So you’re thinking of buying anERP? Ten critical factors for

successful acquisitionsJacques Verville and Christine Bernadas

Department of Management Information Systems & Decision Science,Texas A&M International University, Laredo, Texas, USA, and

Alannah HalingtenHalingten-Verville & Associates, Laredo, Texas, USA

Abstract

Purpose – This paper aims to present a discussion of the critical success factors (CSF) that affect theacquisition process for enterprise resource planning (ERP) software.

Design/methodology/approach – The research strategy was a multiple-case design with threeorganizations that had recently completed the acquisition of an ERP solution. The rationale for themultiple-case design was that, as a research strategy, the focus could be directed to understanding thedynamics and complexities present within each case, these being critical success factors of the ERPsoftware acquisition process within the organization.

Findings – This study identified ten factors critical to the successful outcome of acquiring an ERPsolution. Their omission would have resulted in a less than optimal outcome for the organization. Foreach of the three cases, the elements that stand out the most are as follows: clear and unambiguousauthority, a structured, rigorous and user-driven process, its planning, the establishment of criteria,and the sense of partnership that the team works to establish not only with various user commitments,but also with the potential vendor.

Originality/value – It is important to note that no one CSF alone is going to make an ERPacquisition successful. It is rather the combination of several critical factors that will result in itssuccessful outcome.

Keywords Manufacturing resource planning, Computer software, Critical success factors

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionEnterprise resource planning (ERP) software is a suite of application modules that canlink back-office operations to front-office operations as well as internal and externalsupply chains. It conjoins functional areas and business processes in an integratedenvironment that provides a broad scope of applicability for organizations (Vervilleand Halingten, 2001; PricewaterhouseCoopers, 1998). While considered a viablealternative to in-house development (Verville, 2000; Eckhouse, 1999; McNurlin andSprague, 1998), the acquisition of ERP software is not without its challenges. It isconsidered a high-expenditure activity that consumes a significant portion of anorganization’s capital budget. It is also an activity that is fraught with a high level ofrisk and uncertainty. Why? Because, first of all, if a wrong purchase is made, it canadversely affect the organization as a whole, in several different areas and on severaldifferent levels, even to the point of jeopardizing the very existence of the organization.This highlights the obvious need for making the right choice of software. It also brings

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0398.htm

Critical factorsfor successful

acquisitions

665

Journal of Enterprise InformationManagement

Vol. 18 No. 6, 2005pp. 665-677

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1741-0398

DOI 10.1108/17410390510628373

to light the need for finding the best means for acquiring this type of software so thatthe right choice can be made (Verville and Halingten, 2001; Hill, 1999).

In light of these concerns, a research project was undertaken to determine the bestway to acquire ERP software. However, with little research found on the topic of ERPacquisitions, it first became necessary to find out what indeed the process is thatorganizations go through to buy ERP software (Esteves and Pastor, 2001).

The focus of this paper, then, is on the critical success factors of the acquisitionprocess for ERP software. The paper will begin with a literature review and continuewith the research methodology used for the study. Finally, the critical success factorsexpressed by the practitioners will be presented.

