Você está na página 1de 25

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Int. J. Production Economics 98 (2005) 56–80
www.elsevier.com/locate/dsw

A framework of ERP systems implementation
success in China: An empirical study
Zhe Zhanga,, Matthew K.O. Leeb, Pei Huanga, Liang Zhangb, Xiaoyuan Huangc
a
School of Management, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200052, P.R. China
b
Department of Information Systems, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong, P.R. China
c
Faculty of Business Administration, Northeastern University, Shenyang 110004, P.R. China
Received 1 December 2003; accepted 18 September 2004
Available online 11 November 2004

Abstract

Enterprise resource planning (ERP) system is one of the most widely accepted choices to obtain competitive
advantage for manufacturing companies. However, the successful implementation rate is low and many firms did not
achieve intended goals in China. This study develops an ERP implementation success framework by adapting the Ives
et al. information systems (ISs) research model and DeLone and McLean’s IS success model to identify both critical
success factors and success measures. Qualitative case study research methodology is used to collect data and Atlas/ti
program is used to facilitate data analysis. Discussion is made finally and suggested ERP systems implementation
methodology is given at the end.
r 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: ERP; Business process reengineering; ERP systems implementation; Critical success factors; Case study

1. Introduction implementation is defined as ‘‘the process that
begins with the managerial decision to install a
Kumar and Hillegersberg (2000) defined enter- computer-based organizational information sys-
prise resource planning (ERP) systems as ‘‘config- tem and is complete when the system is operating
urable information systems packages that as an integral part of the organization’s informa-
integrate information and information-based pro- tion system’’ (Burns and Turnipseed, 1991). ERP
cesses within and across-functional areas in an is probably the most rapidly growing system area
organization’’. In information systems (ISs) area, in operations today. Thousands of companies have
implemented or are in the process of implementing
Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 021 64482867; fax:
an ERP system. IDC predicts that ERP software
+86 021 62933262. sales in Greater China, comprising China, Hong
E-mail address: zhangz27@hotmail.com (Z. Zhang). Kong, and Taiwan, will grow at an annual rate of

0925-5273/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2004.09.004

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Z. Zhang et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 98 (2005) 56–80 57

24.2%, up from US $84.5 million in 1998 to US Finally, the study makes a conclusion with a
$243.3 million by 2003. According to CCID summary on the study.
Report (2004), ERP sales in Mainland China
reached US $226.9 million in 2003, and will reach
US $652.8 million in 2008, at an estimated growth 2. Literature review
rate of 23.5% over the next 5 years. Significant
benefits such as improved customer service, better By comparison to ISs research and other
production scheduling, and reduced manufactur- academic fields, theories on ERP systems imple-
ing costs can accrue from successful implementa- mentation have been given less attention. Most
tion of ERP systems (Ang et al., 1995). published articles on the field of ERP systems
However, ERP systems are expensive and time- implementation unavoidably lack theoretical sup-
consuming, and once ERP systems are implemen- port (see Appendix A). Thus, in this study ISs
ted, management should evaluate whether it is literature is reviewed in an attempt to find theories
successful. A recent Standish Group report on that could be adapted to the ERP field.
ERP implementation projects reveals that these
projects were, on average, 178% over budget, took 2.1. ERP systems implementation literature
2.5 times as long as intended and delivered only
30% of promised benefit. Nearly 1000 companies Limited studies have been conducted to identify
in China have implemented MRP, MRP II or ERP critical factors affecting ERP systems implementa-
systems since 1980. The successful implementation tion success with many of them focused on single-
rate is extremely low at only 10% (Zhu and Ma, case study of ‘‘how we implemented ERP systems
1999). The large difference of ERP systems in our company’’ (Ang et al., 1995; Bingi et al.,
implementation success rate between Western 1999; Cox and Clark, 1984; Holland and Light,
countries and China produces a need of research 1999; Mandal and Gunasekaran, 2002; Motwani
to examine generic and unique factors that affect et al., 2002; Sum et al., 1997; Wilson et al., 1994;
ERP implementation success in China since Yusuf et al., 2004). Moreover, most studies that
foreign ERP vendors have more than 90% ERP have measured ERP implementation success used
market share (IDC, 1998) and more than 80% in only one or two surrogates of ERP implementa-
2000 (http://www.sina.com.cn) in China. Further- tion success (Ang et al., 1994, 1995, 2002; Burns
more, Chinese culture is quite different from and Turnipseed, 1991; Malbert et al., 2003; Umble
Western countries in terms of the four dimensions et al., 2003; Wilson et al., 1994).
of national culture developed by Hofstede (2001) The literature varies regarding what variables
and the dimension of uncertainty avoidance is are required for implementation success or re-
highly relevant to ISs implementation. Organiza- sponsible for failure. It suggests that problems
tional culture is imbedded within national culture with the implementation of ERP systems occur for
and it is regarded as the unique factor affecting a number of reasons. These reasons include:
ERP systems implementation success.
In Section 2, literatures on both determinants of (1) The need for business process change during
ERP systems implementation success and success the implementation of an ERP system is
measures including IS literature are reviewed to needed (Al-Mashari et al., 2003; Bingi et al.,
facilitate understanding of current research status. 1999; Burns and Turnipseed, 1991; Hong and
The proposed conceptual framework and proposi- Kim, 2002; Malbert et al., 2003; Mandal and
tions are developed in Section 3. Section 4 Gunasekaran, 2002; Motwani et al., 2002;
introduces the research methodology of multiple- Umble et al., 2003; Yusuf et al., 2004).
case study. Targeted interviewees and data collec- (2) Lack of top management support, data accu-
tion method are described in this chapter. After racy, and user involvement can attribute to
that, data analysis is conducted in Section 5 and system implementation failures (Al-Mashari
research findings are discussed in Section 6. et al., 2003; Ang et al., 1994, 1995, 2002; Bingi

2003). Burns and system acceptance and usage are inappropriate Turnipseed. the latter two success measures could be corporate goals were used recently to measure combined into one success measure due to their ERP implementation results (Al-Mashari et al.. 2000. Gunasekaran. Wilson et al. context since ERP systems have built-in value bias 1995. (3) Oliver White’s ABCD Classification Scheme (Burns and Turnipseed. Burns and Turnipseed. Hong and Kim.. 2003. al. (White. Kim. Mandal and Gunasekaran. User ERP system implementation exceeds contracted satisfaction is also used to serve as a surrogate for delivery time and budget. 2003. 1984. 2004). Yusuf et al. Yusuf et al. there is a need (2) Intended business performance improvements to recognize the unique Asian context con. Wilson et al. 1991. Yusuf et al. . 2003). firms may still think ERP implementation success (Al-Mashari et al. 2002. 2003. 2002. There is growing evidence that failures to 2004).. Yusuf Mashari et al. more attention only in recent 2 years (Al-Mashari (4) On time (Al-Mashari et al. 1995... their ERP implementation is a success... Yusuf et al. 1997. 2002. Hong important factor when ERP systems developed in and Kim. (2000) argue that the definition and 1997. Thus. Bingi et al. Cox and Clark... al.. 1999. 1984. Predetermined However. and success depends on the point of view from (3) Education and training are frequently under. 2004). Umble et al. 2002.. Chinese culture is mentation success. Hong and Kim.. there are seven measures used as surrogates cross-functional business processes are often of ERP implementation success: reported (Al-Mashari et al. 1994. 1994. 1990). Yusuf et al. 1994. Ang Clark. White et al. Umble et 1991.. Umble et al. Kim. 2002)... Hong and 2003.. even if ERP implementations into four categories. Motwani et al. Oliver White’s ABCD Classifi- far different from that of Western countries.. al. 1984... J.. Hong and et al.... there is no agreed measures. Malbert et al. Moreover. 2004). 2002. 2003. 2003. Markus et al.. 1994. models typically reflect Western practices (Al. (1982) defined successful only user satisfaction.. ARTICLE IN PRESS 58 Z. 2002. Zhang et al. Sum et al. White. 2002.. Motwani et al.. White ERP systems could achieve rough integration (1984) created ABCD Checklist that classified among ERP system modules. Markus et al.. adapt ERP packages to fit different organizational and national cultures leads to projects that are In the above measures of ERP system imple- expensive and late. Mandal and et al.. 2002.. predefined nature. 1984. 2004).. 1995. 2003. 2004) which could be a very (5) Within budget (Al-Mashari et al.. and less understanding of dix A). 2002. Hong and Kim. Malbert et al. 2003. reflecting the value priorities of the culture in (7) Predetermined corporate goals (Al-Mashari et Western countries (Kumar and Bjorn-Anderson. Ang et al. 1982).. 1999. 2004).. cation is not suitable in nowadays ERP system As for how to define ERP systems implementa. 2002. Ang et al. 2003. White et once the use of an ERP system is required. Markus et al. 2002. Malbert et al.. et al. Malbert et al. Western countries are implemented in China (6) System acceptance and usage (Ang et al.. implementation in that most firms implemented tion success. 2003. Cox and (1) User satisfaction (Al-Mashari et al. 2000. Meanwhile. From previous ERP estimated and are given less time due to implementation success literature review (Appen- schedule pressures. measurement of ERP success are thorny matters Yusuf et al. Based on Appendix A. which you measure it. 2002... Mandal and Gunasekaran. (Al-Mashari et al. 1994. Production Economics 98 (2005) 56–80 et al.. 1995.. cerning cultures while the existing business 2002. Sum et al... 1982. Yusuf et al. 2003. 2003. culture factor was given 1994). 2003. White et al. 2004). 2003. Yusuf et al. While 2003. intended business perfor- ERP implementation along two dimensions: (1) mance improvements. 2003. Umble et al.. / Int. and predetermined corpo- improved performance and (2) user satisfaction rate goals could be used as success measures. 2004). 2002. (4) When adopting an ERP system. 1991.

