following figure shows the five steps of the project.

Figure 1- Project steps, provided by the Consulting firm.

Additionally, the project had two teams, one steering team and one core team:

Steering team

Company Role

The Consulting firm Project leader

The Consulting firm Key Account Manager

The Consulting firm Business Area Manager

Material Supply Project leader (external consultant)

Material Supply Head of Purchasing

Material Supply Head of IT

Material Supply Head of Business control

Table 1 - Roles within the steering team.

17

Core team

Company Role

The Consulting firm Project leader

The Consulting firm Solution architect

The Consulting firm Technical architect (lead developer)

The Consulting firm Developer

Material Supply Project leader (external consultant)

Material Supply Head of Purchasing

Material Supply Head of IT

Material Supply Head of Business control

Material Supply Stakeholder Purchasing - Subsidiary one, two and three

Material Supply Stakeholder controlling - Subsidiary one, two, three

Material Supply ERP expert - ERP system one and two

Table 2 - Roles within the core team.

The project was organized through frequent meetings, workshops and iterative uploading and

testing of data.

3.3 Data collection

3.3.1 Literature review

To construct the theoretical framework, we went through a large number of academic articles

and books within the fields of Business Intelligence implementation, Digital transformation

and User-involvement. The databases used to collect the literature were Web of Science,

Business Source Complete, Uppsala University’s digital library and Google Scholar. To find

suitable articles keywords such as: “Business Intelligence OR BI”, “Business intelligence

implementation”, “Digital Transformation”, “User-acceptance”, “User-involvement” were

used. The literature served as a guide in the beginning of the study to identify interesting aspects

in Business intelligence implementation and was an inspiration for the interview guides. Later

on in the research process after the first round of interviews we refined the literature review

and investigated concepts that had been identified as important and interesting from the

interviews. The literature review has therefore been an iterative and ongoing process.

18

3.3.2 Semi-structured interviews

The main data collection was made through semi-structured interviews with people involved

in the project. Semi-structured interviews are very common in the research field of information

systems and are therefore suitable for this study (Myers & Newman, 2006). A semi-structured

interview is characterized by the level of freedom in the interviewees' answers (Bryman & Bell,

2017, p. 454). The authors usually use an interview guide with specified themes. However, the

interview guide does not need to be strictly followed and the interviewees are encouraged to

answer freely (ibid.) which also means that the interviewer must be able to improvise during

the interview (Myers & Newman, 2006). Before the interviews we had prepared interview

guides with specific categories or themes where questions and possible follow-up questions

had been formulated. Since we chose a semi-structured interview technique we were able to

have a more open conversation, but were still guided from the prepared questions. This enabled

us to conduct the interviews with guidance from the respondents’ answers and dig deeper into

aspects that were interesting or needed clarification.

The respondents were chosen based on their involvement and roles in the project and since the

BI solution would be provided in three subsidiaries we wanted to interview people from all

three companies. The respondents and interview details are presented in the following table:

19

Respondents (pseudonyms)

Role

Company

Country

Date and duration of interview 1

Date and duration of interview 2

1. Adam Head of

Procurement

Parent Company

(P)

Sweden 03-02-2021:

26:03

12-04-2021:

34:26

2. Bryan Group IS/IT

Director

Parent Company

(P)

Sweden 03-02-2021:

25:52

12-04-2021:

44:07

3. Chloé Head of Group

Business

Controlling

Parent Company

(P)

Sweden 05-02-2021:

25:10

12-04-2021:

48:17

4. David Purchasing and Quality

manager

Subsidiary 1 (S-1)

Finland 19-02-2021: 17:45

16-04-2021: 58:23

5. Eric Region

controller

Subsidiary 1 (S-

1)

Finland 08-03-2021:

30:07

19-04-2021:

59:42

6. Felicia Production

Manager

Subsidiary 2 (S-

2)

Sweden 19-02-3021:

33:52

19-04-2021:

32:03

7. Gabriella Purchaser Subsidiary 2 (S-

2)

Sweden 03-03-2021:

21:29

19-04-2021:

56:13

8. Hannah Purchasing

Manager

Subsidiary 3 (S-

3)

Italy 18-02-2021:

20:03

10-05-2021:

45:31

Table 3 - Respondents.

Respondents 1-3 have leading roles in the parent company and they were interviewed to get a

deeper insight into the project but these are not considered as end-users. Respondents 4-8 are

people involved in the project from all three subsidiaries who will use the BI platform after the

implementation, these are thereby defined as the project's end-users. From each subsidiary

(Finland, Italy and Sweden), we wanted to interview one person who had a managing position

within purchasing and one person who was a purchaser or in another way an end-user of the

BI platform. We got to interview two people from both the Swedish and Finnish subsidiaries

but could not get access to interviewing two people from the Italian subsidiary due to lack of

time and a hectic period from their side. We interviewed the Purchasing Manager in the Italian

subsidiary who is considered an end-user so we could still collect data and get insights from

that company. The interviews were conducted in two phases with all eight respondents, thereby

the total number of interviews was 16.

As an interview setting usually involves people who do not know each other beforehand there

can be a problem of trust between the respondent and the interviewer (Myers & Newman,

2006). This means that there is always a risk that the whole truth is not presented to the

20

interviewers, for example in regards to “sensitive information” (ibid.). If not all important

information is shared during the interview it might lead to lack of data and this is a risk that we

are aware of in this study. However, we have tried to diminish this risk by securing anonymity

for the respondents. Another important point to make is the fact that none of the interviewees

spoke English as their native language. This might have implied some difficulties for the

respondents in expressing the exact right words and it is something that we have been aware of

in this study. We still believe that we have gotten the correct meaning of their answers by

interpreting the general tones and expressions in their answers.

3.3.3 Additional sources

Except for interviews we also collected data about Material Supply through their website,

annual reports and other types of reports. These sources provided us with some background

information about the company and their new strategy that was being implemented. From the

consultancy firm we received information via email, digital meetings and some additional

documents with information about for example people involved in the project, the time

schedule for the project etc. which provided us with useful information about the set-up of the

project. During the whole project, we have had continuous contact with the project leader from

the consulting firm. The project leader has had the role of an informant by providing

information and updates about the progress of the project.

3.4 Operationalization

The project was first introduced to us through the consulting firm where we had a first meeting

with the project leader and received the basic information about the project as well as the roles

involved and the time frame at that point. We also had a meeting in the early stage with the

person responsible for the more technical part of the implementation from the consultancy firm.

In this meeting we got an introduction to the technical aspects of the data warehouse to deepen

our understanding of the platform that was about to be delivered to Material Supply. The

technical solution will not be discussed in detail in this essay due to confidentiality reasons.

In the first stage we held interviews with the leaders (respondents 1-3) and asked questions

about the preparations and background of the project and also how the project was planned to

be continued (see Appendix 1 for interview questions). Since all three leaders were Swedish

21

speaking, we conducted these interviews in Swedish but in Appendix 1 we have also included

an English version of the interview guide. In the starting phase of the project, we also did

interviews with the end-users (respondents 4-8) to understand their perception of the project in

the beginning. We asked questions related to the roles involved in the project, communication

and their expectations of the project (see Appendix 2). Since not everyone in these interviews

were Swedish speaking, we conducted all these interviews in English. This was done to make

the answers more comparable and reduce the risk of mistranslation. During the interviews with

both the leaders and end-users we identified three interesting and important themes namely:

ownership, involvement and evaluation. The three themes were identified as interesting and

important when we compared both the respondents' answers with each other but also made a

comparison with previous research and were able to identify deviations. After the first round

of interviews during the starting phase we deepened our literature review within these three

themes.

In the ending phase of the project, we first did interviews with the leaders (respondents 1-3) to

follow up the project and get a more clear view of how the project progressed. By doing

interviews with both the leaders and the end-users we could achieve a deeper and more nuanced

picture of the project and identify phenomena that could not be found from interviews with

only the end-users. In the same manner as the first round, these interviews were made in

Swedish and the interview guide in both Swedish and English are included in Appendix 3.

The final interviews were made with the end-users (respondents 4-8) to understand their

perceptions of ownership, involvement and evaluation and how those themes had affected their

view and acceptance of the project. As previously stated, the interviews were made in English

and the interview guide is included in Appendix 4. The questions during the interviews were

connected to our three themes, to steer the interviews in a common direction. However, the

three themes were not explicitly expressed to the interviewees as we did not want them to

become biased by pre-set themes. In the following table, we provide some examples of how

we operationalized our three themes through the interview questions:

22

Theme Examples of questions

Ownership Has the ownership been clear throughout the project?

If you think about ownership and responsibility overall in this project, what is your

perception about it? Has it played an important role for your view/acceptance of the BI

project?

Involvement Do you feel like you have been able to share your thoughts and opinions throughout the

project?

If you think about your involvement overall in this project, what is your perception about

it? Has it played an important role for your view/acceptance of the BI project?

Evaluation Have you had clear and predefined goals to work towards in this project?

During the meetings, have there been discussions regarding milestones, goals or

evaluation?

Table 4 - Operationalization of the three themes.

In the follow up interview with Felicia, it came clear to us that she had not participated in the

project at all. This meant that we could not ask the questions that were prepared in the interview

guide. However, we still had the interview but instead of asking the questions we had a more

open dialogue where Felicia could tell us what she knew about the project. This helped us in

our data collection in regards to the communication level to stakeholders outside of the project

team.

Before each interview was conducted, the respondents received some background information

about the interview via email and also had the chance to read the questions beforehand. The

email also included information about our handling of the data from the interviews. Due to the

Covid-19 pandemic, all interviews and meetings were made through Zoom or Teams. The

interviews were recorded through Zoom or Teams and were saved afterwards. The majority of

the audio files were complete but one of them has some issues with the sound in a few places.