Literature reviewA review of the literature in the field of MIS shows that research conducted in the areaof ERPs has concentrated on implementation and post-implementation issues (Estevesand Pastor, 2001; Verville, 2000). The type of problems and issues that arise from theimplementation of ERP systems range from specific issues and problems that can comeup during the installation of an ERP, to behavioral, procedural, political, andorganizational changes, etc., that manifest subsequent to the installation. For instance,Gibson et al. (1999) argue that ERP implementation requires a different approachwhich focuses on business process design, software configuration and projectmanagement by de-emphasizing the technical side of implementation. Anotherresearch area is that of organizational change. In this area, Boudreau and Robey (1999)present a framework to guide research on ERP-related organizational transition (i.e.organizational change as a process). Another study by Koh et al. (2000) uses aframework, based on a process theory approach, to understand and explain the ERPimplementation experiences of organizations. Another subject of research within thearea of organizational change is the roles of individuals within organizations. In thisvein, Davenport (1998) states that ERP implementation process roles, responsibilitiesand skill sets change substantially from those associated with a traditionalimplementation. Other interesting topics for research include user buy-in,commitment (management, team, organization, etc.), ERP adoption, leadership,organizational culture, stakeholders, organizational learning, organizationaleffectiveness, business process modeling, ERP development issues, andcommunications, to name but a few (Chwen et al., 2004; Verville and Halingten,2003a, b; Chung and Snyder, 2000; Everdingen et al., 2000; Kumar and Hillegersberg,2000; Lee and Lee, 2000; Markus et al., 2000; Stafyla and Stefanou, 2000; Soh et al., 2000;Glover et al., 1999; Miranda, 1999; Riper and Durham, 1999; Sutcliffe, 1999; Appleton,1997; Best, 1997).

As for the literature that combines critical success factors and ERP software, all thearticles (Al-Mashari et al., 2003; Akkermans and Van Helden, 2002; Hong and Kim,2002; Nah et al., 2001; Soliman et al., 2001; Scott and Vessey, 2000; Bingi et al., 1999;Holland and Light, 1999) explicitly focus on the critical success factors for theimplementation process.

The issue of the acquisition process for ERP software is for the most part beingignored. This issue is important, however, because as the stage preceding theimplementation process, it presents the opportunity for both researchers and

JEIM18,6

666

practitioners to examine all of the dimensions and implications (benefits, risks,challenges, costs, etc.) of buying and implementing ERP software prior to thecommitment of formidable amounts of money, time and resources. Hence, a clearerunderstanding of the critical factors could amount to substantial savings in terms ofeconomics (actual cost), time, and improved administrative procedures, and couldlessen the risk and uncertainty associated with the acquisition of these types ofsystems (Verville, 2000).

Verville and Halingten (2003a, b) divide the acquisition process into six stages:

(1) the planning process;

(2) the information search process;

(3) the (pre-)selection process;

(4) the evaluation process;

(5) the choice process; and

(6) the negotiation process.

During the planning process, the acquisition team is formed. This team plans andaddresses as many issues as possible related with the other stages. During theinformation search stage, information about technologies and vendors is not onlyfound, but screened, and its sources are evaluated. During the (pre-)selection process, ashort list of possible vendors and technologies is created. The elements of this list willbe evaluated in the next stage. They include a vendor evaluation, a functionalevaluation and a technical evaluation. The choice stage is the result of the evaluationprocess. A final recommendation is made. It will finally be followed by a negotiationprocess, which could be concluded by a final contract.

Research methodologyThe research strategy for this study was a multiple-case design with three organizationsthat had completed the purchase of ERP software. This approach provided the means foran in-depth analysis of the construct of the ERP software acquisition process. Thisapproach was particularly well suited for this study because it unveiled a multitude offactors and dimensions that make the acquisition of ERP software such a complexprocess. The rationale for the multiple-case design was that as a research strategy, thefocus could be directed to understanding the dynamics and complexities present withineach case, these being the processes, critical issues, and influences of the softwareacquisition within the organization (Yin, 1989; Miles and Huberman, 1994).

Site selection for the study was made according to the following criteria:. the acquisition had a significant impact on the organization;. the acquisition was significant, totalling several hundred thousand dollars or

more;. the type of packaged solution that was acquired was of a complex nature such as

ERPs;. the acquisition was a new purchase; and. the acquisition of the software was recently completed.

Critical factorsfor successful

acquisitions

667

Data collection consisted of semi-structured interview questions. Interviews wereconducted with 15 individuals, each lasting approximately one hour and 15 minutes.The three organizations (pseudonymously named, with the exception of Keller) aredescribed below.