1 illustrates their IS success model): there is no choice for the user. DeLone and McLean’s IS success model. the previous measures of system quality. system quality and information which users believe the information system avail- quality singularly and jointly affect both use and able to them meets their information require- user satisfaction. 1998). as suggesting that technical system quality is tion on organizational performance.. the behavior of a receipt. Many authors have System Use Quality Individual Organizational Impact Impact Information User Quality Satisfaction Fig. Secondly. Production Economics 98 (2005) 56–80 59 2. this impact on indivi- during the past two decades to identify those dual performance should eventually affect organi- factors that contribute to ISs success. yet the DeLone and McLean model might be seen (6) Organizational impact: The effect of informa. Furthermore. They claim that the causal (2) Information quality: The desired characteristics relationships that exist between the stages of of the product of an IS. extensive literature review on 180 empirical studies information quality. 1980). and the information outputs are satisfying or not. J. Thus. . 1. users have to accept and use the IS. User satisfaction is defined as ‘‘the extent to In Fig. when the use of IS is mandatory or Delone and McLean (1992) conducted an required. Information systems literature have positive or negative impact on the other. published in six top IS journals and one of the That means whether the quality of the system itself most important IS conference proceedings. While use and user satisfaction ments’’ (Ives et al. this does not have to of an IS. If this were so. communication also pertain to the categories of (3) Use: The receipt consumption of the product measurement. (Fig. 1. sufficient. for Delone and McLean acceptance (Garrity and Sanders. then one need only be (4) User satisfaction: The receipt response to the successful at the first stage. classi. between each stage. Moreover. However. Lastly. However. (1978). as a measure of IS define and a cumulative research is not easy to success. only makes sense for voluntary or discre- come into being. in an involuntary situation of lone and McLean (1992) that has been considered using an IS. fying dimensions of ISs success into six categories and whether users want to use the system or not. DeLone and McLean’s (1) System quality: The desired characteristics of model has a causal and temporal relationship an IS itself. and use become less useful. Not until 10 years ago was the tionary users as opposed to captive users Lucas dependent variable—IS success identified by De. Zhang et al. Use and user satisfaction are direct antecedents of A large number of studies have been conducted individual impact. / Int. zational performance. the dependent variable of IS success is difficult to It is clear that actual use.2. ARTICLE IN PRESS Z. IS use of the product of an IS. and has met with general Davis (1986). research now accepts that technical system quality (5) Individual impact: The effect of information on is necessary but not sufficient to ensure IS success. user satisfaction leads to use rather a suitable foundation for further empirical and than use stimulating user satisfaction Baroudi and theoretical research. follow. (1992).

Ives.. dissertations into the framework. this implies that if projects do not meet time. and management philosophy/style. which includes the development methods and budget. There are process variables are: (1) Use process.g. Thus. and the focuses on usage of the IS by the primary user information subsystem itself. (4) IS development environment. volatility. error (3) User environment. and the service to users (e. which in. economic. and user specification as characteristics of the user. political. response time for user requests. time. necessary for IS operations. 2. The External Environment The Organizational Environment User The Use Environment Process The IS The Development Information Development Environment Process Subsystem (ISS) IS Operations The Environment Operation Process Fig. by resource use (e. which et al. operation of the IS and is primarily a function of Five classes of environmental variables were the operations resource. 1980). 2). turnaround time. Production Economics 98 (2005) 56–80 suggested time. boundaries of other environments in the form of cludes legal.g. (2) Organizational environment.. which is quality of life and satisfaction of secondary users. struc. Zhang et al. circle is the output of the development process. Based on descriptions and evaluations of five The information subsystem represented by a existing MIS research frameworks. and industry/trade consid. (1980) proposed a more comprehensive research The processes comprise the interactions between model partially validated by mapping 331 MIS the IS and the environments. marked by the organizational goals. dictate the scope and form of each information (3) Operation process. it development and maintenance. Ives et al. user’s organization. yields the IS by selecting and applying organiza- istics define the resources and constraints. social. which incorporates the resources budget. and Davis’s IS research model. environment. In their model (Fig. tasks. J. resource. and the organization and management of IS they have not met timescales and budget. but projects can still be successful even if istics. ture. and specification. The classes of Ph. which is described by rates). cost. . erations. Hamilton. (5) IS operation is not appropriate to define IS success by time. three IS processes. Wateridge (1998) points out that and user’s task. Ives making quality. / Int. ARTICLE IN PRESS 60 Z. performance. claimed that the environmental character. availability. (2) Development process. cost).D. success criteria.. which tional resources within environmental constraints. cultural. all of which exist and is usually measured by task accomplishment within an organizational environment and an leading to an effect on productivity and decision- external environment. which is the physical subsystem (Ives et al. The process can be measured educational. and specification they will be seen as techniques. which three IS environments. with interfaces at the delineated: (1) External environment. design personnel and their character- failures. personal interaction.

success factors for this study.’s model are not process in the ERP implementation context. 3. From DeLone and Davis model with ERP and IS success literatures.’s model focuses on with ERP success measures such as user satisfac- development and operation processes that are the tion. the identified in prior ERP studies to form critical development process is not applicable. factors that affect With specific objectives in this study. Thus. and organizational im- next stage of ERP implementation. The theoretical bases for this study IS operations environment are replaced with include Ives et al. the development process. Conceptual research framework. individual impact. The IS development environment and the defined. and the McLean and DeLone’s IS success model to serve operation process are not completely suitable to as the basis for dependent variables definition in the ERP implementation context. Moreover. Further. They are packages from outside ERP vendors rather than adapted and combined with critical success factors develop an ERP system in-house. While the three the operation process is overlapping with the use process groups used in Ives et al. and been identified in this research. is suitable included to make the success measures complete. Organizational Environment Top Management Support Company-Wide Support Business Process Reengineering Effective Project Management Organizational Culture ERP Implementation Success User Environment Education &Training User Satisfaction User Involvement Individual Impact User Characteristics Organizational Impact Intended Business System Environment Performance ERP Software Suitability Improvement Information Quality System Quality ERP Vendor Environment ERP Vendor Quality Fig.. these two processes are modified and combined mentation in that Ives et al.’s IS research model combined system environment and ERP vendor environ- with prior ERP literature to serve as the basis for ment. through successful ERP implementation in China have combining and adapting the Ives. Moreover. . thus applicable to the context of ERP system imple. the unique ERP success measure McLean’s IS success model. model proposed by Ives et al. DeLone and pact. Production Economics 98 (2005) 56–80 61 3. / Int. Zhang et al. which is widely of intended business performance improvement is accepted model for study of IS success. Hamilton. J. Furthermore. The conceptual research framework to this research in that IS success is measured from different angles. ARTICLE IN PRESS Z. McLean’ IS success model the dependent variables the research framework is developed and depicted that measure ERP implementation success are in Fig. the three process measures of the independent variables identification. ERP systems are Based on the ERP literature and the IS research also one kind of ISs. 3. and the use process. Almost all of that the environmental groups are quite suitable to enterprises in China purchase off-the-shelf ERP the ERP implementation success factors.