However, only single words were difficult to hear which did not affect the total answer to the

question but still, we decided to not make quotations from the parts with incomplete sounds

but rather interpret the overall answer that the respondent gave.

3.5. Data analysis

Since everyone gave their permission to record the interviews, we could transcribe all the

interviews. Each interview was transcribed in a separate document and after finalizing the

transcribing we could start to read all the transcripts. To make identification of core themes,

23

similarities and differences easier we made one document for each category from the interview

guide where all the respondents' answers in that specific category were inserted. Additionally,

we used color coding to separate similarities from differences in the answers and inserted

comments in the margin to further highlight what similarities or differences we identified. From

the end-user interviews we also constructed digital mind maps for both the first and second

round of interviews to get an overview of the answers which helped us identify similarities and

differences in their answers.

The data analysis has been combined with individual analysis by the authors as well as

discussions where we talked about the findings together and the analysis for the second round

of interviews has been based on the core themes ownership, involvement and evaluation. In

qualitative studies, data analysis is not a straightforward process but analysis of the data as well

as the collection of the data are rather done in parallel as an iterative and ongoing process to

get a deeper understanding of the study (Taylor, Bogdan & DeVault, 2016, p. 160). Therefore,

we have read the transcripts and mind maps several times to really identify core themes and

interesting phenomena and handled the analysis as an ongoing process.

3.6 Ethical considerations

Before all the interviews were conducted, we asked the interviewee if they allowed us to record

the interview for the purpose of transcribing their exact answers and to avoid any

misinterpretations or mistranslations. The interviewees were also informed that the recorded

interview would only be used for the purpose of this study, not shared with anyone else but the

authors and deleted once the thesis was accepted. Additionally, the interviewees have been

anonymized in the essay and also the title of both the studied company and the consultancy

firm are anonymized. All names were anonymized since that was requested from the companies

and the case description was sent to the companies to obtain their approval of the text to ensure

that no sensitive details were disclosed. Instead of their real names we have created

pseudonyms for both the companies and the respondents to make them anonymous.

24

4. Empirical findings and Analysis

This chapter presents our empirical findings from the conducted case study as well as

theoretical analysis. First, empirical findings from the starting phase are presented and

analyzed. Second, empirical findings from the ending phase of the project are presented and

analyzed. The chapter ends with a short summary of the final views of the project.

4.1 Starting phase of the project

The project was, as previously mentioned, carried out in five phases. The first round of

interviews was conducted during the second phase of the implementation, hence during the

Source Mapping and after the Initiation/Workshop.

Figure 2 - Project steps, provided by The Consulting firm.

During the Initiation/Workshop phase, the end-users in the core team were contacted and asked

to participate in the project. All five end-users were contacted separately and through different

channels, but all five respondents described the initial communication regarding the project as

very short. Although the initial communication was short, the respondents had the same view

in regards to the purpose with the project, with the exception of Felicia who was much less

involved in the project than the rest of the respondents. The purpose of the project was

described by the end-users as having available and transparent purchasing data on a group level

as well as having the same data in all subsidiaries, thereby achieving ‘one single truth’. One of

the respondents described the purpose as:

25

“[...] for me or for my purchasing colleagues within the group to be able to have a tracking

of material within the whole group, making sure that we will be able to handle purchasing

and negotiations on a smoother way and being able to use the data to work with the suppliers

in order to secure material for the best possible prices and the shortest possible lead times”

- Gabriella (S-2).

The purpose of the project was thereby a modern BI system where not only top management,

but also local levels get access to the information (Jamoussi & Niamba, 2016; Wixom &

Watson, 2010). The purpose of the project can be described as going from an independent data

marts (IDM) structure, where the different subsidiaries have their own data store and structure,

to a data mart bus architecture with linked dimensional data marts (DBA) where the data has

the same dimension in all subsidiaries, hence can be used enterprise wide (Ariyachandra &

Watson, 2010). By making use of the company data on all levels within the group, Material

Supply will be able to better support operational decisions (Wixom & Watson, 2010) as the

data can help employees to identify trends and make more accurate plans (Turner,

Weickgenannt & Copeland, 2017). However, as previously mentioned the group must act on

the information and be agile to stay competitive as the market changes (Audzeyeva & Hudson,

2017).

Additionally, the target of the BI system can be explained as the type that Wixom and Watson

(2010) describe as a specific target since only the particular unit of procurement was affected

in this proof of concept and thereby only affect the employees in that part of the business.

Several of the respondents also mentioned that the BI system will contribute to more

collaboration between subsidiaries as well as the opportunity to learn from each other. In the

long run, Material Supply will implement BI in more parts of the company meaning that the

whole organization will start to use the same application which is another type of target in BI

implementations (Wixom & Watson, 2010).

During the initial interviews with the leaders, they described how the procurement process had

previously been executed. They all agreed that the different subsidiaries had previously been

run very independently when it came to purchasing and that they had been focusing mainly on

their local markets. Chloé mentioned that in some cases even the suppliers knew more about

them than the company itself did. Therefore, moving forward they want to have clear data and

26

run the company more as a group where they can use the same purchasing data in all

subsidiaries and in that way achieve better contracts and negotiations with their suppliers. The

conclusions drawn from the interviews is that this project had a clear connection to the

company’s new strategy ‘One-Material Supply’.

The Source Mapping phase of the BI project was focused on the purchasing data from the three

subsidiaries. During this phase the project group was translating the data from the subsidiaries

to create ‘one single truth’. To be able to achieve ‘one single truth’ it is important to choose the

right type of architecture for the data warehouse system (Ariyachandra & Watson, 2010). By

describing the company needs, the team from the Consulting firm made sure that the right type

of architecture was used for the data warehouse and BI solution.

The source mapping was conducted by the end-users and the ERP-system specialists. The

mapping was conducted by extracting data from the two ERP-systems and merging the data

from the subsidiaries into one excel-file which created the mapping of how the data warehouse

extracts data from the ERP-systems. By doing this the data warehouse can extract data from

the different systems and make the data comparable and by that create ‘one single truth’ within

the company. Eric described this process as difficult since the subsidiaries have been run

separately making it very fragmented when it comes to data:

“This intelligence I think will be quite challenging inside (Material Supply) it is quite a

complicated business somehow because there are so small customers and so many products

and articles and suppliers, it’s quite a fragmented business. There will be some challenges to

get information on, how do you call, harmonized or you know that it’s one to one information

is correct in different countries.” - Eric (S-1).

However, the source mapping contributes to making data comparable within the group and

was therefore one of the most important steps.

27

4.1.1 Ownership

When working through a complex change process the first step should be to establish

ownership (Melan, 1992). When asking who the project owner was, the answers differed

between the end-users. However, common for all end-users was that they mentioned Adam,

the Head of procurement in some way, even though they were not completely sure. According

to Meredith and Zwikael (2020) and Zwikael, Meredith and Smyrk (2019) an appropriate

candidate to pursue the ownership role is a senior manager related to the function or department

affected by the change. Since the project was conducted in the procurement function, it was in

line with Zwikael, Meredith and Smyrk’s (2019) findings that the Head of Procurement is an

appropriate candidate to be the project owner which can have a positive effect for the

performance of the project. Other names that appeared as possible project owners were Bryan

(Group IS/IT Director) and Chloé (Head of Group Business Controlling). According to

Meredith and Zwikael (2020) personal responsibility for a project is the most critical factor to

realize the benefits from the project. From these answers it was therefore clear that there were

some uncertainties on who was the project owner in the beginning of the project, hence, no one

took a clear personal responsibility for the project. But still, they all could identify Adam as a

possible candidate for taking on that role.

Some respondents mentioned that Adam was a good candidate thanks to his previous

experience in similar projects which is highlighted as very important according to Matt, Hess

& Benlian (2015). This was positive for the project since it is very complex to implement new

technology (Yeoh & Popovič, 2016). Eric said:

“[...] I think that (Adam) has some experience of this maybe similar program or something in

his previous job I believe really, so based on his comments and so I think (Adam) is now very

much responsible of this pilot project” - Eric (S-1).

Similarly, Gabriella explained Adam’s experience and also mentioned that the fact that he has

been running similar projects before it was positive in regards to securing enough and adequate

support during the project:

28

“[...] I hope and I’m quite sure, (Adam) has been doing this for quite some time in a different,

in a lot of different companies so I’m quite certain that he has this covered so he makes sure

that there will be a support group going forward.” - Gabriella (S-2).

In regards to whether the project owner was acting like a sponsor or actively driving the change

there were also some inconsistencies in the answers. Hannah, Gabriella and Eric agreed that

Adam as the project owner had an active role in driving the project. This points to the fact that

they did not just see Adam as a project owner but also as a change agent. The change agent is

responsible for communicating a vision and aligning the people going through the change (Vos

& Rupert, 2018). On the other hand, Felicia thought that the project owner had more of a

sponsoring role but could not say for sure because of lack of involvement in the project. Finally,

David mentioned both the role of a sponsor and an active driver, hence a little bit of both. It

therefore became clear from the interviews in this initial phase that there were some differences

in the view of the ownership of the project but the majority of the respondents saw the role as

an active driver, hence, they saw the owner of the project also as a change agent.

Assigned and clear responsibilities are of great importance in transformation processes (Matt,

Hess & Benlian, 2015) and it should therefore be clear who the owner is. Additionally, all roles

including the roles of the end-users should be clear from the beginning of the project to avoid

unclarity (Camilleri, 2011, p. 112). Gabriella, David and Hannah could explain their roles in

this project quite clearly. They described their roles as contact persons from their subsidiary or

testers of the new system. Eric and Felicia could not really say what their exact roles were in

the beginning of the project and Eric said that the role depended on how active he wanted to

be in the project.