OMEGAOrganizational profile. OMEGA, a large international carrier, provides airtransportation services for passengers and cargo to both domestic and internationalarenas. Together with its regional partners, OMEGA’s route network providestransportation services to 125 cities worldwide, including 97 cities in North Americaand 22 cities in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and the Caribbean. It also providescharter services to six international destinations as well as cargo services to 65destinations worldwide.

OMEGA’s operations include a large aircraft and engine maintenance business thatprovides maintenance services to airlines and other customers. Additional servicesthat are also offered include computer and ground handling services to airlines andother customers. Among its holdings, OMEGA retains a 100 percent interest in fiveregional airlines, in one of the largest computer reservation systems, and in a majortour operator. It also holds minority interests in other travel and transportation-relatedbusinesses.

Background. By 1995, OMEGA’s Honeywell-Bull mainframe system was runningwith hardware and software that was more than ten years old. The system containedinformation that was extremely important to its daily operations. With the system duefor changes, whether through upgrade, conversion, or replacement, action needed to betaken.

In January 1995, the urgency of this situation was escalated when one of theapplications on the Bull failed. An investigation into the problem revealed that theapplication had tried to perform a forward-looking date function (looking five yearsahead) that the Bull’s operating system did not support. It became evident that otherapplications would experience the same problems and serious system failures on theBull were imminent.

So it was that in the Fall of 1995, the Information Technology Group presented a“global” AFC (authority for commitment) to the Steering Committee for approval bythe Board in August 1996. This AFC authorized the IT Group to proceed, in the firstpart, with an in-depth evaluation of the different alternatives available to OMEGA.

GAMMAOrganizational profile. GAMMA is a holding company for a gas and electric utility andnon-utility energy business. One of its subsidiaries, GAMMA Plus, supplies naturalgas and electricity to about 628,000 customers in Kentucky. The utility’s service areacovers approximately 700 square miles in 17 counties and includes Fort Knox MilitaryReservation. Another of its subsidiaries, GAMMA Energy Systems, ownsco-generation projects and independent power plants in the USA as well as inArgentina and Spain. The company markets energy and related services to customersacross the USA through high-revenue, low-margin GAMMA Energy Marketing.

JEIM18,6

668

Background. In the early part of 1996, an internal study was conducted duringwhich it was determined that some major enhancements were required to GAMMA’sfinancial systems. GAMMA’s financial systems consisted of four separate and distinctgeneral ledger systems, and separate “feeder” systems and modules such as accountspayable and budgeting. None of these separate systems were linked in a manner thatenabled effective reduction in the monthly closing cycle duration, nor did thesesystems enable the Finance and Accounting Organization to deliver value-addedanalysis to management in a fashion that was consistent with the strategic direction ofthe company. Further, these systems and processes relied heavily on manual effort togather and interpret much of the available information. Most often, human rather thanautomated processes bridged the gaps between critical components of the financialreporting value chain.

GAMMA’s financial system was IBM mainframe-based and was not Y2Kcompliant. Their financial systems were, in many cases, antiquated, relying ondisjointed, outdated and technologically cumbersome software and hardwareplatforms that would, within the next five or ten years, be unable to support theirbusiness growth. While these systems supported their existing business needs, theydid so in a manner that was neither efficient nor functionally responsive to user needs.Hence, in the early part of 1997, GAMMA Energy Corporation decided to acquire anenterprise-wide solution for its general ledger, accounts payable, budgeting andforecasting, and miscellaneous sundry billing, work orders and projects systems. Thisintegrated enterprise-wide solution would replace their existing independent systems.

KellerOrganizational background. Keller Manufacturing Company was established in 1895 asa manufacturer of farm wagons and did so until 1943 when it began manufacturinghousehold furniture. Today, this organization has over 700 employees in threemanufacturing plants in the USA (two of them located in Indiana – Corydon and NewSalisbury – and one in Culpepper, Virginia) and manufactures over 2,000 different oakand maple legs, seats, and other components (with over 100 separate procedures) thatare required in the assemblage of its products. In 1995, the company earned profits of$3.1 million on sales of $46 million. This represented a 76 percent increase in profitswith only a 30 percent increase in sales from the previous year. In three short years,Keller Manufacturing grew from $35 million in sales to $54 million in 1996,representing a 54 percent increase in sales.

