ASAC 2005 Toronto, Ontario

Shaobo Ji Sprott School of Business

Carleton University Qingfei Min

School of Management Dalian University of Technology

MANAGING ERP IMPLEMENTATION: A CULTURAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT ISSUE

The study explored the relationship between critical success factors (CSFs) and ERP implementation success in a non-western cultural and organizational context. The study is designed to answer two research questions: 1. Are CSFs, derived mainly from literatures published in the US and Europe, applicable in different cultural and economic environment? 2. What effects, if any, does cultural and organizational context affect ERP implementation success? Critical success factors (CSFs) for ERP implementation were identified. ERP success was measured by user satisfaction and information system success model. Data showed that ERP implementation success significantly depends on the CSFs and organizational factors moderated the effects of CSFs on ERP implementation success.

1. Introduction

Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) and related enterprise-wide application of information and communication technologies (ICT) is one of the fastest growing segment of enterprise application software market and the most important development in the business world in the last decade (Davenport, 1998). However, the successful rate of ERP implementation has been low. Researchers have identified and tested, over the past decade, many key factors, commonly known as critical success factors, or CSFs, that affect the success of ERP implementation. For example, the following factors are commonly reported in the literature for being critical for ERP implementation success: top management support and commitment (Davenport, 1998; Esteves and Poster, 2001; Kelly et al., 1999; Summer, 1999), business process reengineering (Al-Mudimigh, et al., 2001; Davenport, 1998; Bingi et al., 1999; Holland et al., 1999), ERP implementation project management (Esteves et al, 2001; Holland et al, 1999; Somers at al., 2001), change management (Davenport, 1998; Kelly et al, 1999; Sumner, 1999), and external support (Bingi et al., 1999; Somers and Nelson, 2001; Willcocks and Sykes, 2002). Since most of the studies were conducted in the context of western, namely, North American and European countries, it is not clear if the CSFs identified are equally applicable to enterprises operating in countries of transitional economies, such as China. Furthermore, it is not clear what, if any, the effects of cultural, economic, and organizational factors on ERP implementation success. This study is designed to explore the relationship between critical success factors (CSFs) and ERP implementation success, in a different context with these questions in mind.

115

2. Research Framework

In transitional economies such as China, more and more enterprises have implemented or in the process of planning to implement ERP in the hope that the enterprise information technologies will help the firms to increase their competitiveness in the global market. An official survey conducted by the State Economic and Trade Commission (SETC) of China in 2002 reported that about 47% of the state-owned companies plan to implement ERP in the near future (SETC China, 2002). However, despite the growth, similar to the findings of the west, the success rate of implementing ERP systems in China is very low (Chen, R, 2002; Guo and Tang, 2002; Zhang, 2002). Owing to different cultural, economic, and organizational context, Chinese firms may face different problems when they use ICT compared with those of western countries. This is particularly true for ERP implementation since the best practices often deal with managerial and organizational issues. This study is designed to answer two research questions: 1. Are CSFs, derived from previous studies, applicable in different cultural and economic environment? 2. What effects, if any, are these environmental variables affect ERP implementation success?