4.1.2 Involvement

In BI implementations, it is crucial to involve the end-users in the project to satisfy their needs,

which leads to the realization of business benefits (Lee, Rhee & Dunham, 2009; Hou, 2012).

When it comes to involvement in this project, the interviews showed that the three different

subsidiaries included in the project were not equally involved from the start. The Finnish and

Italian subsidiaries were included and participated from the start whereas the Swedish

subsidiary joined the project around two weeks later. Felicia who is responsible for production

and purchasing in Sweden expressed a clear lack of information about the project and a lot of

unclarities regarding who was involved and what the project was about:

29

“[...] so the information I got after that is more I have requested for things, I haven’t been

informed, so yeah that’s the situation.” - Felicia (S-2).

From the first interview with Felicia, it became clear that the communication had been

inadequate and even non-existing. This meant that the Production and Purchasing Manager in

Sweden who was a stakeholder in the project did not feel included at all which was surprising

to us. Matt, Hess and Benlian (2015) explains that to handle resistance, it is important that all

stakeholders are involved in the project. The conclusion that can be drawn is that this was not

the case during this project as the Production and Purchasing manager was an important

stakeholder that should have been involved and informed about the project, but she was not at

this point in time. Gabriella who is a purchaser in the Swedish subsidiary also expressed a lack

of involvement in the project:

“I haven’t been from the start, they had already started in Finland and Italy, I think maybe

they have been having the project running for two-three weeks something like that before I

joined” - Gabriella (S-2).

User’s individual opinions are important to consider during a BI implementation to achieve

better results according to Ain et al. (2019). The three end-users from the Finnish and Italian

companies expressed that they were involved in the project and were able to express their

opinions and affect the data warehouse solution. This points to the fact that the individual

opinions of the users were considered during the project. However, when Gabriella from the

Swedish company was asked about the possibilities to affect the project the answer was:

“No, not yet. We haven’t really seen the possibilities of the result, so I wouldn’t say that I

know what we can expect from it really yet. [...] going forward maybe we will be able to give

some input, but I would say that it is a fairly strict set up” - Gabriella (S-2).

Gabriella’s answer therefore indicates some differences from the Italian and Finnish

companies. It seems like Gabriella had a view of the system and data warehouse solution as

pre-set and fixed, at least in the beginning of the project, while the end-users in the other two

companies had the perception that the system could be adjusted to their specific needs and

requests. To gain acceptance by the users it is important that they perceive the system as useful

30

(Lee, Rhee & Dunham, 2009), the fact that the end-users from Italy and Finland felt that they

could affect the system might increase the perceived usefulness. This is an interesting finding

as the Consulting firm has informed us that there were possibilities to affect the system.

Therefore, it might be a lack of communication or information that explains the different views

of the ability to affect the project from the end-users’ perspectives.

In doing a system implementation, there must be acceptance in the company and a clear sense

that the change is necessary, otherwise the users might become resistant (Wixom & Watson,

2001; Lee et al., 2009). When it comes to the respondents’ perception of the project in the

beginning there was an overall positive view towards implementing the BI platform within the

Finnish and Italian companies. Even though Gabriella had an overall positive view of the BI

implementation and thought it was necessary, there was still some resistance in the answer due

to other organizational changes going on:

“I requested this, versions of this for quite some time, more or less since I started but at this

point in time when we have all the other things going on [...] it is a bit pressed on time”

- Gabriella (S-2).

Gabriella started working with purchasing in Material Supply 11 years ago so the need for BI

in the purchasing function had existed for many years. This was further highlighted by the

controller in Finland who had previously tried to implement a data warehouse and BI to the

organization but was stopped from senior management:

“I said okay, yes of course it must be on the group level and not on the company level so

okay, let’s see how it goes and I stopped my data warehouse project in Finland at that time.

[...] it has been a lot of talking about having this kind of system but, now okay it has been

taking ten years now, or even more, thirteen years I would say” - Eric (S-1).

As previously stated, the user’s attitude toward the project can affect its success, to gain

acceptance from the users they need to perceive the change as necessary (Kotter, 1995; Lee,

Rhee & Dunham, 2009). From these answers it is clear that the need for BI has been requested

from some end-users for a long time and the project was therefore described as very necessary.

All respondents agreed that these types of projects are good for the company to achieve the

same data and information to work with. On the other hand, some resistance towards the project

31

was identified from the respondents in the Swedish subsidiary. One reason for resistance is not

feeling motivated enough (Vos & Rupert, 2018) and it became clear in Felicia’s answer that

this was the case since other projects were prioritized. When asking Felicia if she was excited

towards the project the answer was:

“To be honest, no, not at the moment because we, again there are so many projects ongoing

within (Material Supply) so for me it’s more to take a distance and say, it has to be some kind

of priorities [...]and this for me is not the most important right now. So my answer is no to

that, to be frank” - Felicia (S-2).

From the Swedish company some glimpses of resistance were therefore identified towards

the project overall and that the company was taking on this project at this point in time.

4.1.3 Evaluation

As previously mentioned, it is important to evaluate transformations through control points,

measurements and feedback during the project to succeed (Matt, Hess & Benlian, 2015; Melan,

1992). When the leaders were asked about if the project had a strict plan to follow or if the

project would be adapted while running, Adam and Bryan expressed that the proof of concept

project had a fairly strict set up but that the future roll-out of the system was more uncertain.

However, Chloé expressed that:

“[...] in my world it has been a lot, we take one step at a time, this is the next step that should

take a week, we will hear from you in a week. But I think we have now realized that we need

to have a clearer plan.” - Chloé (P).

This shows that Adam and Bryan had the perception that the project was using a plan-based

approach (Batra, 2018) while Chloé had the perception that the project was using a more agile

approach. When the leaders were asked how they were planning to follow up the project the

answers were divided. Both Adam and Chloé expressed that they were not sure about how to

follow up the project, however both mentioned cost as one factor. For example, Adam stated:

“That's a good question, I'm a little unsure, I must say. We have some kind of budget

estimates when we consider the context economically, we have some sort of schedule to relate

32

to, about when we want the pilot to be ready and have given the answers we might want.

Otherwise, I'm a little unsure, I'll have to say.” - Adam (P).

Melan (1992) claims that to assess the progress of a project it is important to develop control

points and measurements beforehand. It seems like Material Supply had not discussed this

previous to the start of the project. However, both Adam and Chloé mentioned time, cost and

the importance of meeting specifications. These factors are as previously mentioned the three

factors of the ‘iron triangle’ (Zwikael, Meredith & Smyrk, 2019). However, to assess these

three factors there is a need for clear measurements (ibid.) which does not seem to be clear in

the case of Material Supply.

Although the end-users were not asked regarding how the project was followed up during the

first round of interviews one of the respondents commented short about the subject. The

respondent commenting in regards to evaluation was Felicia who, as previously mentioned,

was much less involved during the project compared to the other end-users. Felicia commented:

“I have not seen any presentation so to be honest I don’t really know what we are aiming for,

I don’t know what is the project purpose, what is the target or goal for the project and what

can BI in total or data warehouse supply,” - Felicia (S-2).

Felicia's comment indicated that there had not been enough clear and active discussions in

regards to the purpose of the project or how it would be evaluated.

33

4.2 Ending of the project

The second round of interviews was conducted during the Education & Project Delivery phase,

hence after the Installation and Quality Assurance & Test phases.

Figure 3 - Project steps, provided by The Consulting firm.

In this phase, the project was coming to an end in regards to the data handling even though the

choice of which BI platform to choose had not been made. During the Installation and Quality

Assurance & Test, the data was validated by the end-users and the actual data warehouse was

installed and up and running. One of the leaders, Adam, informed us that they now had data

coming in from the three subsidiaries every night and also that some data had been inserted

manually when needed. However, they still had some difficulties in finding common or global

fields and values in some places because of different usage in the different units. Furthermore,

the persons involved in the project had participated in a workshop with the consultancy firm

where they were introduced to Power BI and the different functions and reports in that system,

which was the beginning of the last phase Education & Project Delivery. However, it was still

not decided whether Material Supply would choose Power BI as their platform or another one.

That was therefore the next step for the leaders, to evaluate some alternatives and make a

decision.

From the end-users’ perspectives, it did not really seem to matter that much what platform that

was going to be chosen and for example Eric meant that he put trust in the leaders’ ability to

make the correct decision. Additionally, Gabriella expressed:

“I would say to be quite frank it doesn’t matter which provider it is as long as you teach the

people that is going to use it in that version” - Gabriella (S-2).

34

Indicating that education of the system seemed more important than the actual choice of the

system. Hannah also highlighted the importance of education and training to be able to use the

system and expressed a clear lack of that during the project. According to Hannah, it would

have been easier to understand the final product if the choice of BI platform was made in the

beginning since the training could have been an ongoing process during the project.

4.2.1 Ownership

Also, in the second phase of interviews with the leaders (respondents 1-3) it became clear that

the owner was not the same person according to the respondents. In the interview with Adam,

he expressed that he had been the owner of this project and Chloé also explained Adam as

being the project owner. However, Bryan said that Chloé was the owner and also the one who

ordered the project in the first place which indicates that the ownership was not totally clear

and not something that the leaders had discussed beforehand. As previously mentioned,

establishing ownership should always be the first step in a change process (Melan, 1992) but

that was not the case in this project.