Background. During the last few years, Keller changed from a production-orientedcompany to a very effective market-driven business. It also expanded its product lineto include bedroom furniture, a change that proved to be a very successful marketingstrategy. Consequently, the re-orientation of Keller’s marketing strategy with theresulting increase in sales and new product introductions resulted in some productionchallenges to their manufacturing operation. Manufacturing was having difficultysupporting production demands brought on by the substantial increase in sales.Mainly, they attributed the problem to the lack of timely and accurate information thatwas necessary to effectively and efficiently plan for and control production.

At the time, Keller’s information systems consisted of a combination of manualprocedures and automated systems, with computers only being used by the engineers

Critical factorsfor successful

acquisitions

669

and in manufacturing. The main computer (an AS400) handled batch-orientedprocessing and was supported by a number of stand-alone PCs. These stand-alonesystems were originally installed in an effort to provide information that wasdesperately needed to support manufacturing operations. However, with the recent andsizable increase in sales and sales mix (expanded product-line), this type of informationsystem (manual and computerized) could no longer effectively support Keller’smanufacturing operations.

In October 1995, with the realization that their existing system could no longersustain the current rate of growth, and in order to take full advantage of future markettrends, Keller’s senior management decided that the company would acquire amanufacturing execution system (MES), or in effect, an extensive information systemfor the shop floor.

The informants, all of whom were directly involved in the acquisition process,included for OMEGA the Director of Information Technology, the Manager of CapitalEquipment Purchasing, a Project Director, a Project Control Officer and a TechnicalProject Manager; for GAMMA the Financial Systems Project Manager, an IT Engineerfrom Information Technology Planning (Technical Team Leader for the FinancialSystem), a member of the Procurement Group, an IT Analyst from InformationTechnology Development (Technical Team Leader for the Materials Management andInventory System) and the Manager of Inventory Management (member of theReengineering Group); and for Keller, the VP of Information Systems, the VP ofPersonnel, the Corporate Materials Manager, and a Plant Manager.

Open-ended questions were used throughout the interviews. They allowed forflexibility and provided the “possibilities of depth; they [also] enable[d] the interviewerto clear up misunderstanding[s] (through probing), to ascertain a respondent’s lack ofknowledge, to detect ambiguity, to encourage cooperation and achieve rapport, and tomake better estimates of the respondent’s true intentions, beliefs, and attitudes”(Kerlinger, 1986, pp. 442-3).

For this part of the study, the opening question for the interview with eachinformant was as follows: “In your opinion, what were the critical success factors forthe acquisition process for the ERP software?”. Following the informant’s description,follow-up (probing) questions were used to clarify an issue or to delve for moreinformation. These follow-up questions also allowed for the development of ideaswithout constraining the exploratory nature of the study. The same interviewingprotocol was observed with all of the informants.

All interviews were audiotaped for subsequent transcription and for verification ofaccurate interpretation. Member checks were performed, during which the informantswere asked to review the transcription of their interviews for verification of the contenttherein and, if necessary, to amend or add to them. Follow-up questions were asked,when required, to further clarify ambiguities, discrepancies, or to re-confirminformation.

Critical success factorsIt is noted that one critical factor alone is not going to make the ERP acquisitionprocess a success. It is rather the combination of several critical factors that will result

JEIM18,6

670

in its successful outcome. Table I gives an overview of the critical success factors.They can be divided into two groups:

(1) factors related to the acquisition as process; and

(2) factors related to people within the process.

Planned and structured processPlanning was highly critical to the ERP acquisition process. With there being so manyactivities and issues that need to be considered, the odds of having a successfulacquisition will be greatly increased the more care that is taken to do this activity well.The plan should define from the beginning not only the structure of the process, butalso the techniques that will be used to manage the acquisition process. A well-definedstructure for the acquisition process also presupposes the need for a clear authority.Also, since many elements need to be accounted for during the acquisition process, itwas noted in each of the cases that if attention and care were given to dealing withthem at the acquisition stage, there would be fewer issues and problems (surprises)that would arise during the implementation stage.