2.1 ERP Implementation Critical Success Factors

Many studies have stressed the importance of top management support as a necessary ingredient in successful ERP implementation (Davenport, 1998; Esteves and Poster, 2001, Holland and Light, 1999, Jarvenppa and Ives, 1990; Slevin and Pinto, 1987; Summer, 1999). Since ERP is always a time and money consuming project, the strong commitment for capital and human resources is the necessary condition. An organization goes through a major transformation, and the management of this change must be carefully planned from a strategic viewpoint and meticulously implemented (Bingi et al., 1999; Somers et al., 2002). Top management must not only support the funding of the project but also take an active role in leading the change. In addition, the highly integrated nature of ERP requires the complete cooperation among all functions in enterprise. In China, the ERP project is always called as the “head project” which means without top management support, the ERP will never succeed (Chen, 2002; Guo and Tang, 2001). ERP systems are built on the best practices that are followed by the industries. All the processes in a company should conform to the ERP model. But, the existing organizational structures and processes in most companies are not necessarily compatible with the structures, tools, and types of information required by ERP systems. Even the most flexible ERP system imposes its own logic on company's strategy, organization, and culture. Thus, implementing an ERP involves reengineering the existing business processes to the best business process standard (Davenport, 1998; Bingi et al., 1999; Holland et al., 1999). Since most ERP vendors are originated in the US and Europe, the business models underlying those packages reflected U.S. and European industrial practices. The business processes in Asian organizations are different, having evolved in a different cultural, economic, and regulatory context (Davison, 2002; Soh et al., 2002). Thus, Chinese companies should pay more attention on BPR than their western competitors. One Chinese researcher even argued that ERP implementation itself is a BPR progress (Chen, 2002). ERP implementation is a very complex business process. It often involves multiple business functions and often requires multiple years of effort. Thus, the organization should have an effective project management strategy to control the implementation progress, avoiding overrun of budget and ensuring the implementation within schedule. A clear definition

116

of project objectives and formal plan will help the organization avoid the all-too-common “scope creep” which can strain the ERP budget, jeopardize project progress, and complicate the implementation (Esteves et al., 2001; Holland et al., 1999; Somers et al., 2001). The project scope must be clearly defined at the outset of the project and should identify the modules selected for implementation as well as the affected business processes (Umble, 2003). ERP is often considered to be a unique kind of technology, one that always requires simultaneous implementation of technological, business, organizational, and individual changes (Davenport, 1998). Many ERP implementation failures have been caused by the lack of focus on change management (Kelly et al., 1999; Sumner, 1999). For example, Pawlowsiki and Boudreau (1999) pointed out that almost half of ERP projects failed to achieve expected benefits because managers underestimated the efforts involved in change management. Generally, one of the main obstacles facing ERP implementation is resistance to change. Thus, change management becomes a primary concern of many organizations involved in ERP project implementation (Al-Mudimigh, et al., 2001; Somers and Nelson, 2001). Drawing on the view of Cooper and Markus (1995), change management in ERP context can be thought of as involving all human, social-related, and cultural change issues regarded by management to ease the transition and to minimize organizational resistance of the introduction of ERP system. With new technology, it’s often critical to acquire external expertise, including vendor support and consultants, to facilitate successful implementation (Somers and Nelson, 2001; Weiti, 1999; Willcocks and Sykes, 2002). Due to the complexities of implementing an ERP system, most organizations need the help from third party consultants. Consultants may have experience in specific industries, comprehensive knowledge about certain modules, and may be better able to determine which suite will work best for a given company. Consultants may be involved in various stages of the implementation such as performing requirements analysis, recommending a suitable solution, and managing the implementation.

2.2 ERP Implementation Success

There is not a concerted definition of ERP success. Markus et al. (2000) defined ERP success from several aspects, including success viewed in technical, operations, people, economic, financial or strategic business terms. Among Markus’s dimensions, it’s difficult to use quantitative analysis to measure success from the perspectives of economic benefits and the adopter’s customers, suppliers, and investors. Within the IS literature, DeLone and McLean (1992) proposed an information system success model, which identifies six categories of information systems success including system quality, information quality, use, user satisfaction, individual impact, and organizational impact. Alternatively, subjective user satisfaction has been used in the past to measure ERP implementation success (Doll and Torkzadeh, 1988). For many enterprises, it is difficult to measure ERP implementation success by using such objective measurements as financial benefits. This is particularly true for enterprises in China because of the social and economic changes currently underwent in China. Hence, subjective measurements seem to be more appropriate.