From the end-users’ perspectives there were more similarities in the answers regarding the

owner of the project as they all mentioned Adam. When asking Hannah, she could not give a

totally clear answer regarding who was the project owner but mentioned Material Supply as a

potential owner. However, when asked for a specific person she mentioned Adam and thought

that he had taken on that role in a very good way. David also described Adam as being the

project owner and was happy with how he had handled that role which was positive for David’s

view of the project:

“[...] he has been very active and interested in the whole project and he has comment very

actively everything and I think (Adam) has good view of the big picture” - David (S-1).

Eric stated that Adam was the owner and was supported by the consultants. Gabriella had a

somewhat different view of the ownership as she described the management of Material Supply

as the owner but at the same time also described that Adam took an ownership role in the

beginning of the project:

35

“(Adam) did take an ownership position in when it started out, he attended some of the

meetings but for the last maybe month or something like that he has not been involved”

- Gabriella (S-2).

This answer therefore gave some mixed signals of who the actual project owner was. As the

owner should be responsible and involved in all phases of a project (Meredith & Zwikael, 2020)

Gabriella’s answer indicates that Adam did not take the personal responsibility throughout the

project but rather in the preparing phases. However, according to Gabriella, Adam had the

overall leadership of the project. As leadership is an important factor in change processes

(Higgs & Rowland, 2011), it was therefore positive that Gabriella described Adam as taking

on the role of a leader.

As Adam is experienced in similar transformation projects, both Gabriella, Hannah and David

told us some examples of how his experience was a good resource in the project. Gabriella

stated that Material Supply has been in need of better data handling for a long time and that

this project got started thanks to the fact that Adam had the position he had:

“ [...] looking at just this project he’s been working with these kind of things before, he

knows what he wants so that’s why he started this project and I’m not entirely sure that this

project would have started at this time as it started if it wasn’t for (Adam) [...] his opinion

and his experience from the past is helping us in that sense” - Gabriella (S-2).

Gabriella further stated that it did not matter that it was Adam who started the project since she

felt such an extensive need for better data handling and BI. Since Adam took the initiative and

command of this project, he took on one of the important tasks for a change agent as described

by Caldwell (2003). Furthermore, David said that Adam’s experience contributed in regards to

the ability of leading projects and being the owner and in that role also take the responsibility

to be involved in the project and not just watch what happens from afar. This indicates that

Adam showed the way forward which is also an important task for a change agent (Vos &

Rupert, 2018). David also stressed that the fact that Adam as the Head of Procurement initiated

the project highlighted the importance of having this data warehouse and BI platform which

made the project a priority. This is in line with Matt, Hess and Benlian’s (2015) findings about

support from top management as a way to signal the priority of a project.

36

However, even though the respondents indicated that they trusted Adam and the leaders, there

were still some things that could have been handled better. For example, both David and Eric

did express a lack of a clear vision in the beginning of the project and what they were actually

striving for. Since communication of the vision is a part of the change agent’s role (Vos &

Rupert, 2018), it therefore seems like that part of the change agency was missing to some

degree. Communication of the vision and the purpose of a change is described as important to

achieve employee support (Wrede, Velamuri & Dauth, 2020; Kotter, 1995). However, both

Eric and David told us that they did not understand from the beginning of the project that the

BI platform would be used for both the global and local level of the company but were happily

surprised when they found out. Eric and David told us that they had understood this true

purpose and usage of the BI platform very late in the project and expressed a lack of this

information from the leaders. For example, David said:

“I have had very positive attitude to this project, of course it’s very important to have this

kind of tool but I would say that it would have give me better focus if I would have had this

clear idea at the first place” - David (S-1).

These interviews therefore indicated the importance of having a clear and communicated vision

from the starting phase to be more engaged in the project. This is in line with the findings from

Wrede, Velamuri and Dauth (2020) and Kotter (1995) who mean that communication about

the change and the vision should be done continuously by the leaders to reduce resistance from

the followers. David also expressed that a vision that was more ‘out of the box’ with a wider

focus than just the spend-analysis would have been motivating. This was also highlighted by

Eric who said that it would have been more motivating if a more general and strategic picture

was communicated before going down to the technical details. On the other hand, both Hannah

and Gabriella expressed that the vision for the project was relatively clear from the beginning,

so the end-users were not unified in this question.

Other unclarities that the respondents brought up were a lack of clear directives, the absence of

discussions regarding the roles in the project and the time frame. For Eric it became clear what

his role meant as the project was going on and he noticed over time that the project and his role

was a lot smaller than he thought from the beginning. As previously stated, assigned

responsibilities are of great importance in digital transformations (Matt, Hess & Benlian, 2015).

David expressed uncertainties regarding who should do what in the project but still said that

37

the project had gone forward. This uncertainty regarding roles and responsibilities was also

brought up in the interview with Adam as he expressed some unclarities in who should do what

from Material Supply’s side. Adam also said that they could have been better at introducing

everyone and making clear what roles there were, indicating that it is something he as a leader

has reflected about afterwards. Regarding information from the leaders David said:

“[...] it’s been clearer during the time and during the project but when we started I would

like to have more information about how much time this will take for example and maybe

clearer steps.” - David (S-1).

As previously stated, it is important to have an owner who takes their responsibility during all

phases of a project, from the initiation to the closing (Meredith & Zwikael, 2020). When asking

our respondents about this there were some different opinions regarding Adam’s involvement

in the different phases. From Hannah and David’s point of view, Adam was included in the

whole project and showed a high level of commitment and interest for the project through all

phases as Meredith and Zwikael (2020) describes the role of a project owner. From Eric and

Gabriella’s point of view it was not the same response since Gabriella saw Adam as involved

in the starting phase but then was quite absent. Eric expressed a lack of a summary from Adam

or a final meeting where he should present how the project went, what difficulties and good

things that had happened and so on which means that he would have liked more engagement

from Adam in the closing stage of the project. However, there might have been a final meeting

later on in the process when everything had fallen into place.

4.2.2 Involvement

As stated in the literature review, it is of great importance in both IT projects overall and BI

implementations specifically to include the end-users to make sure that their needs are met and

that they are happy with the system (Lee, Rhee & Dunham, 2009; Hou, 2012). Since the core-

team in this project included stakeholders from both purchasing and controlling who are the

end-users, Material Supply has shown that they see involvement as something important in the

project. The end-users were participating in Teams-meetings and workshops throughout the

project where their role was to bring up their respective subsidiaries’ opinions regarding the

data from their specific site that they had deep knowledge in. The end-users could therefore

bring up their individual opinions which is important for the result of BI implementations

(DeLone & Waheed, 2019).

38

When asking the end-users about their involvement the same answers were expressed, that they

had participated in Teams-meetings and workshops but not any other type of communication.

The respondents mentioned that they use their intranet for internal sharing of information but

that the information available there was very limited and short. There was therefore only one

main channel of communication which is not in accordance with Wrede, Velamuri and Dauth’s

(2020) statement about the importance of having different channels of communication about

the change. Eric expressed several times in the interview that it was very much up to him how

much he wanted to be involved. Due to lack of time and the fact that all communication was

done through digital meetings, Eric did not take such an active part in the project. In the same

manner, Gabriella did what she was told to do but did not put so much effort into the project as

she would have liked due to the fact that they had so many other things going on, meaning that

there was not enough time to be more active. However, David described himself as being quite

active in the project, raising his voice and expressing opinions as that is important for him in

projects:

“I think there is no point of being part of the project if you don’t give any effort”

- David (S-1).

On the other hand, David also expressed that he would have wanted to come into the project

at a later stage and was not the correct person to bring in from the beginning but rather in the

later development of the BI platform:

“I have been in Teams-meetings where we have checked data like, what is this and what is

that, and I would say that I wasn’t the correct person to do that.” - David (S-1).

This is also connected to the discussion about information sharing in the previous section since

David explained that knowing more precisely what steps were about to be conducted already

in the beginning of the project would have helped David understand what the role meant. Then

there would have been a possibility to include another person from the purchasing department

in Finland who had more knowledge in data handling and was better for that role.

Additionally, when it comes to involvement in the project Eric, Hannah and David stated that

they have had the possibility to express their opinions and make their voices heard. Eric

39

described the atmosphere as very open for discussions and that everyone has been welcome to

share their opinions which is of great importance in these types of BI projects (Ain et al., 2019).

Gabriella had a bit different answer:

“No, on the level that I am yes, but again I’m in this case a very very small cog in this whole

process so the little input that I have is on a very minute level, so it’s not much to talk about

or discuss I mean I’ve done my part within a small field but the overall picture I’m not

involved in and I don’t have the knowledge about it and I don’t have any say in it in that

sense” - Gabriella (S-2).

Meaning that Gabriella could express her opinions on the level she was involved, hence data

categorization and validation, but could not really affect more general aspects of the project.

When asked, all the end-users were unsure about the other subsidiaries’ involvement. During

the interviews it became clear that the end-users had not been in the same meetings or

workshops, they had been split up during the project. Gabriella and David thought that all the

subsidiaries probably were involved to the same extent. However, Eric thought that the

Swedish subsidiary might have been more involved compared to Finland and Italy, though this

was only a guess as they had not been participating during the same meetings and workshops.

Eric expressed it as:

“I often heard in meetings that they said many times that in Sweden it is like this, and in

Sweden it is like that [...]. Then Italy was basically almost never mentioned so, I believe that

this was like Swedish project 70 % and 15 % Finland and 15 % Italy. That is my just

guessing game here.” - Eric (S-1).

However, when talking to the project leader from the consulting company, it became clear that

all three subsidiaries had been equally involved in the project. Since she was leading the Teams-

meetings with the subsidiaries she had the most insights about their degree of involvement.