Rigorous processRigor is another factor that defined the acquisition process as the teams carried it out.If the Acquisition Team was lax in carrying out any part of the acquisition process, theresults were likely to show in the final choice of ERP solution for the organization.Moreover, since much of the preliminary work that was done during the acquisitionprocess (i.e. definition of requirements and addressing of issues regarding processreengineering or redesign, etc.) could be used during the implementation, the morerigorously the acquisition process was carried out, the better it would become for theimplementation.

Definition of all requirementsIt was of critical importance that the Acquisition Team thoroughly assessed anddefined all of the current and desired requirements that were relevant to the packagedERP. This meant defining the organization’s needs at all of its different levels and in allof the functional areas that the ERP would have a direct or indirect impact on. It wascritical that this activity be completed before contacting vendors or doing themarketplace analysis.

Factors related to the acquisition as process Planned and structured processRigorous processDefinition of all requirementsEstablishment of selection and evaluation criteriaAccurate information

Factors related to people within this process Clear and unambiguous authorityCareful selection of the Acquisition Team membersPartnership approachUser participationUser buy-in

Table I.Critical success factors

for the ERP acquisitionprocess

Critical factorsfor successful

acquisitions

671

Establishment of selection and evaluation criteriaAs with the definition of all organizational requirements, it was important and criticalfor all three cases that the Team established its selection and evaluation criteria priorto contacting any vendor or looking at ERP solutions. This was critical to thedetermination of the right fit.

Accurate informationSince the entire acquisition process was fuelled by information, it was absolutelyimperative that the information was accurate and reliable. Hence, it was necessary thatinformation sources were verified and crosschecked as to the quality of the informationthey provided. While reputation and credibility may speak to the accuracy andreliability of the information obtained, these also should be double-checked. As wasseen in the case of GAMMA, although one of the consultants that had supplied theAcquisition Team with information was from a reputable consulting firm, theconsultant’s former ties with one of the ERP vendors biased the information that heprovided to GAMMA Acquisition Team and resulted in GAMMA dropping the vendorfrom their long-list. Although GAMMA later chose the ERP from that vendor, thebiased information from that consultant could have resulted in GAMMA settling onthe “wrong” or less than optimal ERP solution for its needs – misinformation couldhave been very costly to GAMMA.

Clear and unambiguous authorityAny ambiguity in authority tends to diffuse accountability and increase the possibilityof the process being diverted, or unduly shortened or abbreviated, or of conflict arisingnot only on complex issues but on minor ones as well. Hence, a “clear authority” for theacquisition process stands out as critical for the acquisition process as for the rest ofthe process. It appears that this “authority” or “project leader/manager/director” neednot be an individual from the IT department, but should be someone with strongleadership skills and a good sense of objectivity.

Careful selection of the Acquisition Team membersWhile the careful selection of team members is critical for any project, it is especiallycritical for the acquisition of ERP. Since this type of technological solution is socomplex and diverse in nature, the Acquisition Team needs to be equally diverse in theskills that are required of its team members. Hence, each individual team memberneeds to have the appropriate skills necessary for the completion of specific sets oftasks or responsibilities within the project. Moreover, each individual team memberneeds to be selected to perform a functional and/or advisory role based on his/herabilities or past experiences.

