Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Classification For Better Use of ERP Systems: Vale Rie Botta-Genoulaz, Pierre-Alain Millet
A Classification For Better Use of ERP Systems: Vale Rie Botta-Genoulaz, Pierre-Alain Millet
www.elsevier.com/locate/compind
Laboratoire PRISMa, INSA de Lyon, INSA-GI, bat Jules Verne, 19 Avenue Jean Capelle, 69621 Villeurbanne Cedex, France
Laboratoire PRISMa, INSA de Lyon, INSA-IF, bat Blaise Pascal, 7 Avenue Jean Capelle, 69621 Villeurbanne Cedex, France
Received 29 March 2004; received in revised form 14 December 2004; accepted 13 February 2005
Available online 14 July 2005
Abstract
Companies have invested considerable resources in the implementation of enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems. The
results initially expected have rarely been reached. The optimisation (or efficient use) of such information systems is nowadays
becoming a major factor for firms striving to reach their performance objectives. After presenting a synthesis of several studies
on ERP projects, we build on the findings of a French investigation into the assessment and optimisation of ERP performance. A
classification of company positions regarding their ERP use, based on both software maturity and strategic deployment
directions, and an improvement process are proposed. Industrial cases allow validation of this approach.
# 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Integrated information system; ERP; Improvement; Survey; Benchmarking
1. Introduction
During recent years, companies have invested
considerable resources in the implementation of
enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems. ERP is
a software package that attempts to integrate all
departments and functions of a company onto a single
computer system that can serve all different departments needs. Once the system is going on, the
question of measurement of the operational results
obtained remains. But it becomes apparent that
nowadays, results do not live up to managers
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 4 72 43 60 74;
fax: +33 4 72 43 85 38.
E-mail address: valerie.botta@insa-lyon.fr (V. Botta-Genoulaz).
0166-3615/$ see front matter # 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compind.2005.02.007
574
575
Table 1
Major companys motives
A (%)
B (%)
C (%)
32
45
88
67
35
45
53
50
n.a.
576
Table 2
Major module implemented
A (%)
B (%)
C (%)
78
90
84
83
60
83
87
87
62
61
72
100
96
86
62
legacy systems (4.11/5) and simplify and standardise systems (3.67/5), whereas restructure company organisation (2.7/5) and solve the Y2K
problem (2.48/5) had lower priority.
2.2.2. ERP module or functionality implemented
The modules the most frequently implemented deal
with purchasing and material management, sales,
production planning and control, and financials (see
Table 2). To a lesser extent, we find human resources
management (about 40%), quality management (about
45%), maintenance management (about 30%) and
R&D management (about 20%). Other functionalities
were expected but are still absent, such as customer
relationship or customer service management, and
business intelligence.
Surveys show that not all the companies opt for a
unique ERP vendor: according to A, a majority of
companies (85%) opted for a unique software
package; however, about 50% of them keep specific
tools to cover particular business or functional needs.
Mabert et al. reveal that small firms prefer a single
ERP package (56.6%), while large firms add other
systems to the single ERP package. Moreover, survey
A indicates that nearly half the firms had to adjust the
system on the main functionalities, which generated
an additional cost, about 12.3% of the budget.
Olhager and Selldin agreed with these findings.
They added information about the customisation effort
needed to match company requirements: the modules
that are related to the time-to-customer process are the
most frequently implemented but also the most
frequently customised. Kumar et al. clarified that
point: one of the major challenges an adopting
organisation faces while configuring an ERP system
is that software does not fit all their requirements [1].
About 44% were organisation specific, where the
software did not support the way the organisation
worked; for example, limited industry specific
Availability of information/quickened
information response time
Increased interaction across the enterprise,
integration of business operations/processes
Improved lead-time
Improved inventory levels and purchasing
Improved interaction with customers
Improved interaction with supplier
Reduced direct operating costs
A
(%)
B
(%)
C
(%)
55
71
n.a.
37
n.a.
n.a.