As previously mentioned, it is important for leaders to show personal commitment as well as

actively working to create acceptance for the project, otherwise resistance towards the project

might grow (Wrede, Velamuri & Dauth, 2020). It is also important to show the end-users that

the project is a priority to create motivation (Mat, Hess & Benlian, 2015). When asked, the

40

end-users had divided opinions in regards to the level of personal commitment shown by the

group leaders. David expressed that he had seen personal commitment of the group leaders and

that the leaders had been participating during the project. Eric expressed that he had not seen

any personal commitment from group leaders, however, he also stated that there might be

commitment but that it had not been shown during their meetings:

“I have not seen any personal commitment or any prioritization from our guys, from

(Material Supply). I have not seen it, probably there is those things inside other meetings in

Sweden and so on but I have not seen it to be honest.” - Eric (S-1).

Eric's opinion was shared by Gabriella, who expressed that she had not perceived that the

leaders had shown personal commitment or shown that the project was a priority. However,

both Eric and Gabriella expressed that the lack of personal commitment and the lack of priority

had not affected their motivation in regards to the project. This finding therefore contradicts

Meredith and Zwikael’s (2020) statement about the importance of having personal

responsibility to achieve benefits from a change process.

When asked about how the end-users' involvement had affected their view and acceptance of

the project, David once again concluded that he would have liked to be involved at a later stage

rather than early on during the Source Mapping phase. Even though Hannah did not comment

on whether her involvement would have affected her acceptance of the project, she mentioned

several times that there is a need for BI and a common understanding within the company. She

also expressed that they need to do even more than this project in the future to act as one group.

Eric and Gabriella concluded that their involvement had not affected their acceptance towards

the project as a data warehouse and BI solution was something that they had wanted for a long

time and asked for. For example, Eric said:

“I’m really eager to get this kind of system running as soon as possible” - Eric (S-1).

This opinion was further shared by the other end-users who all agreed about the substantial

need of having more data and BI in place to do better business and to be able to cope with the

new competition. This is also in line with Kotter (1995) and Dess, Picken and Lyon’s (1998)

findings about the importance of urgency to encourage immediate action. However, in the case

of Material supply, the communication about urgency was not necessary to motivate the end-

41

users, they had already identified and felt the need to take this step many years ago and were

therefore very positive when the project finally got initiated.

4.2.3 Evaluation

As previously mentioned, the evaluation of a project through milestones, goals and

measurements (Matt, Hess & Benlian, 2015; Melan, 1992) helps steer the employees in a

common direction (Davenport & Harris, 2010). To be able to evaluate goals it is important to

have clear and pre-defined measurements beforehand (Melan, 1992; Meredith & Zwikael,

2020). When the end-users were asked during the second round of interviews if there were

clear goals and measurements used during the project none of the respondents mentioned any

distinct or measurable goals. Hannah said that the purpose was clear but still, all the

respondents agreed that there were no predefined goals that were followed up during the

project. Eric expressed that:

“No, there was not any clear goals on this, or let’s say, I was not communicated, I didn’t

have this kind of information myself at least.” - Eric (S-1).

The lack of clear goals to assess during the project was also supported by the second round of

interviews with the group leadership team, all three interviewees expressed that there were no

clear tangible goals used during the project. All the group leaders, however, agreed that even

though there were no clearly expressed goals, everyone was well aware of what they wanted

to achieve with the project. Bryan explained:

“No, good clear goals, you always want that in a project so that you know what we are going

to achieve in this project, what are we going to get out of it. Then it's just the degree of clarity

so to speak, I still think that we who have been involved in the project have had a pretty

common, we have talked about that before, we probably have a common picture of what it is

we want to accomplish and achieve as well.” - Bryan (P).

Although the end-users agreed on the fact that the project lacked clear goals and measurements,

they expressed that there were some steps in what they were going to achieve that could act as

some sort of milestones. However, these were not very precise or defined at the beginning of

the project and both David, Eric and Gabriella agreed that a clearer view of the time frame and

steps would have helped them during the project. As Melan (1992) states, control points or

42

milestones can help in reviewing the progress on the project and according to Eric, they missed

this ongoing checking in the meetings of where in the project they were and what was about to

happen:

“Times should always be on every meeting, I think we should summarize the status and, you

know, the timing of the next things.” - Eric (S-1).

Furthermore, Davenport and Harris (2010) argue that goals and measures are developed to help

steer the employees in a common direction. When asking David and Eric they expressed that

more clear goals would have made the project easier to go through and grasp. However,

Gabriella expressed that clearer goals would not have affected her view of the project or her

work with the project. Gabriella expressed that “it’s just work that needs to be done”. When

the group leaders were asked if they believe that clear goals and measurements could have

helped the project Adam answered that it could have helped the group leaders rather than the

end-users:

“I think it would have been more for us in the management. Those who contribute to the

project, the pilot units, I think they have worked more based on action and as well as that

there are deliverables that they need to do and activities that they need to carry out. But it is

clear that if we are to make a decision about an investment of a data warehouse and want to

say that we have succeeded with our pilot then we could also have some similar acceptance

criteria could be useful.” - Adam (P).

Since some of the end-users expressed a lack of clear goals and measurements there seemed to

be a gap between the perception from Adam as a leader and the end-users in regards to who

needs evaluation metrics. Both Chloé and Bryan agreed that clear goals are always helpful

when evaluating the success of a project and all the leaders also agreed that time, budget and

the quality of the product is important to evaluate. As previously mentioned, these three factors

constitute the so-called ‘iron triangle’ (Zwikael, Meredith & Smyrk 2019). There has been a

timeframe for the project which has been kept with some minor changes. Adam and Chloé

agreed that there had to be some kind of budget for the project and that there probably was one,

however, none of them had any insight into the budget for this specific project. But generally,

they explained that the evaluation would be about the functionality of the system, if it could

provide the information and reports that they demanded.

43

All the end-users agreed that their view and perception of the project and the system had

changed during the project, except for Hannah who had the same perception throughout the

project. Eric explained that his perception about his role in the project changed and that he

came to understand during the project that his role was more detail oriented rather than strategic

oriented. He explained that he adjusted his expectations and that this was not a problem for him

during the project, however, it could have been clearer from the start. Gabriella and David on

the other hand explained that their view of the actual BI system changed during the project.

They both expressed that their expectations of the system were high and that they assumed that

the level of analysis in the system would be higher than it was in the end when they saw some

of the reports. Gabriella said:

“I got the impression that this was a much more advanced product and programming that

they were gonna supply us with.” - Gabriella (S-2).

This therefore supports the findings by Yeoh and Popovič (2016) and Hasan, Rahman and

Lahad (2016) who mean that vague or unclear goals in BI projects can lead to the project being

considered as a failure. If the end-users would have known more precisely from the beginning

what the true purpose and goal was, then they might not have had these high expectations of

what the system could provide and thereby not be surprised by the result in the end.

However, David, Hannah and Gabriella expressed that it was very hard to evaluate the system

already, as the system was not in use at this stage. They all expressed that when the system is

in use, they might be able to get more out of the system and the reports than they know at this

stage. These answers therefore strengthen Venter’s (2019) statement about agile processes as

better than sequential in system implementation. By constantly working with the system, the

users will understand their needs better and thereby have the possibility to adjust the system

over time. In that way, the requirements from the end-users can better be met as highlighted by

Lee, Rhee and Dunham (2009) and they will know in more detail what can be expected from

the implemented system.

44

4.3 Final views of the project

The final views of the project differed somewhat between all the respondents. Within the

leading team, Bryan and Adam expressed that the proof of concept was nearly finished,

meaning that the technical solution was in place. Chloé did not clearly express if the proof of

concept project was finished. However, they all agreed that some global variables were not yet

in place as well as that the decision regarding the BI platform was yet to be made. They all

agreed upon that the BI solution for the procurement function will be implemented in nearly

all the subsidiaries. Some subsidiaries, however, have different ERP systems and discussions

are still ongoing as to whether they will be included in the BI solution or not. Both Adam and

Bryan expressed that the project had been more complex than they anticipated, however, all

the leaders were overall satisfied with how the project turned out.

In regards to if the project was finished, the end-users did not have a clear picture. Gabriella

and Eric expressed that, as previously mentioned, they would have wanted a final meeting

discussing the results and they were not sure if the project was finished or not. After the

workshop, the communication stopped and the end-users were not really sure about the next

step. David and Hannah also expressed that they were not sure if the project was finished even

though they were under the impression that the choice of BI platform had been made. The other

respondents were however aware that the choice had not yet been made. All the end-users

agreed that evaluating the project at this stage was difficult as even if the technical solution

was in place, the system was not yet in use. As previously mentioned, Felicia did not take part

in the project, however, she expressed that the need for data to support decision making is

important and something that the group needs, which confirms the positive attitude towards BI

among the other participants.

The purpose with the BI implementation was to create ‘one single truth’ in regards to

purchasing data within the group that could be used to support operational decision making on

both the local and group level. This is hard to evaluate as the system is not yet in use, however,

the conclusion is that the technical solution with a data warehouse and support for a BI solution

is in place and that when the last global variables are in place, they will have comparable data

in between the subsidiaries. The group will be moving forward to implement the solution for

the procurement function within the group as well as BI modules for other functions of the

operations further on.

45

5. Discussion

In this chapter, the three expectations that were stated in chapter 2 are discussed in regards

to whether they were met or not in this case study. The chapter ends with a short general

discussion regarding our findings.

First, our expectation was that clear ownership and leadership will decrease resistance to the

change and lead to a positive view of the implementation. There was no formal decision for

who the project owner was and the answers from the leaders were deviating, but still, the end-

users could identify Adam as the owner, although it was not clear. The end-users thought that

Adam took on the role in a good way, it therefore did not seem to matter that much who the

formal owner was. What mattered more for the end-users was that someone took on the role of

the project owner to motivate and lead the change. In the case of Material Supply, we found

that the fact that Adam was considered to be the project owner had a somewhat positive effect

on the end-users’ perception of the project. His previous experience and knowledge contributed

to a trust from the end-users and showed that the project was prioritized, with the exception of

one end-user, as well as the fact that he is a senior leader within the function of procurement.