Partnership approachAnother characteristic of the acquisition process that was also noted as a critical factorwas the “partnership” approach that was adopted by all of the teams with theirvendors of choice. While this approach was also adopted by all of the teams with theirorganizations’ user communities, none was more strongly emphasized and evidencedthan by the teams from OMEGA and Keller. OMEGA’s Project Director stated that the

JEIM18,6

672

creation of a “partnership approach (internally) with the various user communities,letting them come up with a recommendation that they felt comfortable with”, led tothe users giving their full buy-in to the acquisition. OMEGA used this approachsimilarly with their Purchasing Department. In all of the cases, this approach was usedto establish a more open working relationship with the vendors with the objective ofavoiding conflict situations. The question that was frequently asked by all concernedwas, “Can we work with them?”. In the words of OMEGA’s Project Director:

If this is the vendor that you are going to deal with for the next five to ten years, you hadbetter make sure that you can do business with those people and when it gets tough, that youcan resolve those things.

The element of trust factored into this characteristic and all parties felt the need tocreate an atmosphere of trust right from the start of their dealings with the vendors.

User participationUser participation in the acquisition, especially at the vendor demonstrations, was alsoconsidered very important for all of the cases. User participation and user buy-in canbe strongly related. If users participate, they gain a better understanding of the issuesand technologies, and then they can make up their mind and feel part of the acquisitionprocess (increase their buy-in) and, in return, if they see the ERP as important for theorganization then their participation can increase.

User buy-inIn all of the cases, but especially for OMEGA and Keller, user buy-in was a criticalfactor in the success of the acquisition process. User buy-in on the final choice of theERP acquisition will undoubtedly result in user acceptance of the software followingimplementation. This was evident in the case of Keller. User buy-in of the choice oftechnology and even excitement and enthusiasm about its prospects for theorganization usually translated into an open acceptance by the users of the softwarefollowing implementation. We might also add that it creates openness to thetechnology, which could translate into a shortened learning curve. This would meanthat the organization, as a whole, could derive benefits a lot sooner, i.e. a return topre-implementation production levels, or as is hoped with the new ERP, betterproduction levels. So, there can be several advantages to getting the users involved andobtaining their buy-in.

We can also note that some of those factors span the whole acquisition process,when others are more related to one particular stage of the process. More particularly,during the whole acquisition, the process will need to be rigorous. Even if the “clearand unambiguous authority”, the “user buy-in” development and maintenance and the“partnership approach” must be maintained during of all the process, they also appearas a prerequisite of this process. Without strong leadership manifested by authority,the complete process will probably not even begin. “User buy-in” and “partnershipapproach” are cultural dimensions of the organization and the acquisition process canreinforce them, but at least the will to create them must be present. We can also noticethat “user buy-in” is crucial for the choice stage and the “participation approach” forthe negotiation stage. The relation of four factors with the first stage, the planning,

Critical factorsfor successful

acquisitions

673

makes this phase one of the most important for the success of the whole process. It isalmost a critical success factor by itself. Finally, “accurate information” will be theresult of a good information search stage and “user participation” is essential duringthe evaluation stage. Figure 1 shows the relationship between the stages and thecritical success factors.

ConclusionThe acquisition of ERP systems is a complex task fraught with a high level of risk anduncertainty. It is important, therefore, to understand which critical factors would leadto a successful ERP acquisition outcome. This study identified ten factors critical to thesuccessful outcome of an ERP acquisition. Their omission would have resulted in a lessthan optimal outcome for the organization. For each of the three cases, the acquisitionof ERP software was a new experience. Hence, each organization planned andstructured an acquisition process that would provide them with a sense of order,control, and direction. Omega’s Project Manager, for example, stated that his teamsattributed their project’s success to the fact that the process was very structured andwell planned. In addition, in all three cases, a “partnership” approach was adopted bythe teams (organizations) with the vendors (for a long-term relationship) and,specifically in the cases of OMEGA and Keller, the user community(ies) within theirorganizations. OMEGA’s Project Director stated that the creation of a “partnershipapproach (internally) with the various user communities, [let] them come up with arecommendation that they felt comfortable with”, and led to the users giving their fullbuy-in to the acquisition. Thus, user buy-in for both OMEGA and Keller wasconsidered by each of these organizations to be very important to the successfuloutcome of their acquisition process. According to Keller’s Plant Manager, they wantedto have full user buy-in to ensure the success of the acquisition and hence, theyinvolved the users early in the process. All in all, in each of the cases, a clear andunambiguous authority was essential to a successful outcome.