117

2.3 Environmental Variables and ERP Implementation Success

In addition to critical success factors, environmental variables such as organizational size, structure, environment, culture, and system characteristics can influence the ERP implementation process and ultimately ERP success (Raymond, 1990; Reimers, 2002; Stewart, 2000). It’s important to consider these variables, in particular, for firms in transitional economy since social, economic, and to certain extent, cultural changes will be affect how firms select and adapt technological changes. In the case of China, for example, such environmental variables as the nature of ownerships, state-owned vs. privately-owned, and the choice of vendors, domestic vs. international, are expected to moderate the effect of CSFs on ERP implementation success. Due to the complex nature of the interactions, the intent of this study is exploratory in nature.

3. Research Hypothesis and Research Method

3.1 Research Hypothesis

Based on above discussion, we proposed the following research hypotheses with regard to critical success factors, ERP implementation success and moderating effect of organizational context variables on ERP implementation success:

H1: Top management support has a positive impact on ERP implementation success. H2: Business process reengineering has a positive impact on ERP implementation success. H3: Effective project management has a positive impact on ERP implementation success. H4: The change management has a positive impact on ERP implementation success. H5: The external support has a positive impact on ERP implementation success. H6: Context variables moderate the effect of CSFs on ERP implementation success.

3.2 Measurement Instrument

The questionnaire was developed based on existing literatures from both Western and Chinese sources. A number of ERP experts, both academics and ERP project managers, were approached for their comments after questionnaire was developed. A pilot text was performed for. A group of graduate students were asked to complete the questionnaires. Further revisions were made based on the feedbacks from the experts and students. The questionnaire includes questions relating to critical success factors including top management support (involvement, participation, and ERP knowledge/vision), business process reengineering (willingness and extent), project management (objective and vision, formal plan and milestone, project manager knowledge, and empowered project team), change management (strong and well communicated vision, user involvement, training and education, open and effective communication, and organizational wide commitment), and external support (third-party consultant support and ERP vendor support). ERP implementation success was measured by using DeLone and McLean’s information system success model (DeLone and McLean, 1992) and by subjective user satisfaction (Doll and

118

Torkzadeh, 1988). Table 1 shows the reliability measure of the instrument. Sample questions can be found in Appendix.

Table 1 Measurement Reliability (Cronbach α)

Constructs items Mean S.D. Cronbach Alpha

Q13 2.58 .762 Q14 1.54 .662 Q15 2.32 1.255 Q16 2.31 .856

Leadership and top management support

(LS) Q17 2.78 .807

0.7031

Q18 2.59 .625 Q19 2.82 .707 Q20 3.08 1.057 BPR

Q21 3.18 .902

0.7159

Q23 2.37 .905 Q24 2.28 .887 Q25 1.78 .853

Project Management （PM）

Q26 2.59 .875

0.7687

Q27 2.45 .778 Q28 2.44 .721 Q29 2.30 .892 Q30 2.23 .941 Q31 2.03 .549 Q32 2.73 1.005 Q33 2.02 .736 Q34 2.23 .771

Change Management （CM）

Q35 2.39 .744

0.8483

Q36 2.04 1.004 External Support （ES） Q37 3.42 1.228 0.3147

Q43 2.82 1.032 Q44 1.69 .985 Q45 2.37 .565 Q46 2.24 .576 Q47 2.66 1.286 Q48 2.37 .637 Q49 2.40 .690 Q50 2.05 .683 Q51 2.00 .692 Q52 2.13 .687 Q53 2.09 .693 Q54 1.74 .600

ERPSuccess （ERP S）

Q55 2.40 .624

0.8118

119

3.3 Population, Sample, and Data Collection

The targeted population for the study is firm that implemented ERP systems and with a minimum of 100 employees and over $1 million dollars (US) annual sales. Five hundred firms in China were selected from a database of a management and IT consulting company in Beijing, China. Those enterprises that implemented ERP were contacted and asked to participate in the study through telephones. Questionnaires were sent to 197 firms. Within two weeks of questionnaire mail out, a follow-up phone call was made to ask the respondents to complete the questionnaires and send the completed questionnaires in mail or fax back to the researchers. Of the 197 firms, 127 returned the questionnaires. Of those 127 returned questionnaires, 30 of them were excluded from final data analysis due to missing data. This results in 97 samples. Table 2, Table 3, and Table 4 respectively show the respondent firms by industries, sales, and ownership.