24
33
18
11
5
74
74
36
59
42
45
21
n.a.
n.a.
35
577
578
A project has now been launched in the RhoneAlpes region (France) to identify best practices of ERP
optimisation in companies, and their application
context. The aim is to propose a typology of these
post-go-live situations for small and medium-sized
firms.
3.1. Research methodology
A working group lead by Pole Productique RhoneAlpes has been created bringing together researchers,
consultants, and industry to undertake a qualitative
survey. The study was carried out between January and
March 2003 among 217 manufacturing companies in
the Rhone-Alpes region that have an ERP stabilised
for at least 1 year.
The survey questionnaire asked for information on
ERPimplementationandcurrent usein the company: the
respondents and the companys characteristics, the
ERP project characteristics and their initial contribution (motives, timelines, budgets, functionalities,
benefits, user satisfaction, . . .), organisational characteristics (during and after stabilisation), needs of
improvement/evolution and post-go-live diagnostic.
It was 10 pages long. Most questions in the survey
required multiple responses. The responses were
encoded using a mix of check boxes, open-ended
answers and a binary scale with yes or no responses.
The amount of open-ended questions allowed us
to appreciate numerous details but caused some
difficulties for the analysis.
After the initial development of the survey questionnaire, it was pre-tested with two respondents to
check its validity: the primary objective was to test
whether the instrument provided consistent and
accurate information. The mailing was sent out in the
middle of January 2003 to IT managers or CEOs
(managing director). Fourteen qualitative interviews
were conducted in parallel to guarantee response interpretation. By the end of March 2003, 35 responses had
been received, for an overall response rate of 16%. Given
the length and comprehensive nature of the survey, this
response rate was concluded to be reasonable.
3.2. Enterprise characteristics
The enterprise characteristics are summarised in
Table 4. The majority of the responding firms have an
Table 4
Sample description
No. of
firms
Branch of industry
Metallurgy, mechanics,
construction of machines
Components electric, electronic,
data processing
Manufacture of pieces of furniture,
articles of sports and various
Textile industry, clothing, leather and shoes
Industry of rubber and the plastics
Chemical and pharmaceutical industry
Others
12
6
5
4
3
2
3
4
16
15
Typology of production
MTS (make-to-stock)
MTO (make-to-order)
ATO (assembly-to-order)
74 a
74 a
54 a
Percentage of firms.
Table 5
Project characteristics depending on implementation strategy
Implementation strategy
Big-Bang
By stage
Average implementation
time (month)
20.56
26.14
81
9.5
9.5
0
25
37.5
37.5
0
54.5
45.5
0
25
75
0
50
86.4
68.4
50
25
100
50
75
579
Table 6
Differences between installed and used functions
Function
No. of firms
who install
No. of firms
who use
Forecasting/marketing
SOP/MPS
MRP
Planning/scheduling
Dispatching and transportation
Warehouse management
Quality
Maintenance
After sales service
Controlling
Business intelligence
17
24
28
27
28
20
18
15
14
27
13
16
22
27
25
27
19
16
14
12
26
12
Table 7
Benefits
% Expected
% Realised
% Expected/% realised
Direct benefits
Control of flows of goods
Information flows control
Financial flows control
Services/department opening up
Information reliability
Uniqueness of information
Organisation clarification
Common view across the company
70.0
76.7
73.3
50.0
83.3
86.7
36.7
60.0
70.0
73.3
63.3
50.0
66.7
80.0
43.3
46.7
100
96
86
100
80
92
118
78
76.7
83.3
80.0
70.0
46.7
56.7
43.3
66.7
70.0
40.0
74
52
83
100
86
580
Table 8
Traps in ERP projects
Table 10
Considered evolutions
Traps
Considered evolutions
40
43.3
20.0
16.7
16.7
16.7
30
30
23
20
19
13
13
13
30.0
23.3
16.7
13.3
13.3
581
Table 11
Classification of identified traps
Traps with ERP as a tool
Table 12
Classification of expected improvements
ERP tool improvement
Version/release migration
Authorisations control, data archiving,
quality and reliability of data
Data flow automation: B2B, WebEDI and bar-coding
Table 13
Classification of optimisation reasons
Malfunctioning
Improvement
Evolution
Evolution of needs
Technical evolution
of the ERP
582
Table 14
Axis of software maturity
Level
Alerts
Actions
Software mastery
Evolution
Outside integration: B to B
Bar-code integration
Version upgrade
Software maturity depreciation
583
Table 15
Axis of strategy deployment
Level
Alerts
Actions
Master-data control
Strategy support
These three optimisation stages allow us to characterise three situations (numbered 13), which are defined
below.