1994. contemporary measures of performance.. 2003. and use become less useful.1. Miles and Huberman. (3) having periodic project status meetings. thus companies should have an effective project 3.1. Top management support management strategy to control the implementa- Many studies have stressed the importance of tion process. Organizational environment is asso- involves reengineering the existing business pro- ciated with the ERP implementation success in cesses to the best business process standard (Bingi China. such as cost. ‘‘project manage- ment has evolved in order to plan. / Int. reengineering business process..1. 2002.. rather beyond the focus of this study and not studied as a it is a matter of reengineering the company and result.1.1. 2001).1. propositions serving as guidelines for this research. Reengineering business processes That means whether the quality of the system itself Business process reengineering (BPR) is defined and the information outputs are satisfying or not. 2004). 3. its champion. 1995. Zhang et al. 1999. 3. Yusuf et al. 1984. J. and organizational culture. frame. Sum et al. Wilson et al. User environment is associated with and Light. Ang et al. (2) a realistic time 1999.2. One of the principal reasons why ERP and other Proposition 3. Holland Proposition 2.. 2003. information quality. implementation.. 1999. rethinking and radical redesign of business pro- users have no choice but to accept and use the IS. avoiding overrun of budget and top management support as a necessary ingredient ensuring implementation on schedule.3. cesses to achieve dramatic improvements in The researcher proposes the following research critical. and operation require the who are stakeholders. Organizational environment According to Lock (1996). ERP system environment is asso- large technologically sophisticated systems fail is ciated with the ERP implementation success in that organizations simply underestimate the extent China.4. Bingi et al. Effective project management 3. Yusuf et (4) having an effective project leader who is also a al. and (5) having project team members design. integrate information and information-based pro- while. 1997. implementing an ERP system is not a cesses within and across all functional areas in an . company-wide sup. coordinate and Five dimensions of organizational initiative control the complex and diverse activities of proposition are identified including top manage. the ERP implementation success in China. Burns and Turnipseed. to which they have to change and reengineering Proposition 4. Production Economics 98 (2005) 56–80 The interactions among these success measures are matter of changing the software systems. ERP systems implementation is a set of complex effective project management. 3. the existing business processes in order to accom- ciated with the ERP implementation success in modate their purchase. quality. 2004). There are in successful ERP implementation (Al-Mashari et five major parts of project management: (1) having al. by Hammer and Champy as ‘‘the fundamental and whether users want to use the system or not. Implementing an ERP system Proposition 1. a formal implementation plan. 1994. Mean.. modern industrial and commercial projects’’. involving all business functions and port. ERP vendor environment is asso. often requiring between 1 and 2 years of effort. Umble et al. activities.. transforming the business practices to the best In this study. et al. 1991. Company-wide commitment ment support can play a useful role in settling Since ERP systems are enterprise-wide ISs that disputes and in providing clear direction. complete cooperation of line and staff members from all segments of the business. Cox and Clark. service and speed’’ (Hammer and Champy. the previous measures of system quality.. Since ERP is a highly integrated IS. 2002. China.. ARTICLE IN PRESS 62 Z. ment support. Mandal and Gunasekaran. Top manage. since the use of an ERP system is business practices. 1994. required.

sharing the information to assist decision-making. / Int. Organizational culture are inclined to be tolerant of uncertainty. 2001). tion failures. the dimension of uncer- al.. IS design methodologies have built-in value biases Cabrera et al. J.. 1997. collectivism vs. information with others and reluctant to use ISs strained by it (Krumbholz and Maiden. Zhang et al. (2001) and Yusuf et al. masculinity. tainty avoidance concerns with use of technology Every person and department is responsible/ most. and uncertainty avoid. Cox and Clark. femininity vs. 1984. 1994. ARTICLE IN PRESS Z. in the low score holder of uncertainty system has to change its business processes to the avoidance such as China. it is imperative to get support from draw a conclusion that Chinese culture is basically all functional segments of the organization (Ang et different from that of Western countries. Yusuf et al. to be taught Table 1 International comparison data on cultural dimensions (Hofstede. The inclination of members of a culture to accountable for the overall system and key users avoid uncertainty and ambiguity profoundly from different departments are ensured to commit affects the way in which institutions are organized to the project implementation without being called and managed. Accord- al. 2004). Based on Hofstede (2001) national culture and it is used as the unique critical definition of national culture. that has worked well enough except in the dimension of masculinity. The change both of unclear information. In Western countries with high score of uncertainty avoidance. it is necessary to check whether reshaped to fit the demands of the new technology. people 3. (2004) reflecting the value priorities of the culture in argue that successful technological innovations which they are developed. Culture is defined by Schein (1992) as ‘‘a pattern ance can be used to make comparisons. that require real time information entry and Kumar and Bjorn-Anderson (1990) concludes that information sharing across different departments. which individuals use ISs.. ERP) implementation in China context. A company who implements an ERP However. was one important cause of project implementa. we can learn that China is as it solved its problems of external adaptation and obviously different from the other three countries internal integration.. It is safe to to be considered valid and. individualism. Wilson et al. Production Economics 98 (2005) 56–80 63 organization. Since Baan IV user require that either the technology be designed to fit companies are studied only in this research and it the organization’s current structure and culture or is developed in the Netherlands and applied in that the organization’s structure and culture be China context. therefore.1. 2001) Country Power distance Individualism Masculinity Uncertainty avoidance index score index score index score index score USA 40 91 62 46 Germany 35 67 66 65 The Netherlands 38 80 14 53 China 80 20 66 30 . 2002. uncer- back to their prior functional job position tainty avoidance will also likely affect the way in frequently. they are inclined to share impacts on the customer’s culture and is con. Sum et ing to Hofstede (2001). of shared basic assumptions that the group learned From Table 1. people are more tolerant ERP best-practice processes. Consistent with this logic. 1995.5. cultural difference between the Netherlands and While organizational culture is embedded within China exists or not. they Densley (1999) revealed that adapting the need more clear information and tend to deploy implementation to the prevailing cultural style ISs across departments within an organization. 1994. four dimensions of factor that affects foreign ERP package (Baan power distance.