These findings are supported by previous research (Matt, Hess & Benlian, 2015; Zwikael,

Meredith & Smyrk, 2019). Furthermore, previous research shows that the owner should be

active in all phases of the project (Meredith & Zwikael, 2020). In regards to this, the answers

were divided since two of the end-users described Adam as active through all phases while the

other two described him as absent during the end of the project.

One thing that some of the end-users indicated was missing was a clear vision from the

beginning which affected their perception and motivation during the project in a negative

manner. Since they expressed that a more general and clear vision would have motivated them

to be more active in the project, this is in line with previous research (Wrede, Velamuri &

Dauth, 2020; Kotter, 1995). Even though the respondents expressed some suggestions on how

the project could have been improved in regard to questions about ownership, responsibilities

and information sharing from the leaders, they were overall happy with the project. The end-

users said that they would have participated in the project anyway since the need of

implementing BI to the business was so widespread and this project was something they had

been waiting for during so many years.

46

We can thereby conclude that our first expectation was not met. What seemed to matter to the

end-users was the characteristics of the person taking on the leadership role rather than clear

and established ownership and responsibilities.

Our second expectation was that active involvement of the end-users during the

implementation would decrease resistance to the change and lead to a positive view of the

implementation. We know that involvement of all stakeholders is important when going

through changes (Matt, Hess & Benlian, 2015) and in our case study we can conclude that it

was not the case since one of the purchasing managers was not communicated about the project

before or during the project. One of the leaders, Adam also mentioned the lack of

communication as a weakness during the project. This indicates that involvement of the people

in the core project group was considered but not stakeholders outside of the project.

Overall, the end-users were satisfied with their involvement and their ability to express their

opinions, this is in line with previous research by Ain, et al. (2019). Some of the end-users were

not as involved as they wanted due to lack of time. However, they felt that if they would have

had the time, they could have chosen to take a more active role in the project. This indicates

that they had the possibility to be involved if they chose to, but still accepted the project. In

this case, we can therefore conclude that the possibility of involvement was more important for

acceptance of the project, rather than their actual level of involvement, meaning that our second

expectation was partly met.

Our third expectation was that clear goals, milestones and ongoing follow up and adjustments

during the process would drive the implementation forward in a common direction and lead

to a positive view of the project. All respondents agreed that the project did not have clear and

predefined goals or milestones, which according to previous research is important in projects

(Davenport & Harris, 2010; Melan, 1992). One of the leaders expressed that goals could be

helpful mostly for management during the project. However, some of the end-users’ answers

indicated that better and more clearly communicated goals and milestones could have helped

them work through the project. Evaluation is therefore something that Material Supply needs

to work more with to achieve an even better perception from the end-users in future change

processes. As previously mentioned, the only channel of communication was Teams-meetings,

managed by the consulting firm. If there were more direct communication between the leaders

47

and the end-users, the question of goals and milestones might have been addressed and led to

discussions regarding the progress of the project. Even though some of the end-users expressed

that goals and milestones could have helped them work through the project, it did not seem to

affect the end-users’ acceptance or overall view of the project. This means that our third

expectation was partly met.

To summarize, we found that none of the pre-stated expectations were fully met, even though

the second and third were met to some degree. As the BI implementation was a pilot project,

the end-users did not seem to have such high demands on the three factors that were studied

but might have had more demands if the project was of greater impact or only related to their

own subsidiary. Additionally, the fact that Material Supply was going through a transformation

in their overall strategy to be more united and were running a number of projects at the same

time, some end-users indicated that they could not focus on this specific project with their full

attention. The two mentioned conditions can therefore be examples of potential explanations

to why they were overall happy with how the project had been conducted, despite some

deficiencies.

In regards to the aim of this case study, we can impose that ownership, involvement and

evaluation affected the end-users’ perception of the BI implementation in this case only to such

a small degree that it did not play any major role in their acceptance of the project. The end-

users would have participated anyway and this was explained by the fact that all of the end-

users expressed a substantial need for unified data and BI in their operations. Our findings

therefore connect to Kotter’s (1995) statement about the importance of urgency in

transformations. There was already such a huge need and desire of BI from the end-users in

Material Supply and therefore the leaders did not have to put as much effort into

communication about the importance of this change as they usually would have needed, the

end-users understood the urgency anyway. It therefore seems that the necessity and need of

this BI implementation outweighed the mentioned deficiencies from the end-users’

perspectives and created acceptance of the project.

48

6. Conclusion

This chapter states our conclusion of the conducted case study. The research question is

addressed and the practical and theoretical contributions are presented.

6.1 Addressing the research question

The research question in this study was: What factors are important for the business

intelligence implementation project according to the end-users, and how do those factors affect

the end-users' perception of the project?

In our case study we identified three important factors through the answers during the first

round of interviews: ownership, involvement and evaluation. However, we can conclude that

ownership did not have any clear effect on the end-users’ perceptions of the project and that

they had accepted the project regardless of their involvement during the proof of concept. The

one factor that seemed to be of the greatest importance was evaluation since the end-users and

the leaders expressed a lack of clear evaluation metrics and that it would have been good for

the project. Even though evaluation was an important factor for the end-users’ perception we

can conclude that none of the factors were important enough to affect the acceptance of the

project as the need and urgency felt by the end-users were very strong already from the

beginning.

6.2 Contributions

The results from this study contributes to the theoretical knowledge within the BI

implementations field by providing an end-user perspective, which has often been overlooked

in previous research. The results also provide a practical contribution for companies that are

starting their BI implementation to highlight which factors are important to the end-users

during the implementation, as well as the importance for establishing urgency prior to

implementing a BI solution.

49

7. Limitations and future research

This chapter presents the limitations of the study and is finalized with some suggestions for

future research topics that are of interest based on our study.

7.1 Limitations

This study has had some limitations that are worth mentioning. The fact that the study was

conducted during the Covid-19 pandemic meant that we could not meet the respondents face-

to-face but had to communicate through video-calls and rely on technical solutions. In the

majority of the interviews there were not any problems but in some cases there were some

technical issues with the sound which made the audio files incomplete in some short segments.

The pandemic has also affected the project in such a way that the majority of the respondents

worked from home and did not have the same daily contact as they normally would have had.

This could have contributed to the small amount of communication of the project as well as the

lack of informing stakeholders outside of the project. Additionally, one end-user told us that

the fact that all communication was done through Teams made him less motivated to participate

actively.

Another limitation was the scope of the project since it was only a pilot project, which might

be a cause for the low demands from the end-users. Additionally, very few people from the

subsidiaries were actively involved in the project which decreased the number of possible

respondents that we could ask to participate. For example, we expected Felicia to be actively

involved but it turned out that she did not know anything about the project at all which meant

that we could not get the answers we were expecting. One more limitation is the fact that the

system was not yet in use at the time of the second round of interview, hence, the end-users’

perception in regards to the project might change once the system is in use. Furthermore, as

this was a case study in only one project, we cannot generalize the findings to such a large

degree. However, as we have previously discussed Material Supply can be helped by this

project for similar implementations in the future and thereby the findings can be generalized

within the specific setting.

50

7.2 Future research

After having conducted this case study, we have identified potential areas of future research

within the field of business intelligence implementation. First, one suggestion for future

research is to make more comparisons between leaders and end-users to identify gaps in their

perception of what factors that are important in business intelligence implementations. Second,

future research could extend the number of factors that affect business intelligence

implementations and create a ranking of the factors’ importance according to the end-users,

using a quantitative research method. Finally, we believe that our research method can be tested

in multiple cases and in other countries to identify similarities and differences.

51

Bibliography

Ain, N., Vaia, G., DeLone, W. H. & Waheed, M. (2019). Two decades of research on business

intelligence system adoption, utilization and success–A systematic literature review. Decision

Support Systems, vol. 125.

Ariyachandra, T. & Watson, H. (2010). Key organizational factors in data warehouse

architecture selection. Decision Support Systems, vol. 49, pp. 200-212.

Arnott, D., Lizama, F. & Song, Y. (2017). Patterns of business intelligence systems use in

organizations. Decision Support Systems vol. 97, pp. 58–68.

Audzeyeva, A., & Hudson, R. (2016). How to get the most from a business intelligence

application during the post implementation phase? Deep structure transformation at a UK retail

bank. European Journal of Information Systems, vol. 25(1), pp. 29-46.

Batra, D. (2018). Agile values or plan-driven aspects: Which factor contributes more toward

the success of data warehousing, business intelligence, and analytics project development? The

Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 146, pp. 249–262.

Bouchana, S. & Idrissi, M.A.J. (2015). Towards an assessment model of end user satisfaction

and data quality in Business Intelligence Systems. 2015 10th International Conference on

Intelligent Systems: Theories and Applications (SITA).

Bryman, A. & Bell, E. (2017). Företagsekonomiska forskningsmetoder. 3rd edition, Liber:

Stockholm.

Caldwell, R. (2003). Models of Change Agency: a Fourfold Classification. British Journal of

Management, vol. 14, pp. 131–142.

Camilleri, E. (2011). Project success: critical factors and behaviours. Gower Pub: Farnham.

Chaudhuri, S., Dayal, U. & Narasayya, V. (2011). An Overview of Business Intelligence

Technology. Communications of the ACM, vol. 54(8), pp 88-98.

Clampitt, P. G., & Berk, L. R. (1996). Strategically communicating organisational change.

Journal of Communication Management, vol. 1(1), pp. 15-28.