Table 2 Companies by industry

Industry Frequency Percentage Machinery manufacture 32 33.0 Electronic Equipment 14 14.4 Chemical 12 12.4 Pharmaceutical 10 10.3 Textile 7 7.2 Food Processing 7 7.2 Wholesales/Retails 5 5.2 Others 10 10.3 Total 97 100

Table 3 Companies by annual sales

Annual sales Frequency Percentage Less than $10 million 2 2.1 $10 million to below $100 million 9 9.3 $100 million to below $300 million 29 14.4 $300 million to below $500 million 14 29.9 $500 million and above 43 44.3 Total 97 100

120

Table 4 Companies by ownership

Ownership Frequency Percentage State owned 54 55.7% Other 43 44.3% Total 97 100%

4. Result

4.1 Preliminary Data Analysis: Descriptive Statistics

Table 5 shows zero-order correlation coefficients among the major variables. As shown, all CSFs included in this study are significantly correlated to User Satisfactions and IS Success. For example, user satisfaction is positively related to top management support (r=0.378, p<.01), business process reengineering (r=0.441, p<.01), project management (r=0.440, p<.01), change management (r=0.501, p<.01), and external support (r=0.406, p<0.01). Similarly, using DeLone and McLean’s IS success measurement; it is found that all CSFs are significantly related to IS success.

Table 5 Correlations, Means, And S.D. of Major Variables Variable TMS BPR PM CM ES US D&M S TMS 1.000 BPR 0.379** 1.000 PM 0.523** 0.331** 1.000 CM 0.475** 0.421** 0.508** 1.000 ES 0.369** 0.248* 0.307** 0.460* 1.000 US 0.378** 0.441** 0.440** 0.501** 0.406** 1.000 D&M S 0.472** 0.460** 0.414** 0.539** 0.391** 0.665** 1.000 Mean 2.16 2.92 2.24 2.23 2.04 2.40 0.00 S.D. 0.631 0.573 0.673 0.546 1.004 0.624 0.707

* p< 0.05 ** p< 0.01 TMS: Top Management Support BPR: Business Process Reengineering PM: Project Management CM: Change Management ES: External Support US: User Satisfaction D&M S: DeLone & McLean IS Success Model

121

4.2 Hypotheses Test

Hypothesis 1 to hypothesis 5 each stated the positive relationships between the CSF and ERP implementation success. Table 6 includes the results of CSFs and their R2 values when DeLone and McLean’s IS Success is treated as dependent variable. Table 8 includes the results of CSFs and their R2 values when user satisfaction is treated as dependent variable. In Table 8 and Table 9, we present the results of a hierarchical series of regression. Each independent variable was entered stepwise. As shown in Table 8 and Table 9, the regression equation containing all five independent variables accounts for 42.6% variance in D&M Success (adjusted R2= .389), and accounts for 36.5% variance in User Satisfaction (adjusted R2= .329). Hypothesis 6 states that organizational context and ERP system characteristics moderate the effect of CSFs on ERP implementation success. Data showed that CSFs seem to have stronger impact on ERP implementation success for non-state-owned firms than for state-owned firms ( R2=0.548 for non-state-owned, R2=0.391 for state-owned). The data did show significant difference between domestic ERP vendor supports and foreign ERP vendor support.

Table 6 Individual Regressions on D&M Success

CSFs→ D&M S R2 F Sig. F N b Std.

Error Beta

ES→D&M S 0.153 15.014 0.000 97 0.606 0.157 0.391 PM→D&M S 0.171 16.943 0.000 97 0.889 0.216 0.414 BPR→D&M S 0.212 22.562 0.000 97 1.120 0.236 0.460 TMS→D&M S 0.223 24.078 0.000 97 1.076 0.219 0.472 CM→D&M S 0.291 34.466 0.000 97 1.383 0.236 0.539

Table 7 Individual Regressions on User Satisfaction CSFs→US R2 F Sig. N B Std.