results orientation. employees identify and loose vs. ARTICLE IN PRESS 64 Z. professional. Tightly controlled cultures may observe nication system. other- and procedures that must be followed to carry out wise the output of the information about products. tight control. The deployment of ERP rules and procedures.2. / Int. professional dimension reflects (Hofstede. and an ing customer needs is a major objective in effort is made to help new members adjust. system requires transparent information flow think. which mistakes are well tolerated and innovation Normative vs. pragmatic mentality. In open 3. in produce resistance from the people. Education and training system culture information flows easily through Education and training refers to the process of the organization. procedures as a way of obtaining legitimacy The parochial vs. Production Economics 98 (2005) 56–80 to new members as the correct way to perceive.2. However. open vs. result orientation refers to whether an more permissive about individual’s preferences. (4) open vs. (5) loose vs. tight control system reflects the degree (2) employee vs. consciousness. closed system. across the whole company. to which organizations exert control over indivi- professional identity. are more market driven and are open to ad hoc being of the person or with getting the job done. pragmatic mentality refers to the is valued. while normative cultures are more Groups or committees often make the important concerned with following institutional rules. parochial organizations. 3. Loose control organizations are Process vs. solutions. user involvement in the process of ERP systems agement technique adoption such as ERP systems. On the pragmatic cultures while normative cultures are contrary. the deployment of an ERP logic and overall concepts of ERP system (Mandal . top-down decision-making. lack of user education and training and results in passive attitude toward advanced man. implementation also leads to failure. Lack of care about stake- ‘‘local’’ vs. An open or closed system refers to the commu- nication climate within the organization. Process orientation is typical of timely in that ERP system integrates every mechanistic or bureaucratic organizations rich in department seamlessly. organization is more concerned with the means ERP system requires timely input of data. paro. whereas in closely linked with ISs implementation. People within the According to Hofstede’s (2001) study. extent to which organizations conform to institu- The employee vs. which As such. closed commu. and (6) strict meeting times and show a strong cost-saving normative vs. the work or with the goals that are pursued with inventory level cannot be ensured accurate and that work. tight control in that they are most strongly with their organization. risk-taking organizations. job orientation reflects whether tional pressures. job-oriented cultures tend to rely on more interested in adhering to the ‘‘correct’’ individual. ‘‘cosmopolitan’’.1. User environment chial organizations rely on social and family background information. In hiring new employees. the weight that is given to the occupational This study focuses on the three dimensions of cultures of the members of the organization. Pragmatic organizational cultures the organization is more concerned with the well. is less concerned with external competition. duals. 2001). Zhang et al. Meet- decisions in employee-oriented cultures. The former culture holders within organizations will result in disaster. which inevitably to find their relationships with the implementation leads to resistance to the ERP system. whereas results orientation is systems in a loosely controlled company would typical of organic. professional cultures employees identify more with their profession. (3) parochial vs. job orientation. and feel in relation to those problems’’. whereas closed cultures are more providing management and employees with the secretive. In parochial vs. factors affecting organizational ISs implementa- Sociology has long known this distinction as tion and deployment. whereas professional People element is one of the most important cultures hire on the basis of job competence alone. six main closed system would think they are going to be dimensions of organizational culture are identified constrained by the ERP system. Loose vs. of ERP systems: (1) process vs. J.

System quality suitable ERP packages in the market to ensure the System quality of a specific ERP system also perfect match between the ERP system and their affects the implementation success. The user is weakness should be fully understood to increase the people who produce results and should be held the chance of success.. ERP packages provide generic off-the-shelf 2004). company. purchase. characters..2.. Oracle. J.e. PeopleSoft. ERP software suitability more experience of implementing ERP systems Most large foreign ERP vendors have come to and they can help users to understand expertise of China’s ERP market include SAP. And 3. Yusuf et specific business industry and requirements. technical-oriented or busi- ness-oriented. System implementation represents a threat business and software solutions to customers. 1986. System environment to one another. Some analysis first to make sure which problems need IS researchers suggest that user involvement in the to be solved and select the ERP systems that most development (i. more effective in combining specific ERP system SSA. over. User involvement is effective because it ERP system to fit the company’s needs is restores or enhances perceived control through necessary. etc. 1997. Sum et al. modification. requirements.2. technical aspects of ERP systems implementation information quality is a major determinant of ERP in the following three perspectives. User involvement certain ERP packages are only compatible with User involvement refers to participation in the some companies’ databases and operation systems. Mandal and Gunasekaran. companies should conduct requirements by representatives of the target user groups. databases. 2002.. 1998). tion levels. research model. Moreover. and operating systems. upgrade of the ERP system is characteristics of different users may also affect necessary because the technical advance results the ERP implementation success including educa. Production Economics 98 (2005) 56–80 65 and Gunasekaran. User characteristics the customization can be reduced as much as According to the Ives et al. inaccurate data input into one module will adversely affect the functioning of Organizations cannot afford to neglect of other modules. 1997. Symix. to users’ perceptions of control over their work More or less they cannot fully meet the company’s and a period of transition during which users must needs.1. especially when the business processes of cope with differences between old and new work the company are unique. More- al..3.2. specific ERP systems. 1989. ERP vendors success (Duchessi et al. Garbage in garbage out. adopt different programming languages and focus Yusuf et al. the possible.3. 2004). FourthShift.3. Baan.. These ERP vendors use different hardware plat- forms.2. 2004). Enterprises have to find the most 3. Dimensions of . ARTICLE IN PRESS Z. QAD. design. fit their requirements. Thus. accountable for making the system perform to expectations. etc. people can have a better under. It is important for the company to participating the whole project plan. system development and implementation processes Thus.3. Sum et al. They have taken up more than features with actual operational issues in the 90% market share in China’s market (IDC. The hardware then is or implementation) of an IS is integral to the selected according to the specific ERP systems’ success of the system (Baroudi and Davis. While in-house training is Edwards. occur continuously. Zhang et al. 2002.. / Int. 3. Thus. J. the maturity of the ERP system and its standing of how their jobs are related to other internal logic as well as the system’s strength and functional areas within the company. customizing the systems.3. choose those ERP systems that are easy to customize so that the cost and time consumed in 3. Outside consultants/trainers have 3. Information quality Since ERP system modules are intricately linked 3.3. Thus.D. on different business sectors to retain their core competence. Yusuf et al.

In this study of ERP their products have been customized into Chinese systems implementation success. the user vendor. task Based on Delone and McLean’s (1992) IS performance improvement. vision of the future. Meanwhile. questions about the vendor. individual impact. Yusuf et al. and and the implementation team may need to cross system use are inappropriate for measuring ERP check regarding the availability of the software. are selected as ERP systems implementation 1983. ARTICLE IN PRESS 66 Z. the implementation and use of an ERP system on the behavior of a receipt. system quality. such as its market focus (for example. the use of an ERP system is required.6. ERP vendor environment this study are to explore factors that affect the ERP implementation success in China and vari- Since most China’s companies purchase ERP ables that could be used to measure and evaluate packages from foreign ERP vendors and use whether an ERP implementation success is a outside consultancy service. and (3) participation of vendor in ERP (1988) and Delone and McLean (1992).. and quality. Individual impact consultants should possess good interpersonal The individual impact variable refers to the skills and be able to work with people. the company is implementing the system. J. they described the impact of these two variables on the other dependent variables of use 3. even though DeLone general. In systems success. response time (Bailey and Pearson. system quality and information quality are inappropriate to serve Three dimensions of vendor quality are classi- as ERP implementation success measures. i. (2) qualified consultants with knowledge- satisfaction measure concerns overall satisfaction ability in both enterprises’ business processes and and specifics satisfaction with the system imple- information technology including vendors’ ERP mentation adapted from Doll and Torkzadeh systems. Thus. Software effect of information on the behavior of a receipt vendors should be carefully selected since they play in DeLone and McLean’s IS success model. user satisfaction language and make sure the ERP vendor has the is adapted as the receipt response to the imple- same version of the software in all the countries mentation and use of a certain ERP system. 3. .e.4. 3) at both individual and organizational levels. In this a crucial part in shaping the ultimate outcome of study. reliability. an ERP user. and time to make decision. tion. management must make sure that the and McLean classified system quality and infor- software vendor provides continuous support mation quality as dependent variables in their throughout the implementation. the 3. information quality. success measures (see Fig. / Int. the interactions among these the vendor support. organizational impact. decision effectiveness success model and ERP literature. ERP vendor quality and user satisfaction. User satisfaction track record with customers.. Several 3. it is important to get success or a failure. claims regarding global readiness may not be true. Zhang et al. satisfaction describes the receipt response to the For a foreign vendor.6. In the fied: (1) service response time of the software context of ERP system implementation. user and with whom the vendor is strategically aligned. According to Delone and McLean (1992).1. Production Economics 98 (2005) 56–80 system quality include flexibility of the system. Vendor Mostly. usefulness of specific and intended business performance improvement functions.6. individual impact is adapted as the effect of the implementation. It is important for the vendor’s staffs to be knowledgeable in both business processes and ERP system functions. Also. ERP implementation success measures dimensions are used to measure individual impact including improved individual productivity.5. user satisfac. midsize or large organization). 2004). implementation. Management needs to ask success measures are not studied. Since the objectives of 3. Therefore.2. it is important to ensure that use of the product of an IS. ease of use. model.