Figure 1.Relationship between ERPacquisition process and itscritical success factors

JEIM18,6

674

While each CSF is important, it should be noted that no one CSF alone is going tomake an ERP acquisition successful. It is rather the combination of several criticalfactors that will result in its successful outcome.

The next phase of research will aim at comparing these critical success factors withthose found in the literature regarding the implementation of ERPs in order to answerthe following questions:

. Are they comparable?

. Do they complement each other?

An analysis of the CSFs from both areas will lead us to a more integrated view of ERP’skey management issues and will span ERP’s life cycle from acquisition toimplementation.

References

Akkermans, H. and Van Helden, K. (2002), “Vicious and virtuous cycles in ERP implementation:a case study of interrelations between critical success factors”, European Journal ofInformation Systems, Vol. 11, pp. 35-46.

Al-Mashari, M., Al-Mudimigh, A. and Zairi, M. (2003), “Enterprise resource planning: a taxonomyof critical factors”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 146, pp. 352-64.

Appleton, E.L. (1997), “How to survive ERP”, Datamation, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 50-3.

Best, C. (1997), “Integrated system built on human foundation”, Computing Canada, Vol. 23No. 25, p. 54.

Bingi, P., Sharma, M.K. and Godla, J.K. (1999), “Critical issues affecting an ERP implementation”,Information Systems Management, Summer, pp. 7-14.

Boudreau, M.C. and Robey, D. (1999), “Organizational transition to enterprise resource planningsystems: theoretical choices for process research”, Proceedings ICIS, Charlotte, NC,pp. 291-9.

Chung, S.H. and Snyder, C.A. (2000), “ERP adoption: a technological evolution approach”,International Journal of Agile System Management Systems, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 24-30.

Chwen, S., Bongsug, C. and Yang, C.L. (2004), “National differences and ERP implementation:issues and challenges”, Omega, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 361-71.

Davenport, T. (1998), “Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system”, Harvard BusinessReview, July-August, pp. 121-31.

Eckhouse, J. (1999), “ERP vendors plot a comeback”, Information Week, No. 718, pp. 126-8.

Esteves, J. and Pastor, J. (2001), “Enterprise resource planning systems research: an annotatedbibliography”, Communications of the AIS, Vol. 7 No. 8, pp. 1-52.

Everdingen, Y., Hillegersberg, J. and Waarts, E. (2000), “ERP adoption by European midsizecompanies”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 27-31.

Gibson, J., Holland, C. and Light, B. (1999), “Enterprise resource planning: a business approach tosystems development”, Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference onScience Systems (HICSS), pp. 163-68.

Glover, S.M., Prawitt, D.F. and Romney, M.B. (1999), “Implementing ERP”, Internal Auditor,Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 40-7.

Hill, S. Jr (1999), “It just takes work”, Manufacturing Systems, Selecting and ImplementingEnterprise Solutions Supplement, pp. A2-A10.

Critical factorsfor successful

acquisitions

675

Holland, C. and Light, B. (1999), “Critical success factors model for ERP implementation”, IEEESoftware, May/June, pp. 1630-6.

Hong, K-K. and Kim, Y.-G. (2002), “The critical success factors for ERP implementation:an organizational fit perspective”, Information & Management, Vol. 40, pp. 25-40.

Kerlinger, F.N. (1986), Foundations of Behavioral Research, 3rd ed., Holt Rinehart & Winston,Chicago, IL.

Koh, C., Soh, C. and Markus, L. (2000), “A process theory approach to analyzing ERPimplementation and impacts: the case of Revel Asia”, Journal of Information TechnologyCases and Applications, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 4-23.

Kumar, K. and Hillegersberg, J. (2000), “ERP experiences and evolution”, Communications of theACM, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 23-6.