Error Beta

ES→US 0.165 18.406 0.000 97 0.253 0.059 0.406 PM→US 0.194 22.132 0.000 97 0.407 0.087 0.440 BPR→US 0.195 22.709 0.000 97 0.479 0.100 0.441 TMS→US 0.143 15.688 0.000 97 0.378 0.096 0.378 CM→US 0.251 31.523 0.000 97 0.507 0.101 0.501

122

Table 8 Hierarchical series of regressions on D&M success Predictors R R

Square Adjusted R Square

Std. Error

F Sig. F

ES .394a .155 .145 1.330 14.872 .000 ES, PM .514b .264 .245 1.249 14.336 .000 ES, PM, BPR .605c .367 .342 1.166 15.237 .000 ES, PM, BPR, TMS .618d .382 .351 1.159 12.068 .000 ES, PM, BPR, TMS, CM .653e .426 .389 1.124 11.443 .000

Table 9 Hierarchical Series of Regressions on User Satisfaction Predictors R R

Square Adjusted R Square

Std. Error

F Sig. F

TMS .379a .144 .134 .583 15.288 .000 TMS, ES .474b .225 .208 .557 13.066 .000 TMS,ES, PM .534c .285 .261 .538 11.843 .000 TMS,ES, PM, BPR .583d .340 .310 .520 11.333 .000 TMS,ES, PM, BPR, CM .604e .365 .329 .513 10.018 .000

a. Predictors: (Constant), top management support b. Predictors: (Constant), top management support, external support c. Predictors: (Constant), top management support, external support, project management d. Predictors: (Constant), top management support, external support, project management,

business process reengineering e. Predictors: (Constant), top management support, external support, project management, business process reengineering, change management

5. Discussion

Data shown in Table 6 to Table 9 indicated that the hypotheses are supported. However, Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 5 have some discrepancies with the proposed hypotheses. Specifically, when we tested the convergent validity of top management support by principal components factor analysis, we found the item measuring top management participation has a low factor loading (0.543) to top management support (TMS) category. The correlation between this item and the ERP success is also very low (0.09 to DeLone and McLean IS Success; 0.156 to User Satisfaction). Thus, we eliminate this item from TMS category. This result is similar to Reimers’ findings (2002). There are two possible reasons to this result. First, in many Chinese firms, especially stated owned firms, the motivation and the behavior of the top management are not consistent with the business goals. Many decisions on implementing IT are made on the basis of political decisions and not necessarily business ones; many firms don’t make full use of the IT resources (Ji and Min, 2002). So, in many cases, top management treated ERP project just as

123

another typical IT project, but will not actively participate in it. Second, managers in traditional Chinese companies usually do not rely on the systematic information to make decisions even though information systems have been implemented (Reimers, 2002; Zhang et al., 2002). Thus, although the top management initiate ERP project for some reasons (such as political reasons), they still will not pay much attention on it. The third-party consulting support in external support (ES) category is also eliminated due to low correlation (0.052 to DeLone and McLean IS Success; 0.202 to User Satisfaction). From descriptive statistic, we found only 32% of companies in this study hired third-party consulting company. The first reason for this phenomenon is, as some Chinese researchers argued, that many Chinese firms don’t have the notion about management consultant. They cannot image pay millions of dollars for some intangible product/service (Chen, 2002; Yang and Yan, 2001). The second reason is the limitation of budget. Chinese companies always have fewer budget on IT compared with those of western country (Liu, 2002; Yang and Yan, 2001). The consulting service is too expensive for most Chinese firms. The last reason lies in the consulting service itself. Many foreign consulting companies have established branches in China. They have good knowledge and experience both in business and in IT, but they are not familiar with the local business, regulation and cultural context. So the cooperation and trust between the foreign consulting companies and Chinese companies do not always exist (Liu, 2002). The local consulting firms in China, on the other hand, are not capable enough and to provide the required support. Many companies don’t have comprehensive expertise on both business and ERP (Wang and Ye, 2003). Apparently, ERP adopting companies don’t like to pay for such service.