interviews. not to populations or organizational impact include the impacts of an universes (statistical generalization) (Lee. And when all the four measures are evidence (documents. Yin.’s (1982) research. First. Differ.3.. 1987. Multiple cases are suggested to increase would be consistent with the specific procedures . 1989. measured and defined as a success or a failure in ent enterprises have different objectives to China? implement ERP systems. case studies are generalizable to organizational performance. / Int. sufficient citation to the relevant (Benbasat et al. employing multiple methods of obtained. ARTICLE IN PRESS Z. Otherwise. servations. the database would reveal the tant and the phenomenon is contemporary.  What are the critical factors that affect ERP 3. To increase the reliability of the data collection to gather information from one or information in the study. only when all the four measures are given positive answers by the organization can we call it One advantage of using multiple sources of a success. third. the implementation physical artifacts) lies in its capability of providing success is difficult to determine. which actual evidence (herein means the interviewee’s the researcher has no control over.1. evidence was collected. J. customer service level. and ‘‘how’’ questions as gains. overall productivity include ‘‘what’’. Thus. Yin. time. the construct validity of the case study could be more convincing and accurate. ERP system implementation and use on the Yin. and/or ob- implementation. Validity and reliability success. and fied as a failure.6. Multiple-case study research design by using replication logic of the same interview protocol in multiple-case studies. By its definition. The dimensions of theoretical propositions. several methods or steps a few entities (people. these circumstances 1994). the implementation is classi. open-ended marked as negative. the validity and information on organizational performance in stability of the findings’’ (Miles and Huberman.6. busi.  How can an ERP systems implementation be ness processes integration. Research methodology tion. especially when context is impor. or organizations) are taken. interviews. second. etc. a process of triangula- 4.2. 1994).. and the realization of following: specific ERP implementation objectives. the research is responses) and also indicate the circumstances largely exploratory and it addresses the ‘‘how’’ and (the four ERP user firms) under which the ‘‘why’’ questions (Benbasat et al. Contrary to common misconception that this study it is adapted as the effect of the case studies provide little basis for scientific implementation and use of an ERP system on generalization. intended  Why are these factors critical for successful ERP business performance improvement could serve as implementation in China? an ERP implementation success measure. Production Economics 98 (2005) 56–80 67 3. archive records. focused interviews. the external A case study examines a phenomenon in its validity of the information collected can be natural setting. Research questions of this study organization’s operating cost. Most  How can ERP systems be implemented success- ERP adopters set performance objectives of the fully in China? ERP projects which include cost reduction. 1987. Organizational impact the methodological rigor of the study through Organizational impact concerns the effect of ‘‘strengthening the precision. cost. multiple measures of the same phenomenon in each setting resulting in the development of converging lines of inquiry. ‘‘why’’. Since a mix of measures is used to evaluate whether an ERP system implementation is a 4. 1994). Zhang et al. DeLone and McLean’s IS success model and in 1994). portions of the case study database are made by case study research is well suited to the study of IS citing specific documents. observations. 4. Moreover. groups. Intended business performance improvement systems implementation success in China? Based on White et al.4.

four firms concerning the IT infrastructure before tocol is translated into Chinese and the transcripts implementing the ERP system. and the IV ERP package no more than 2 years. Moreover. With coding scheme and We define an ERP user company as one that has codes formulated according to the research frame- installed at least the basic modules of the three work proposed and its components on hands. After modules are manufacturing. Since the transcripts obtained from the subjects are mainly audio files recorded and they are 4. belonged allow the researcher to compare the ERP Table 2 illustrates the differences between the system implementation issues. Atlas/ti program assists the researcher to finish the coding process visually in an efficient The target ERP user companies are obtained at way. The unit condensed into one code in this process according of analysis is the selected ERP user company. some codes can be recalling past implementation process. which could use tempted to switch its small ERP system to a standard statistics software to accurately analyze larger and more powerful ERP system to keep the collected data according to the formerly competence. finally. they major integral parts of Baan ERP system. new dimensions can be found manager) are interviewed. the ultimate ‘‘chain of River Delta area (Cases A and B) and the Yangtze evidence’’ is built and the reliability of the River Delta area (Cases C and D). Finally. sales and distribution. Both digital recorder and tape recorder quite well. respectively. Zhang et al. Meanwhile. but was incapable of processing large were used to avoid contingency conditions. we focus on returned back to the relevant interviewees for their four ERP user companies that implemented Baan confirmation via emails and post mails. a the software of ATLAS/ti to assist data analysis.4. amount of data. Subjects of the case study repeatedly listened to ensure no omissions and written down in paper. From the preliminary tables on success factors and measures recommended ERP user companies. These deliverables are the criteria of the research.3. Data collection sentences. These are entered into the program of Atlas/ti. Thus. J. to show that the data collection followed the involves more text work. one or two persons dimensions of the proposed framework to be who participated their firms’ ERP system imple. Production Economics 98 (2005) 56–80 and questions contained in the case study proto. information in the case studies can be increased. project viewees’ responses. we got the the recommendation of Baan Company. which leads to the each of these ERP companies. through reviewing inter- mentation as a major team member (CIO. The interview pro. Companies B and C bought an MRP II package and ERP system. we screen based on the interviewees’ responses and data them and delete those companies that did not meet analysis as deliverables. ARTICLE IN PRESS 68 Z. The same final confirmed ones come into being as illustrated company size and the same business industry in the following sections. the ERP system installed typed into Atlas/ti and make correlations between should have gone live no more than 2 years for the the sentences and the specific codes. that. reading of the protocol should indicate the link The four cases selected and interviewed are located between the content of the protocol and the initial in the richest areas of Mainland China. qualitative research col. After the coding process. The coding reasons of personnel change and difficulty of process is an iterative one. In this research. Data analysis order to exchange data with its overseas head- quarters and branches while Company C at- Unlike quantitative research. and added to the framework easily in this process since no relevant codes can be linked to the 4. These three firms had very good . Company A are back translated into English to be coded and developed an MRP system in-house that runs analyzed. the Pearl study questions. proposed research model. we use procedures stipulated in the protocol. consolidated. / Int. In to interviewees’ responses. Company B had to update its MRP II system in 5. the manuscripts translated into English are and finance.