Lee, Z. and Lee, J. (2000), “An ERP implementation case study from a knowledge transferperspective”, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 281-8.

McNurlin, B.C. and Sprague, R.H. Jr (1998), Information SystemsManagement in Practice, 4th ed.,Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Markus, M., Tanis, C. and Fenema, P. (2000), “Multisite ERP implementations”, Communicationsof the ACM, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 42-6.

Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook,2nd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Miranda, R. (1999), “The rise of ERP technology in the public sector”, Government FinanceReview, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 9-17.

Nah, F.F.-H., Lau, J.L.-S. and Kuang, J. (2001), “Critical factors for successful implementation ofenterprise systems”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 285-96.

PricewaterhouseCoopers (1998), Technology Forecast: 1999, 10th anniversary ed.,PricewaterhouseCoopers Technology Center, Menlo Park, CA.

Riper, K. and Durham, M.J. (1999), “Phased ERP implementation: the city of Des Moinesexperience”, Government Finance Review, pp. 37-42.

Scott, J.E. and Vessey, I. (2000), “Implementing enterprise resource planning systems: the role oflearning from failure”, Information Systems Frontiers, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 213-32.

Soh, C., Kien, S. and Tay-Yap, J. (2000), “Cultural fits and misfits: is ERP a universal solution?”,Communications of the ACM, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 47-51.

Soliman, F., Clegg, S. and Tantoush, T. (2001), “Critical success factors for integration ofCAD/CAM systems with ERP systems”, International Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement, Vol. 21 Nos 5/6, pp. 609-29.

Stafyla, A. and Stefanou, C.J. (2000), “ERP software selection: a study using cognitive maps”,Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Information Technology Evaluation(ECITE), pp. 293-301.

Sutcliffe, A. (1999), “Towards a theoretical framework for engineering reusable components”,Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Enterprise Management Resource andPlanning Systems, EMRPS, pp. 103-17.

Verville, J.C. (2000), “An empirical study of organizational buying behavior: a criticalinvestigation of the acquisition of ‘ERP software’”, dissertation, Universite Laval, Quebec.

Verville, J. and Halingten, A. (2001), Acquiring Enterprise Software: Beating the Vendors at TheirOwn Game, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Verville, J. and Halingten, A. (2003a), “The effect of team composition in the ERP acquisitiondecisions”, Team Performance Management Journal, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 115-30.

JEIM18,6

676

Verville, J. and Halingten, A. (2003b), “A six-stage model of the buying process for ERPsoftware”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 32, pp. 585-94.

Yin, R.K. (1989), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publications, London.

Further reading

Maxwell, J.A. (1996), Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach, Sage Publications,Thousand Oaks, CA.

(Jacques Verville is currently an Associate Professor of Management of Information Systems inthe College of Business Administration at Texas A&M International University. He holds a PhDin Organizational Information Systems form the University Laval, Quebec, Canada. He hasauthored over 30 publications including conference proceedings papers and articles published ina number of journals including Industrial Marketing Management, International Journal ofEnterprise Information Systems, International Journal of Technology Management, Journal ofInformation Technology Cases and Applications, International Journal of ManufacturingTechnology Management, and International Journal of Qualitative Market Research. Dr Vervilleis co-author of Acquiring Enterprise Software: Beating the Vendors at their Own Game.

Christine Bernadas is a Doctoral Candidate in International Business Administration,concentration in Management Information Systems. Ms Bernadas has a number of articlespublished in conference proceedings and journals including the International Journal ofTechnology Management, and International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems. Hercurrent research interest are on ERPs, evaluation and business intelligence.

Alannah Halingten is a Consultant (Halingten-Verville & Associates). She has authored overten articles published in a number of journals including Industrial Marketing Management,International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems, Journal of Information TechnologyCases and Applications, International Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, andInternational Journal of Qualitative Market Research. Ms Halingten is co-author of AcquiringEnterprise Software: Beating the Vendors at their Own Game.)

Critical factorsfor successful

acquisitions

677