ERP systems have become the most common IT strategy for many organizations. This

study aims to improve the understanding of critical success factors affecting ERP implementation success in China. A survey instrument was developed to test the proposed hypotheses. Top management support, business process reengineering, project management, change management, and external support that were assumed to be critical success factors of ERP implementation in China were supported by empirical data. But two sub-factors, top management participation and third-party consulting were not found to positively impact on ERP success.

Reference 1. Al-Mudimigh, A., Zairi, M., Al-Mashari, M., “ERP software implementation: an integrative

framework”, European Journal of Information Systems (2001) 10, 216–226. 2. Bingi, P., Sharma, M. K., Godla, J. K., “Critical Issues Affecting An ERP Implementation”,

Information Systems Management, summer, 1999, Vol. 16 Issue 3, pp 7-14. 3. Chen, B.C, Ye, W.X., “Thoughts on Who Should Implement ERP Project”, Soft Science,

Vol.15, No.6, 2001. 4. Chen, B.C, Ye, W.X., “Understanding ERP - A Conceptual Transformation”, Industrial

Engineering and Management, No.3, 2002, pp 31-35. 5. Chen, R. “How to implement ERP Successfully in State-Owned Enterprises”, Guang-Ming

Daily, 19th April, 2002. 6. Cooper, R. and Markus, M. “Human Reengineering,” Sloan Management Review, summer

124

1995, pp. 39-50. 7. Davenport, T.H., "Putting the Enterprise into the Enterprise System", Harvard Business

Review, 1998，July- August, 121-131. 8. Davison, R., “Cultural Complication of ERP”, Communication of the ACM, July 2002, Vol.

45, No. 7, 109-111. 9. DeLone, W.H. and McLean, E.R., “Information Systems Success: The Quest for the

Dependent Variable”, Information Systems Research (3:1), March 1992, pp. 60-95 10. Doll, W.J.; Torkzadeh, G., “The Measurement of End-User Computing Satisfaction”, MIS

Quarterly, June 1988, pp. 259-273. 11. Esteves, J., Pastor, J. “Analysis of Critical Success Factors Relevance Along SAP

Implementation Phases”, Proceedings of the Seventh Americas Conference on Information Systems, Boston, Massachusetts, 2001, 1019-1025.

12. Esteves, J., Pastor, J., “Towards the unification of critical success factors for ERP implementation”, Proceedings of the 10th Annual Business Technology (BIT) Conference, 2000, Manchester.

13. Guo, J.H., Tang, Y.H., “The Status Quo of ERP implementation in China Enterprises and Solutions”, Science Management Research, No.12, 2001, 47-50.

14. Holland, C., Light, B., Gibson, N. (1999). "A Critical Success Factors Model for Enterprise Resource Planning Implementation". 7th European Conference on Information Systems ECIS, Copenhagen, Denmark.

15. Ji, S., Min, Q., “An Empirical Study of the Implementation of Enterprise Information Systems in China: A Non-Technological Aspect”, International Conference of Pacific RIM Management, August 2002, Los Angeles, USA.

16. Kelly, S, Holland, C, and Light, B (1999) Enterprise resource planning: a business approach to systems development. In Proceedings of the Americans Conference on Information Systems (AMICS).

17. Lin J.R., Zhu J. “Case Study of ERP Implementation in China Enterprises”, Industrial Engineering and Management, No.2 2000, pp 54-58.

18. Liu, L.W., Huang, Y.D., “External Environment and Risk Analysis of ERP Implementation in Chinese Enterprises ”, China Soft Science, No.3, 2002, pp 45-49.

19. Markus, M. L., Axline, S., Petrie, D., and Tanis, C. “Learning from Adopter’s Experiences with ERP: Problems Encountered and Success Achieved”, Journal of Information Technology, (2000) 15, pp. 245-265.