average positive impact. IT infrastructure. and C Table 3 illustrates the extent to which different recognized the importance of using ERP systems factors proposed have affected Baan IV system to maintain their competitive advantage. strong negative impact. average negative impact. Company D had which indicates the future problems with the no ISs installed and computer usage was very ERP system implementation. the researchers determined while Company D’s top management did not relationships in Table 3 first and post mailed back recognize the ERP’s role in business and was them to all subjects for correction. J. above relationships were confirmed by all subjects. strong positive impact. ARTICLE IN PRESS Z. Companies A. limited. Based on ERP system was implemented by the ERP vendor. and C. Weak positive impact. Zhang et al. Unfortunately. no were inexperienced with the Baan IV system. However. ++.8 1 IT infrastructure MRP system was MRP II system installed ERP system installed No ISs used developed in-house ISO certificate conditions ISO 9001 ISO 9001 ISO 9002 ISO 9002 Reasons to adopt ERP Incremental change Incremental change Top-down strategy Top-down by dictate Implementation service provider The ERP vendor The ERP vendor The ERP vendor The vendor’s partner ERP package implemented Baan IV Baan IV Baan IV Baan IV Table 3 Cross case effects matrix Factors’ effects on ERP implementation Case A Case B Case C Case D Top management support +++ +++ +++ + Company-wide support +++ +++ +++ Business process reengineering ++ + ++ +++ Effective project management +++ +++ +++ +++ Organizational culture + +++ +++ Education and training +++ +++ +++ + User involvement +++ +++ +++ + User characteristics +++ +++ +++ ERP software suitability +++ +++ +++ +++ Information quality +++ +++ +++ +++ System quality +++ +++ +++ +++ ERP vendor quality +++ +++ +++ +. Moreover. a third party was invited to In terms of the 12 factors’ impact on the Baan IV implement the ERP system whose consultants system implementations in the four firms. . negative impact was found in Cases A. +++. B. finally the forced to implement an ERP system as a trial site. / Int. . . . The implementations in the four firms. weak negative impact. B. interviewees’ responses. Production Economics 98 (2005) 56–80 69 Table 2 ERP implementation background comparison Background dimensions Case A Case B Case C Case D Industry Home appliance Electronics Electronics Home appliance Number of staff 1000 900 400 400 Ownership State owned JV (Canadian) JV (German) State owned Sales revenue (billions RMB) 2 2 0.

BPR. culture. According to Hofstede (2001). While the closed system discourages infor. between departments is limited and orders are ment information updated timely as much as passed verbally. information quality. Zhang et al. which results in low accountabil- possible. and tightly controlled mentations except two factors. Thus. impact of organizational culture and ERP vendor Based on the subjects’ responses (see Table 4). which necessitates relatively little change on system implementation. ERP systems require ity recourse. such system regards information as proprietary. professional Professional Professional Professional Parochial Open vs. which of effective project management. focus on open. The characteristics of Company D’s system timely. Baan IV. tight control system due to small ERP system. closed. Both Wes. Thus. management support. which maybe a its management reform in past several years. Communication inventory. ERP soft- means only local ERP implementation conditions ware suitability. BPR and organiza. and procure. and loose control impact of user characteristics. weak negative impact of company-wide support these three dimensions have a negative effect on IT on the ERP system implementation. / Int. production scheduling. and system are considered. quality. organiza- level of average positive impact since Case A is a tional culture in Companies B and C has very state-owned enterprise that may need more BPR strong and positive effect on ERP system imple- effort before or during the ERP program. Company D is a state-owned enterprise that While ERP operation requires high degree of relies on top managers’ personal experience and information sharing across departments to ensure intuition to make decisions. which show a perfect fit between the tional culture. D. evidence the current business processes to update to the shows that two ‘‘ ’’ signs of strong negative ERP system of Baan Company. FourthShift. Moreover. and one ‘‘ ’’ of system climate. deployment success. inexperienced with Baan IV implementation and it Table 4 Cross case matrix on three dimensions of organizational culture Dimensions of organizational culture concerned Case A Case B Case C Case D Parochial vs. only installed the MRP II system of Baan product Company D shows negative impact on Baan IV series. Furthermore. Thus. Since the third party was quite advanced organizational culture. one ‘‘ ’’ sign of adequate negative Case D has parochial. J. also affects ERP system implementation posi- the business processes need to be changed for Baan tively. and mation sharing among team members. Cases A and C have the same organizational cultures and the ERP system impact of BPR on the ERP implementation at the implementation requirements. closed system Open system Open system Open system Closed system Loose vs. and accurate. professional. Production Economics 98 (2005) 56–80 In these three companies. Furthermore. While Company A is neutral in the is a joint venture (JV) that had installed a relatively dimension of loose vs. Company B is a JV that had Among the four companies interviewed. education and training. People tend to be tolerant of unclear timely data input to ensure end product of the information. This little different from the large one. culture affected the ERP system implementation Both Companies B and C are JVs that have strongly and negatively. most factors have strong tern organizational culture and ERP products positive impacts on the Baan IV system imple. Case C mentation. IV implementation. Parochial culture focuses on only five ‘‘+++’’ signs of strong positive impact local competition rather than external. ARTICLE IN PRESS 70 Z. useful. people in user involvement exist. it is difficult for Case D to quality on Baan IV implementation in Company adopt advanced technology to improve its compe. tight control system Neutral Tight control Tight control Loose control . Three ‘‘+’’ of weak positive impact of top tence.

and loose vs. sions. Company C with IT deployment in general and ERP imple- shows strong evidence in organizational impact mentations in specific than the other three dimen- and intended business performance improvement. / Int. culture as the and the remaining B and D show weak satis. tation success. the Moreover. Since the IT project could be classified as a failure due to the usage level in Company D was quite low and it is fact of its suspension of use. Company C. and all the four propositions get support from the faction with the ERP system implementation study (see Table 3). It is the top-down dictate from ments. three Company A shows strong evidence in the other dimensions of organizational culture including three proposed success measures of individual parochial vs. by this study. organizational impact. the From above analysis. which made the top management in the complicated ERP system implementation Company D simply to accept the order and adopt results. in order to obtain ERP systems implemen- conclusions that even though Companies A. key user characteristics was another factor that developed its own success measures of a quasi- affected the ERP project negatively. Based on Hofstede (2001). of these firms. Zhang et al. tight control are more closely linked ness performance improvement. However. B. ARTICLE IN PRESS Z. Western countries are applicable to China context Both Companies A and C show adequate satis. evaluate its ERP implementation result. Furthermore. While the Oliver White’s ABCD Classification Scheme to department heads’ unwillingness to provide sup. open vs. However. They did not recognize its importance of applying an ERP system in their company and consequently they did not give enough support to this big project. of using the ERP system. They simply formulated ERP implemen- education and training and user involvement tation objectives at the very beginning of the ERP were not strongly supported by either the vendor project when analyzing their business require- or the key users. those objectives would be too the headquarter that decides to adopt the ERP broad. data/information. we could draw Thus. Chinese enterprises should take and C achieved different level of evidence in the their organizational culture into account and try to proposed four areas of success measures. seriously. difficult to find the best key user candidates. The implementation service ERP system has been used as one integrated part quality was poor and affected the ERP imple. and intended busi. focuses on business processes Company D shows weak evidence in all the four and inter-department cooperation. However. This study explains and From Appendix B we present the interviewees’ confirms that critical success factors identified in opinions about the ERP implementation results. the ERP system. Discussion negative responses plus final suspension of Baan IV system even though it successfully went live. we get more detailed implementation of Baan IV system in Company D information about ERP systems implementation was a failure. unique critical success factor has been confirmed faction with the ERP system implementation. Based on the 6. Thus. Meanwhile. Company D’s ERP mentation strongly and negatively. Production Economics 98 (2005) 56–80 71 was the first time experience with system ERP projects could be said successes in that the implementation. only one company. closed system. Chinese people are more tolerant to unclear but adequate evidence in individual impact. J. issues in China context. relying more on personal experience. However. which is in- proposed success measures with further suspension compatible to Chinese organizational culture. information. their change their culture to the modern management . professional. immeasurable and not suitable to evaluate system. the ERP performance improvement. but weak in user system deployment requires clear and accurate satisfaction and individual impact. impact. The other port and less attention on the ERP project three firms did not assess their ERP projects very also posed the negative impact. Company B shows adequate evidence in both keeping more information among themselves than organizational impact and intended business their Western counterparts.