52

Davenport, T. H., & Harris, J. G. (2010). Leading the way towards better business insights.

Strategic HR Review. Vol. 9 (4), pp. 28-33.

Dess, G. G., Picken, J. C., & Lyon, D. W. (1998). Transformational leadership: Lessons from

US experience. Long Range Planning. Vol. 31(5), pp. 722-731.

Dul, J. & Hak, T. (2008). Case study methodology in business research. Butterworth-

Heinemann/Elsevier: Oxford.

Erceg, V. & Zoranović, T. (2020). Required competencies for successful digital transformation.

Ekonomika, vol. 66, pp. 47-54.

Felin, T. & Powell, T.C. (2016). Designing Organizations for Dynamic Capabilities. California

Management Review, vol. 58(4), pp. 1351-1374.

Gaardboe, R. & Svarre, J.T. (2018). Business Intelligence Success Factors: A Literature

Review. Journal of Information Technology Management, vol. 29(1) pp. 1-15.

Garzía, J. M. V., & Pinzón, B. H. D. (2017). Key success factors to business intelligence

solution implementation. Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business, vol. 7(1), pp. 48-69.

Gurjar, Y. S., & Rathore, V. S. (2013). Cloud business intelligence–is what business need

today. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, vol. 1(6), pp. 81-86.

Hasan, N.A., Rahman, A.A. & Lahad, N.A. (2016). Issues and Challenges in Business

Intelligence Studies, Jurnal Teknologi (Sciences & Engineering), vol. 78: 8-2, pp. 171-178.

Heim, I. & Sardar-Drenda, N. (2020). Assessment of employees’ attitudes toward ongoing

organizational transformations. Journal of organizational change management, vol. 34(2), pp.

327-349.

Higgs, M. & Rowland, D. (2011). What Does It Take to Implement Change Successfully? A

Study of the Behaviors of Successful Change Leaders. The Journal of Applied Behavioral

Science, vol. 47(3), pp. 309–335.

53

Hou, C. K. (2012). Examining the effect of user satisfaction on system usage and individual

performance with business intelligence systems: An empirical study of Taiwan's electronics

industry. International Journal of Information Management, 32(6), pp. 560-573.

Howson, C., Richardson, J., Sallam, R. & Kronz, A. (2019). Magic quadrant for analytics and

business intelligence platforms. Gartner, Inc.

Jamoussi, F.F. & Niamba, C.N. (2016). An evaluation of business intelligence tools: a cluster

analysis of users’ perceptions. Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business, vol. 6(1), pp. 37-47.

Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business

Review, pp. 59-67.

Lee, D., Rhee, Y. & Dunham, R.B. (2009). The Role of Organizational and Individual

Characteristics in Technology Acceptance. Intl. Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, vol.

25(7), pp. 623–646.

Lindvall, J. & Iveroth, E. (2011). Creating a global network of shared service centres for

accounting. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, vol. 7(3), pp. 278-305.

Matt, C., Hess, T. & Benlian, A. (2015). Digital Transformation Strategies. Business &

Information Systems Engineering, vol. 57(5), pp. 339-343.

Melan, E.H. (1992). Process Management: Methods for Improving Products and Service.

McGraw-Hill.

Meredith, J. R., & Zwikael, O. (2020). Achieving strategic benefits from project investments:

Appoint a project owner. Business Horizons, vol. 63(1), pp. 61-71.

Myers, M. D. & Newman, M. (2006). The qualitative interview in IS research: Examining the

craft. Information and Organization, vol. 17, pp. 2–26.

Olszak, C.M. (2016). Toward Better Understanding and Use of Business Intelligence in

Organizations. Information Systems Management, vol. 33(2), pp. 105-123.

Pipe, P. (1997). The Data Mart: A New Approach to Data Warehousing. International Review

of Law Computers & Technology, vol. 11(2), pp. 251-261.

54

Schwab, K. (2016). The Fourth Industrial Revolution: what it means, how to respond. World

Economic Forum.

Seah, M., Hsieh. M.H. & Weng, P.D. (2010). A case analysis of Savecom: The role of

indigenous leadership in implementing a business intelligence system. International Journal

of Information Management, vol. 30, pp. 368–373.

Taylor, L.C. (2018). Reassessing and refining theory in qualitative accounting research - An

illustrative account of theorizing. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, vol.

15(4), pp. 510-534.

Taylor, S.J., Bogdan, R. & DeVault, M. (2015). Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods:

A Guidebook and Resource. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated: Hoboken. Available from:

ProQuest Ebook Central.

Teixeira, A., Oliveira, T. & Varajão, J. (2019). Evaluation of Business Intelligence Projects

Success – a Case Study. Business Systems Research, vol. 10(1), pp. 1-12.

Trieu, V-H. (2016). Getting Value from Business Intelligence Systems: A Review and

Research Agenda. Decision Support Systems, vol. 93, pp. 1-34.

Turner, L., Weickgenannt, A. & Copeland, M.K. (2017). Accounting Information Systems:

controls and processes, 3rd edition. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated: Hoboken.

Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social

research. Oxford University Press: New York.

Venter, C. (2019). A Critical Systems Approach to Elicit User-Centric Business Intelligence

Business Requirements. Systemic Practice and Action Research, vol. 32(5), pp. 481-500.

Vos, J.F.J. & Rupert, J. (2018). Change agent's contribution to recipients' resistance to change:

A two- sided story. European Management Journal, vol. 36, pp. 453-462.

Vugec, D.S., Vukšić, V.B., Bach, M.P., Jaklić, J & Štemberger, M.I. (2020). Business

intelligence and organizational performance The role of alignment with business process

management. Business Process Management Journal, vol. 26(6), pp. 1709-1730.

55

Wieder, B., Ossimitz, M., & Chamoni, P. (2012). The impact of business intelligence tools on

performance: a user satisfaction paradox?. International Journal of Economic Sciences and

Applied Research, vol. 5(3), pp. 7-32.

Wixom, B. & Watson, H. (2010). The BI-based organization. International Journal of Business

Intelligence Research, vol. 1(1), pp. 13-28.

Wixom, B.H. & Watson, H.J. (2001). An Empirical Investigation of the Factors Affecting Data

Warehousing Success. MIS Quarterly , vol. 25(1), pp. 17-41.

Wrede, M., Velamuri, V. K., & Dauth, T. (2020). Top managers in the digital age: Exploring

the role and practices of top managers in firms' digital transformation. Managerial and

Decision Economics, vol. 41(8), pp. 1549-1567.

Yeoh, W. & Koronios, A. (2010). Critical Success Factors for Business Intelligence Systems.

Journal of Computer Information Systems, vol. 50(3), pp. 23-32.

Yeoh, W., & Popovič, A. (2016). Extending the understanding of critical success factors for

implementing business intelligence systems. Journal of the Association for Information

Science and Technology, vol. 67(1), 134-147.

Zwikael, O., Meredith, J.R. & Smyrk, J. (2019). The responsibilities of the project owner in

benefits realization. International Journal of Operations & Production Management vol. 39(4),

pp. 503-524.

56

Appendix 1. Interview guide 1.

Swedish version

# Fråga

Respondentens bakgrund

1. Vad är din roll på företaget?

2. Hur länge har du arbetat i denna roll?

3. Vad är din roll i BI-projektet?

Projektets bakgrund

4. Hur har inköpsfunktionen tidigare sett ut? - Har ni haft något annat analysverktyg som byts ut eller har ni inte haft något liknande

tidigare?

5. Varifrån kom idén om att genomföra denna implementering av Business Intelligence i inköpsfunktionen?

- Kom intiativet från ledningen eller slutanvändarna?

6. Vad är syftet med implementeringen? - Finns någon koppling till den nya strategin?

Projektets genomförande

7. Hur såg förberedelserna ut innan projektet startade?

8. Hur är implementeringen tänkt att genomföras? - Finns det en strikt plan som ska följas eller kommer projektet att anpassas och planeras

under tiden?

9. Vilka skulle du definiera som slutanvändare av BI-tjänsten?

10. Kommer slutanvändarna vara involverade och få komma med åsikter eller förslag under implementeringen?

11. Finns det några specificerade mål och kriterier för resultatet av implementeringen? - Hur kommer ni avgöra om projektet varit framgångsrikt eller inte?

12. Om projektet lyckas, kommer ni att vilja implementera BI i fler funktioner då? - Vad är i så fall nästa steg, inkludera fler av dotterbolagen i inköpsfunktionen eller att

använda flera moduler av BI lösningen för dessa tre företag?

57

English version

# Question

Background of the respondent

1. What is your role at the company?

2. For how long have you worked in this role?

3. What is your role in the BI project?

Background of the project

4. How has the procurement function looked like previously? - Have you had another analytical tool that is now being changed or have you not had

this type of tool before?

5. Where did the idea to implement Business Intelligence in the procurement function come from? - Did the initiative come from the leaders of the company or the end-users?

6. What is the purpose of this implementation? - Is there a connection to the new strategy?

Implementation of the project

7. What did the preparations of the project look like?

8. How is this project thought to be performed? - Is there a strict plan that will be followed or will the project be adjusted and planned

on an ongoing basis?

9. Who would you define as the end-users of the BI tool?

10. Will the end-users be involved and be able to bring up their opinions or suggestions during the project?

11. Are there any specific goals or criteria for the result of the implementation? - How will you determine whether the project was successful or not?

12. If the project is successful, will you implement BI in more functions too? - In that case, what is the next step? To include more subsidiaries in the procurement

module or use other modules of the BI tool for the current three subsidiaries?

58

Appendix 2. Interview guide 2

# Question

Background

1. What is your role at the company?

2. How long have you had that role?

3. What is your role in the BI project group?

Roles

4. Who would you say is the “owner” of the BI project? - Would you say that this person is sponsoring or actively driving the change?