Situation 1 is described as a result of an operational
optimisation centred on the good use of what exists
(master the tools to master the data). To reach
situation 1, the information system is considered as a
tool of production and broadcasting of data.
Situation 2 is described as a result of a tactical
optimisation centred on the best integration of what
exists to allow a more effective use (improve ERP use
for better control on the processes). To reach this
situation 2, the information system is considered as a
support for the control of company operational
processes.
Situation 3 is defined as the maximal use of the
information system focused on a strategic optimisation leading to modification the positioning of the
existing ERP in the information system strategy. The
information is then a real component in defining the
strategy of the company.
584
585
586
6. Conclusions
The stakes in control of integrated systems cannot
be limited to the phases of implementation or
deployment. Better use of these information systems
drives companies to new organisations and to
continuous adaptation of company strategy. It should
help in the (re)evaluation of the positioning of the ERP
in the information system to identify relevant
improvement actions in a given situation.
From practices noticed in companies and from
results of various surveys, we propose a classification
of ERP use characterised by three stages of
optimisation described on two axes. This leads to a
three-stage optimisation process: operational (the
information system is considered as a production
and data broadcasting tool), tactical (control of the
operational processes for a better integration between
functions) and strategic (contributing to company
strategy in response to changes and evolutions).
References
[1] T.H. Davenport, Putting the enterprise into the enterprise
system, Harvard Business Review (1998) 121131.
[2] S. Buckhout, E. Frey, J. Nemec, Making ERP succeed: turning
fear into promise, Journal of Strategy and Business, Technology 15 (1999) 6072 (Reprint No. 99208).
[3] H. Klaus, R. Rosemann, G. Gable, What is ERP? Information
Systems Frontiers 2 (2000) 141162.
[4] V. Botta-Genoulaz, P.-A. Millet, G. Neubert, The role of
enterprise modeling in ERP implementation, in: International
Conference on Industrial Engineering and Production Management (IEPM01), Proceedings Book I August 2023, 2001,
Quebec, Canada, 2001, pp. 220231.
[5] R. Poston, S. Grabski, Financial impacts of enterprise resource
planning implementations, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 2 (2001) 271294.
[6] P. Rajagopal, An innovationdiffusion view of implementation of enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems and development of a research model, Information & Management 40
(2002) 87114.
[7] G. Saint Leger, G. Neubert, L. Pichot, Projets ERP: incidence
des specificites des entreprises sur les Facteurs Cles de Succe`s,
in: Proceedings of AIM 2002, Hammamet, Tunisia, 30 Mai1
Juin, 2002.
[8] M. Al-Mashari, A. Al-Mudimigh, M. Zairi, Enterprise
resource planning: a taxonomy of critical factors, European
Journal of Operational Research 146 (2003) 352364.
[9] M. Bradford, J. Florin, Examining the role of innovation
diffusion factors on the implementation success of enterprise
resource planning systems, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 4 (2003) 205225.
[10] V.-A. Mabert, A. Soni, M.-A. Venkataramanan, Enterprise
resource planning: managing the implementation process,
European Journal of Operational Research 146 (2003) 302
314.
[11] P.-A. Millet, V. Botta-Genoulaz, Differences between service
and manufacturing organizations regarding ERP, in: International Conference on Industrial Engineering Production
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
587