This from this study provide support to the four framework could be applied into other countries propositions. As for the system quality in the ERP field. The system. mentation result. the other three com. Hamilton. it does affect an ERP fined in this study are quite comprehensive on system implementation especially in a fully differ- the one hand and concise on the other hand in ent cultural environment. However. the success measures de. quantifiable success measures. / Int. However. finally the This study derives its theoretical foundation system went live. in the environment of ERP implement an ERP system in Case D. Implications for academic researchers though Company D encountered many problems in implementing the ERP system. As for the success measures. to test its applicability. and the-shelf ERP package implemented in manufac- reasons to adopt ERP systems. Based on the fact that and used in many sites. only when the input data were correct implementation of Baan IV system in Case D can the end users get accurate output information. the ERP system from the Ives. between four environmental factors and ERP This study develops a conceptual framework system implementation success. Empirical evidence from that the four success measures can be used to this study suggests that organizational culture is an measure different aspects of an ERP system important unique factor for ERP system imple- implementation. Furthermore. Among the four turing enterprise. This conceptual with theoretical support from the IS field which research framework gets support from the above should be taken into consideration when research- two models and the empirical results obtained ers are studying ERP implementation issues. no MRP system was used in Case D product of an IS in DeLone and McLean’s only. and Davis’s IS eventually was suspended. which enable the packages most firms in China do not have specific and to be very mature and reliable. it panies did not have their own success measures.1. Of course. Zhang et al. ARTICLE IN PRESS 72 Z. Thus. IS success model. system implementation has been completed it is tions are developed based on the associations used in daily business. the variables of information quality and system Other factors that have been overlooked by quality from the DeLone and McLean’s success prior studies can be classified as critical success model should be modified greatly considering factors in China context such as existing IT the specific condition of a large mature off- infrastructure of the company. was classified as a failure. An ERP implementation success System use in this context means once the ERP framework has been developed and four proposi. mentation success. used in Western countries are applicable to China Organizational culture has been overlooked in context. it is natural that user firms. prior studies. which is definitely a research model and the DeLone and McLean’s failure case of ERP system implementations. we found that particularly. Information quality refers to companies. . Moreover. However. only Company C developed a set of the information output is timely. However. affects the ERP system implementation result. this study does play usefulness should be the first must for any ERP an important role in narrowing the gap of current package in that the ERP vendors have to update status of success measures shortage in China their ERP packages more frequently to survive enterprises and confirms that ERP success factors intense competition. J. system use should be another success measure in that even 6. since an ERP system is used in As for the success measures used in ERP organizations’ daily business. only the success measures like Oliver White’s ABCD integrity of raw input data in information quality Classification Scheme to evaluate its ERP imple. ownership. It is the order from the headquarter to model. also should be modified in that ERP system Companies A and B did not evaluate their ERP packages have been developed for many years implementations’ results. Production Economics 98 (2005) 56–80 requirements in terms of the three dimensions Based on the data analysis.

one person in the other three firms. the enterprise’s operational processes. BPR. reasons to adopt an ERP system. Baan IV. studying four ERP user firms that have imple- Meanwhile. We developed a conceptual research framework to guide the The implementation of a foreign ERP system research and four propositions concerning the in China’s firms involves the issue of orga. going live existing IT infrastructure. Zhang et al. Production Economics 98 (2005) 56–80 73 6. periodic status meeting minutes. searchers could focus on more specific areas such tical success factors should be given more atten. only in Case A two their business performance in that the ERP project interviewees’ cooperation is obtained and only is a large program that involves many people. as people resistance or organizational culture tion in these stages. Four ERP user firms were ship should be taken into consideration in selected and interviewed based on the same size China context. Implications for business practitioners as a success or a failure. The case study protocol could be used to that they could elevate their firm’s operational study different ERP packages implementation performance. 7. and time investment. Once the ERP project goes live. Following this map. The conceptual framework map to successful ERP system implementation could be used in other countries to test its and operation in China. and company owner. With correct available to accept the interview.2. and business industry. re- ERP project are classified and different cri. It would be evaluation of the ERP project. enterprises could ideal if more interviewees from different positions find where they should spend more time and within one firm could be available for the inter- effort to improve and what places they succeed so view. Conclusion Acknowledgements This study aims to improve understanding of both generic and unique critical factors that The authors are very grateful to two anonymous affect ERP implementation success in China and referees for their constructive and helpful com- establish measures to assess the extent to which ments which helped to improve the presentation of an ERP system implementation can be defined the paper considerably. J. and standardization of and ERP implementation success are developed. mented the same ERP system. responses. ARTICLE IN PRESS Z. The result of this research given more attention in China context in that Case study can contribute to both the academic field D selected a less experienced third-party consult. Qualitative research methodology is used in this tical success factors identified in Western countries study due to the research question. no more than 2 years. to examine variations between different ERP In Appendixes C and D. To make are confirmed applicable in China context and comparison possible. enterprises ERP implementation plans. The cri. ing firm to lead the ERP system implementation We collected much information from the four and the ERP project in Case D was classified as a ERP user companies including interviewees’ failure. / Int. we recommend a systems and vendors. and ERP project should evaluate its implementation result to proposals drafted by the Baan Company for see what the ERP system could do to improve triangulation. . associations between the proposed critical factors nizational culture. is money. ERP vendor quality should be and business industry. great. however. Three stages of an applicability by further studies. the researcher uses one set of culture is an important unique factor when an case study protocol and interview questions in ERP system is implemented in Chinese firms. respectively. Moreover. the impact within one firm so that more detailed and chance to succeed in adopting and implementing in-depth information or deep-rooted failure rea- an ERP system in China context can be improved sons could be identified.

Zhang et al. Bingi Burns and Cox and Hong and Malbert Theoretical and success measures et al. 74 Appendix A Concept matrix: Critical success factors and ERP success measures mentioned in the literature Critical success factors Al-Mashari Ang et al. (2003) (1994. support Z. Production Economics 98 (2005) 56–80 2002) (1999) (1991) (1984) (2003) Top management support O O O O No Clear goals and objectives O No Company-wide support O O No O O O ARTICLE IN PRESS Communication No Visibility of implementation O No Training and education O O O O O No Vendor support O O O No BPR O O O O O No Suitability of hardware and O O O O No software Project management O O O O No Data accuracy and integrity O O O O No Company expertise in IT O O O No User characteristics O O O O No User participation O O O O No Cultural fit O O No Success measures User satisfaction O O O No Intended business performance O O No improvement White’s ABCD Classification O No Scheme On time O O O No Within budget O O O No System acceptance and usage O No Predetermined corporate goals O No continued on next page . / Int. et al. Turnipseed Clark Kim (2002) et al. 1995. J.

) Critical success factors Mandal and Motwani Markus Sum Umble White Wilson Yusuf Theoretical and success measures Gunasekaran et al. et al.Appendix A (contd. et al. et al. Zhang et al. et al. et al. Production Economics 98 (2005) 56–80 Training and education No Vendor support O O O No BPR O O O O No Suitability of hardware and O O O No software ARTICLE IN PRESS Project management O O O No Data accuracy and integrity O O No Company expertise in IT O No User characteristics O No User participation O No Cultural fit O O No Success measures User satisfaction O O O No Intended business performance O O O O No improvement White’s ABCD Classification O No Scheme On time No Within budget No System acceptance and usage O No Predetermined corporate goals O O O No 75 . et al. support (2002) (2002) (2000) (1997) (2003) (1982) (1994) (2004) Top management support O O O O No Clear goals and objectives O O No Company-wide support O O O No Communication O No Visibility of implementation O No O O O O Z. / Int. J.

ABCD Classification objectives.5 years No time frame No time frame 8:8 months actual time Suggested success 1. / Int. Top management could decrease. and customer service decreased. Zhang et al. 24 h/day. 1:1. Production Economics 98 (2005) 56–80 success measure Strong Adequate Weak Strong Adequate Weak Strong Adequate Weak Strong Adequate Weak User satisfaction O O O O Individual impact O O O O ARTICLE IN PRESS Organizational impact O O O O Intended business O O O O improvement Planned budget vs. manufacturing 2. etc. The ERP system 3. shorter.5 millions RMB actual costs (1 USD=8. 2. J. account does not represent operational performance became shorter. No budget: 3 millions RMB No fixed budget No fixed budget N/A: 1. User satisfaction. and 4. 2. ERP implementation measures 1.3 RMB) Planned time vs. Inventory level did Scheme. receivables a success. 76 Appendix B ERP implementation success measures matrix ERP implementation Case A Case B Case C Case D Z. manufacturing should be one of are cultivated to maintain lead-time became the firm’s integrated the ERP system. Quasi-Oliver White’s 1. 2. ERP going live monitor organizational lead-time also lowered. flow than before. Capable ERP experts level improved. Inventory level 3. parts. . More efficient information were used. No success measures 1.