5. What role would you say that the project team from the consulting firm has during the implementation?

6. Who would you say is responsible to follow up the success and the benefits from the project?

Communication

7. Who did initially communicate the project and the upcoming BI implementation?

8. What was your reaction when you first heard about the project?

9. How frequent has the communication of information been?

10. Through what channels have you received the information about the project and the implementation?

11. Would you say that the communication about the change has been a one-way communication or more of a discussion (two-way communication)?

12. Would you say that senior managers are transparent with the information about the project?

13. Would you say that you as a user of the system has an opportunity to affect the project?

Expectations

14. What is your view on what the purpose with this project is?

15. Do you think that this project is necessary? (or are you happy with how it is now?) - Do you think that this is the best solution or could you think of any other

alternatives?

16. Do you feel like this project is a priority for senior management?

17. How will this implementation affect your daily work?

18. Do you believe that this new BI tool will improve your job performance?

59

- How?

19. Do you believe that the BI tool will be easy to use and understand?

20. Do you believe that you have enough support to use the new system? (in regards to resources, knowledge, education and so on)

21. Are you excited to take part in the project?

60

Appendix 3. Interview guide 3

Swedish version

# Question

Introductory question: Vill du bara börja med att berätta lite kort hur långt ni har kommit i projektet och var ni befinner er just nu?

Ownership

1. Nu när vi är i slutet, hur skulle du beskriva vad din roll har inneburit i projektet samt vad du bidragit med?

2. Är du nöjd med hur din roll blev eller hade du velat ha en annan typ av roll?

3. Tycker du att din roll har varit tydlig i projektet? - Har din roll förändrats under projektets gång? - Känner du att du har tagit ett personligt ansvar för projektet? I så fall hur?

4. - Tycker du överlag att rollerna har varit tydliga i projektet?

5. Tycker du att ledarskapet har varit tydligt och fungerat bra i projektet? - Om ja, på vilket sätt? Exempel? - Om nej, varför tror du att det blev så? - Om ja/nej, tror du att det har påverkat de inblandade i projektet och isåfall hur?

6. Tycker du att ägarskapet har varit tydligt och fungerat bra i projektet? - Om ja, på vilket sätt? Exempel? - Om nej, varför tror du att det blev så? - Om ja/nej, tror du att det har påverkat de inblandade i projektet och isåfall hur?

Involvement

7. Hur tycker du att slutanvändarna har agerat under projektet? Har de varit involverade och kommit med sina åsikter?

8. Tycker du att någon/några av dotterbolagen har varit mer involverade och aktiva än de andra? Isåfall, på vilket sätt?

- Har du något exempel? - Om ja, varför tror du att det blev så? - Om ja, tror du att det har påverkat de inblandade i projektet och isåfall hur?

9. Har det nya systemet och datalagret kontinuerligt uppdaterats och förändrats utifrån slutanvändarnas behov under projektets gång?

- Om ja, på vilket sätt? - Om nej, varför inte? Beror det på att användarna inte uttryckt sina åsikter tydligt nog

eller att ni inte kunnat möta deras behov?

10. Har du uppfattat att kommunikationen har varit tydlig och likvärdig för alla i projektet? - Om ja, hur tror du att det har påverkat projektet? - Om nej, varför tror du att det blev så? - Om nej, tror du att det har påverkat de inblandade i projektet och isåfall hur?

61

Evaluation

11. Sist vi pratade hade ni inte någon enad bild av utvärderingen av projektet, är det något som ni pratat om sedan dess och utvecklat under projektets gång?

- Om ja, vilka mål eller kriterier använder ni för utvärderingen? - Om ja, har ni utvärderat några av kriterierna än? - Om nej, varför tror du att det blev så och hur har det påverkat projektet?

12. Nu när projektet närmar sig sitt slut, vad är din övergripande bild av projektet och slutresultatet?

- Har det uppfyllt dina förväntningar för projektet? - Vad har fungerat bra/bäst i projektet? - Finns det saker som har fungerat mindre bra?

- Exempel? - Vad tror du det beror på?

13. Har din bild av projektet ändrats något sen vi pratade förra gången? - Hur? Varför?

14. Tror du att denna BI-lösning kommer att implementeras i resten av dotterbolagen?

15. Tror du att ni kommer att implementera data warehouse of BI i fler funktioner/ avdelningar i bolaget?

- Om ja, vilka?

English version

# Question

Introductory question: To begin with, would you like to tell us a little bit about how far you have come in the project and where you are right now?

Ownership

1. Now when we are in the end, how would you describe what your role has been in the project and what you have contributed with?

2. Are you happy about how your role turned out or would you have liked to have another role?

3. Do you think that your role has been clear in the project? - Has your role changed during the project? - Do you feel that you have taken personal responsibility for the project? In that case

how?

4. Overall, do you think that the roles have been clear in the project?

5. Do you think that the leadership has been clear and worked well in the project? - If yes, in what way? Examples? - If no, why did it turn out that way do you believe? - If yes/no, do you believe that it affected the people involved in the project and in that

case how?

6. Do you think that the ownership has been clear and worked well in the project? - If yes, in what way? Examples?

62

- If no, why did it turn out that way do you believe? - If yes/no, do you believe that it affected the people involved in the project and in that

case how?

Involvement

7. How do you think that the end-users have acted during the project? Have they been involved and expressed their opinions?

8. Do you think that some of the subsidiaries have been more involved and active than the others? In that case, in what way?

- Do you have any example? - If yes, why did it turn out that way do you believe? - If yes, do you believe that it has affected the people involved in the project and in that

case, how?

9. Has the new system and data warehouse been continuously updated and adjusted based on the end-users needs during the project?

- If yes, in what way? - If no, why not? Does it depend on the fact that the end-users did not express their

opinions clearly enough or because you couldn’t meet their demands?

10. Have you perceived the communication as clear and similar to everyone involved in the project?

- If yes, how has that affected the project do you believe? - If no, why did it turn out that way do you believe? - If no, do you believe that it has affected the people involved in the project and in that

case, how?

Evaluation

11. The last time we talked, we did not identify a clear view of the evaluation of the project, is that something you have discussed since then and developed during the project?

- If yes, what goals or criteria are you using for evaluation? - If yes, have you evaluated some criteria yet? - If no, why did it turn out that way do you believe and how has that affected the

project?

12. Now when the project is coming to an end, what is your overall view of the project and the end-result?

- Has the project fulfilled your expectations? - What has been working well in the project? - Is there something that has worked less well?

- Examples? - Why did it turn out that way do you believe?

13. Has your perception of the project changed anything since the last time we talked? - How? Why?

14. Do you think that this BI solution will be implemented in the rest of the subsidiaries?

15. Do you think that you will implement data warehouse and BI in more functions or areas in the company?

- If yes, in which functions?

63

Appendix 4. Interview guide 4

# Question

Introductory question: Could you describe where you are in the project now, what has happened since last time we spoke and what is the next step?

Ownership

1. Now when you are reaching the end of the project, what has been your role and what have you contributed with?

2. Do you think that your role in this project has been clear? - Were you discussing your role within the project during the start-up phase and got clear

directives?

3. Has the ownership been clear throughout the project? - How has that affected your view of the project? positively/negatively?

4. In the beginning of the project, many end-users identified (Adam) as the owner, do you think that he has taken this role and in that case how?

- Do you feel like (Adam) has communicated a clear vision for the project, how it is conducted as well as the goal with the project? (Can you give any examples).

- If no, has there been another person that has taken this responsibility? - Do you think that (Adam) has taken personal responsibility for the project? (Can you

give any examples). - The project owner should be a part of bringing the project together at the end and

secure a permanent change from the project, do you feel like (Adam) has done this? (Can you give any examples).

- How do you think that (Adam’s) previous experience with similar transformations has affected the project?

5. Has the leadership been clear throughout the project? - How has that affected your view of the project? positively/negatively?

6. If you think about ownership and responsibility overall in this project, what is your perception about it? Has it played an important role for your view/acceptance of the BI project?

Involvement

7. Do you feel like you have been able to share your thoughts and opinions throughout the project? - To what extent have you been engaged in the project?

8. Have you been able to affect anything in the project? - If yes, do you have examples of that?

9. Has the BI system been frequently updated and adjusted throughout the project based on opinions from the core group?

- If yes, in what ways? - If yes or no, how has that affected your view of the project? Positive/negative?

10. Do you think that all three subsidiaries in this proof of concept have been equally involved? - If not, how has that played out? Why is it so, do you think?

64

11. Has there been enough communication from the leaders? - If yes in what way? - Who has been communicating the most to you? - How has this affected your attitude towards the project?

12. Have all leaders shown personal commitment to the project and given it priority? - If yes in what way? - If no, how has this affected your attitude towards the project?

13. If you think about your involvement overall in this project, what is your perception about it? Has it played an important role for your view/acceptance of the BI project?

Evaluation

14. Have you had clear and predefined goals to work towards in this project? - If yes, what goals? - If yes, do you think that the goals were fulfilled? - If no, do you think that the project would be easier to grasp and go through if there

were more clear and specific goals? - If yes or no, how has that affected your view of the project?

15. During the meetings, have there been discussions regarding milestones, goals or evaluation? - If not, is that something that you have missed. Would it be useful?

16. Has the project met your expectations and needs? - If no, in what way? - Do you think that it would have been better to decide on what BI interphase to use

before starting the project? Has your perception of the system changed during the project?

- If yes, in what way? - Did the workshop where you were introduced to Power BI affect your view of the

system?

17. If you think about evaluation overall in this project, what is your perception about it? Has it played an important role for your view/acceptance of the BI project?