20. Pawlowsiki, S.; Boudreau, M., “Constraints and flexibility in enterprise systems: a dialectic of system and job”, In Proceedings of the Americans Conference on Information Systems (AMICS), 1999.

21. Raymond, L., “Organizational Context and Information Systems Success: A Contingency Approach”, Journal of MIS, Spring 1990, Vol.6, No. 4. pp 5-20.

22. Reimers, K., “Implementing ERP Systems in China”, Proceeding of 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Science, 2002.

23. SETC, State Economic and Trade Commission of China, “Report on the National Survey of Enterprise Informationalization: Current Status and Plan for the Tenth Five Year Plan Period”, http://www.chinabbc.com.cn/, 2002.

24. Slevin, D., Pinto, J., “Balancing strategy and tactics in project implementation”, Sloan Management Review, fall, 33–44. (1987)

125

25. Soh, C., Kien, S.S., and Tay-Yap, J. “Cultural fits and misfits: Is ERP a universal solution?” Communication of The ACM, 43, 4 (Apr. 2000), 47–51.

26. Somers T., and Nelson, K., “The impact of critical success factors across the stages of enterprise resource planning implementations”. In Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), 2001.

27. Somers, T.M., “Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) for the Next Millennium: Development of an Integrative Framework and Implications for Research”, in Proceedings of 7th American Conference on Information Systems, 2001, 998-1004.

28. Stewart, G., Milford, M., Jewels, T., Hunter, T., Hunter, B. “Organizational Readiness for ERP Implementation”, in Proceedings of 6th American Conference on Information Systems, Long Beach, 2000, 966-971.

29. Sumner, M. (1999). "Critical Success Factors in Enterprise Wide Information Management Systems Projects". Americas Conference on Information Systems AMCIS, Milwaukee, USA.

30. Umble, E. J., “Enterprise resource planning: Implementation procedures and critical success factors”, European Journal of Operational Research 146, (2003), 241 –257.

31. Wang, Z.R., Ye, C.J., “Promoting Consultancy in ERP Implementation in China ”, Industrial Engineering and Management, No.1 2003, pp 55-57.

32. Willcocks, L.P.; Sykes, R., “The Role of the CIO and IT Function in ERP,” Communications of the ACM, 43, 4, 2000, pp. 33-38.

33. Yang, W.S., Yan, H., “Analysis on the Key Reasons for ERP Implementation Success in China”, Scientific Management Research, Vol.19, No.1, 2001.

34. Zhang, L., Lee, M. K.O., Zhang, Z. “Critical Success Factors of Enterprise Resource Planning Systems Implementation Success in China”, Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2002.

126

Appendix Sample Questions Question 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 are designed to measure top management support construct. Q13 Which one of the following statement reflects the view of top management about ERP?

1) ERP implementation is the most critical factor for firm’s development 2) ERP implementation is an important part of corporate strategy 3) ERP implementation is very important for the firm to improve its management 4) ERP implementation is important for the firm to reduce cost of operation 5) ERP implementation is a technological issue, not business management issue

Q14 Which one of the following statement best describes the degree of support by top management in ERP implementation?

1) Extremely supportive 2) Very supportive 3) Somewhat supportive 4) Not very supportive 5) Do not care

Q15 To what degree has the top management made the capital/money and human resources available to ERP implementation in your firm?

1) Very adequate 2) Somewhat adequate 3) Adequate 4) Somewhat inadequate 5) Inadequate

Q16 Which one of the following statement best describes top management’s role in the ERP implementation committee?

1) Top management is the ERP implementation committee. 2) Top manager chairs meeting, actively participate in decision making. 3) Top manager is a member of the committee, actively participate in decision making. 4) Top manager is a member of the committee, seldom participate in decision making. 5) Top manager is not a member the committee. 6) N/A There is no ERP implementation committee in my firm.

Q17 To what degree is the top management familiar with the ERP system’s functionalities and its potential benefits to business?

1) Extremely knowledgeable 2) Very knowledgeable 3) Somewhat knowledgeable 4) Not very knowledgeable 5) Does not know at all

127