Production Economics 98 (2005) 56–80 ARTICLE IN PRESS 77 . J. / Int.Appendix C A recommended map to successful ERP system implementation and operation in China Z. Zhang et al.

78 Appendix D Impact of critical success factors across successful ERP system implementation stages Z. / Int. Production Economics 98 (2005) 56–80 ARTICLE IN PRESS . Zhang et al. J.

1999. Thousand Densley. 259–273. Information systems nology 15. The magnificent 7.M. Hobbs. Garrity.R. Jossey-Bass. N.. 1990.. J. Baroudi.... Bingi. tional Journal of Operations and Production Management Hampshire. Interna.. M. 30–36. organizational culture in a multi-system view of technology. The implementation of impact of user involvement on system usage and infor. 1986.H. J. P. M. Man.. 1994. J. Management 16.. Petrie.. 63–70. Strategy and Organization 31. Development of a tool for Ives. 528–538. K.. J. 2001. MRP II company Nations. P.F. D.N. Sum. 33–50.. Measurement. from adopters’ experiences with ERP: Problems encoun- 81–101. 11. V. 5–19.. G... D. Davis. 59–65.. E. J. K... Sum. Al-Mudimigh. Critical success factors in MIS Quarterly 13. 369–386. Application of SAP R/3 in Beijing. getting the biggest bang Oaks. / Int. Critical success Hong.E. Management Science 26. enterprise resource planning packages in different organiza- mation satisfaction. A. process. Communications of the ACM 43..V.. S. Champy. M. A framework for measuring and analyzing computer user satisfaction... 1991.... Behaviors.. from two case studies.. Sum.. A.. M. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Journal of Operational Research 146..W. tional and national cultures. J. Clark. Duchessi. M.. Idea Group Publishing.. Ang. Sage. Maiden. G. 1992.C. C. Schaninger. Yang. Organizational Culture and Leadership. Sanders.C. Values.. MA.. Communications of the ACM 29. Lee. profile and implementation problems: A Singapore experi. M. S. CCID Consulting. I. Mirchandani.. resource planning: A taxonomy of critical factors. Communications of the Quarterly 11. J. C. Bailey. Tanis. Learning system. A. E. 47–55. computing satisfaction. 77–83. Madan.B.C. Huberman.K. Contextual ele- system. on-line inventory control. C. 2003–2004 Annual Report on 302–314.. The measurement of end-user Economics 75.. J. 352–364. Holland. research in computer-based management information sys- agement Science 29. S. Imple. 530–545.. 35–45. 2003.S. D. 2002. Kim. 2000. The case Kumar. Sharma. E. 245–261. ACM 33. CCID Consulting Company. Zhang et al.. London. 245–265.. S. N. J. Yeo. sixth ed.S. International Journal of Production Doll. Journal of Information Tech- Delone... M. Enterprise resource planning: Managing the implementation agement 21.M. J. Bjorn-Anderson. B. Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook.J.B. Sage. Benbasat. driven change. Qualitative Data Systems Research 3. 1994. M.K. 60–95. from the ERP buck. 2003.. New York. An empirical study of the Krumbholz.M. B. ERP experiences and affecting an ERP implementation. Hamilton. Critical success factors ence. 1999.. 2001. Goldstein.C. MIS comparison of IS designer values. O. 185–204. 83–96. Soni. S. 2004. 1995. International Journal of Produc- Cox.. second ed. Chung.K. In: 11 International Workshop on Motwani. W. Cabrera. 1999. A multiple-case IDC.. Gunasekaran. Schein.. 232–238. 1987. 1978. M.. W. (1998–2003). Critical issues Kumar. Hershey. 1996. Turnipseed. The key role of of implementation. Axline. C.H.. Information and Management 40. G. 1998. 1988. success: The quest for the dependent variable. K. E. Empirical evidence for a descriptive model Cabrera.G.. M. 1992. International Journal of Information Man.... Enterprise Management Resource and Planning Systems 2002.F.S. manufacturing resource planning implementation. The critical success factors for factors in implementing MRP and government assistance. 2002. Harper Busi- Al-Mashari. ham. and Organizations across Ang. International Data Corporation. IEEE Software 16. pp. L.. Lock.. 1983. MIS Quarterly 2.J. Pearson.N.. 910–934. Institutions. W.K.J. Barajas. A. Godla. Torkzadeh.. Production Economics 98 (2005) 56–80 79 References Hammer. European Journal of Operational Research 146. 1984.S. 1980.. .F. Light. D. Journal of Management Information Systems 1. 1997.. J. Ang. Mandal. Information Miles. ments of critical success factors in MRP implementation. 1998. San Francisco. Lucas. C. European Hofstede. Burns. CA. Gower. Information Systems evolution. menting a manufacturing planning and control information Sum. Information Systems Success Production and Inventory Management Journal 38.R. 1989. Information and Management 29. Gunasekaran. Enterprise ness. Information Systems 26..C. Y. P. England..P.K. China ERP Software Market. 23–26.A. Project Management. 1989. tered and success achieved. Successful implementation of ERP projects: Evidence EMRPS.. 75–91. 25–40. 2002.. Problems in implementing and tion Economics 75. McLean. ARTICLE IN PRESS Z..K. C. K...L.. J. D.B. G. operating a manufacturing resource planning information Markus. Ang.. MIS Quarterly 12.S. 7–14.L.A.. 271–281. G. A cross-cultural research strategy in studies of information systems. Framing- Information and Management 39. C.. Venkataramanan. 27–41. Malbert. A scientific methodology for MIS case studies. A. Yeo. International Journal of Production Economics 34.. Reengineering the Corpora- tion: A Manifesto for Business Revolution. L.. model for ERP implementation.. 2000.. Worldwide Software Forecast Summary design methodology for studying MRP success and CSFs.K. 2001.. B. Mead. ERP implementation: An organizational fit perspective. Hillegersberg. Davis.K. A. A. D.J. H.. tems..K. Zairi.. 2001.

Abthorpe. R. 251–266.K.Y. ARTICLE IN PRESS 80 Z. Economics 87.. Audio and Video Press. Haft. / Int. E. 1998. Y. China Electronics of Operations Management 2.M. Zhu. Thousand Oaks. Enterprise White.C. European Journal of Operational Research 5. M.E. 2003. R. 145–153. J. 1994. Production Economics 98 (2005) 56–80 Umble. New Horizon of Management— 1982. British Journal of Management success factors. E.R. 1999. 59–63...H.K. 1994. H. White. Yusuf. cess? International Journal of Project Management 16.. Journal ERP and Supply Chain Management..M..J. Tupy. Gunasekaran. Enterprise Wilson. Manufacturing Resource Planning (MRP information systems project implementation: A case study II): Unlocking America’s Productivity Potential. O. Roberts.W. Beijing. 241–257. International Journal of Production Oliver Wight Limited Publications. 1984.. Zhang et al. A. Yin. Anderson..... Desmond.. J. 146. Ma. revised ed.G. Essex. M. of ERP in Rolls-Royce... J. 2004.. 221–240. How can IS/IT projects be measured for suc. A study of the MRP implementation process. R. Schroeder. J. Success and failure resource planning: Implementation procedures and critical of MRP II implementation. second ed. . G. F. Wateridge. S.. C. Sage.. Umble.. Case Study Research: Design and Methods.