This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
A comprehensive literature review of the ERP research ﬁeld over a decade
Bjarne Rerup Schlichter
Aarhus School of Business, University of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark, and
Received July 2009 Revised November 2009 Revised January 2010 Accepted February 2010
Centre for IS Management, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is ﬁrst, to develop a methodological framework for conducting a comprehensive literature review on an empirical phenomenon based on a vast amount of papers published. Second, to use this framework to gain an understanding of the current state of the enterprise resource planning (ERP) research ﬁeld, and third, based on the literature review, to develop a conceptual framework identifying areas of concern with regard to ERP systems. Design/methodology/approach – Abstracts from 885 peer-reviewed journal publications from 2000 to 2009 have been analysed according to journal, authors and year of publication, and further categorised into research discipline, research topic and methods used, using the structured methodological framework. Findings – The body of academic knowledge about ERP systems has reached a certain maturity and several different research disciplines have contributed to the ﬁeld from different points of view using different methods, showing that the ERP research ﬁeld is very much an interdisciplinary ﬁeld. It demonstrates that the number of ERP publications has decreased, and it indicates that the academic interest in ERP is driven by an interest in an empirical phenomenon rather than that ERP is a new research discipline. Different research topics of interest are identiﬁed and used in developing a conceptual framework for “areas of concern” regarding ERP systems. Finally the usefulness of the framework is conﬁrmed by analysing one speciﬁc aspect of ERP research; business process reengineering (BPR) to establish which theories different authors and journals have used in their efforts to explore BPR and ERP. Research limitations/implications – The ﬁndings of the literature study, the structured methodological framework for comprehensive literature review and the conceptual framework identifying different areas of concern are believed to be useful for other researchers in their effort to obtain an overview of the evolution of the ERP research ﬁeld and in positioning their own ERP research. Practical implications – The paper provides guidance for researchers with insight into what has been published, where to publish ERP-related research and how to study it, and in positioning their own interest in ERP systems in the interdisciplinary research ﬁeld. Access to the EndNote database containing bibliographical data of more than 880 papers can be used in future research and literature analysis. For managers, the conceptual framework can be useful in increasing their understanding of the complexity and areas of concern with regard to the ERP system. Originality/value – The paper presents a structured methodological framework for analysing a vast amount of academic publications with an interest in an empirical phenomenon, demonstration of how academic interdisciplinary interest in ERP has evolved over time and reached a certain amount of maturity and a conceptual framework of areas of concern with regard to ERP systems. Keywords Manufacturing resource planning, Literature, Research Paper type Literature review
Journal of Enterprise Information Management Vol. 23 No. 4, 2010 pp. 486-520 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1741-0398 DOI 10.1108/17410391011061780
1. Introduction An enterprise resource planning (ERP) system is a business management system that comprises integrated sets of comprehensive software, which can be used to manage and integrate all the business functions within an organisation with a rationalised data architecture characterised by core process integration and shared product and/or customer databases (Ross et al., 2006). Among the most important attributes of ERP are its abilities to automate and integrate business processes, enable the implementation of best business practices, share common data and practices across the entire enterprise and produce and access information in real time (Soh et al., 2000; Nah and Lau, 2001), and often the implementation of ERP has been linked to business process re-engineering (BPR) (Koch, 2001a; Subramoniam et al., 2009). During the 1990s ERP systems became the de-facto standard for the replacement of legacy systems in large companies, particularly multinationals (Shanks, 2000). During the past decade ERP has attracted attention from both academic and industrial communities (Shehab et al., 2004) and we feel that now is an opportune time to ask how the ERP ﬁeld has evolved and what its present state is (Chen and Hirschheim, 2004). However, several scholars have already argued that research on ERP has reached some maturity (Botta-Genoulaz et al., 2005; Møller, 2005) and others have argued that the studies in ERP systems constitute a separate research domain (Møller, 2005). None of these researchers seem to have statistical documentation for their statements, and we would like to investigate whether they are right. This will be accomplished through a comprehensive literature study of more than 885 peer-reviewed journal publications published from 2000 to 2009. We have chosen to analyse papers published in various disciplines and journals, and have not limited ourselves to papers published “only” on, e.g. information systems, accounting and operation management. The aim is to assist scholars with an insight not just into their own scientiﬁc ﬁeld but also into complementary ﬁelds for views on the research related to ERP systems (Botta-Genoulaz et al., 2005). An extensive number of papers have included literature studies focusing on speciﬁc aspects of ERP, e.g. business process re-engineering (BPR) (Subramoniam et al., 2009), critical success factors for the implementation of ERP (Al-Mashari, 2001; Nah and Lau, 2001; Al-Mashari et al., 2003), systems justiﬁcation (McGaughey and Angappa, 2007), risk management (Aloini et al., 2007) and management accounting (Rom and Rohde, 2006), where papers are analysed according to established frameworks. However, only a limited number of literature reviews have been carried out on the ERP research ﬁeld (Esteves and Pastor, 2001; Møller et al., 2004; Shehab et al., 2004; Botta-Genoulaz et al., 2005). These reviews have either focused on papers published in certain disciplines (Esteves and Pastor, 2001; Cumbie et al., 2005; Esteves and Bohorquez, 2007), only included papers within limited and/or out-dated time frames (Botta-Genoulaz et al., 2005) or not made their method for collecting papers to be included in the review explicit to the reader (Shehab et al., 2004). Even though these reviews bring about some insight into the ERP ﬁeld, none of the reviews focused on the entire ERP ﬁeld until 2009. The purpose of this paper is threefold. The ﬁrst objective is to develop a methodological framework for conducting a comprehensive literature study on an empirical phenomenon based on a vast amount of papers published over a long time span across disciplines. The second objective is to use this framework to gain an understanding of the current state of the ERP ﬁeld across established disciplines
Review of the ERP research ﬁeld 487
(Hirschheim and Klein, 2003). The third objective is, based on the literature review, to develop a conceptual framework identifying areas of concern in regard to ERP systems. The paper is organised as follows. In section 2 we present existing literature studies on ERP systems to position our own literature study, clarifying which questions we would like to address. In section 3 the methodology framework for carrying out the literature study is presented. In the section 4 the ﬁndings of the review are presented; the ﬁndings are discussed and the conceptual framework presented in section 5; and ﬁnally suggestions for further analysis of the papers included in the review are outlined and the implications for research and praxis presented in the concluding section 6 of the paper. 2. Previous literature studies on ERP In this section the existing literature review studies until 2009 will be presented. The purpose of this section is to position our literature review with regard to existing knowledge about the ERP ﬁeld, and to formulate speciﬁc research questions to be asked and issues to be discussed on the basis of our ﬁndings. After an individual presentation of the ﬁve ERP literature review publications that we have been able to ﬁnd, we will discuss the methods used and the shortcomings of the publications with regard to the ability of the papers to give an overview of the ERP ﬁeld (see Table I). The ﬁrst review we have been able to ﬁnd was published in August 2001 (Esteves and Pastor, 2001). This paper presents an annotated bibliography of ERP publications published in ten main IS journals and eight IS conferences during the period 1997-2000. A total of 189 publications are included in the study, of which only a minor portion is journal publications – 21 in total: two were published in 1998, three in 1999 and 16 in 2000. The publications identiﬁed in this paper originate from a small number of sources and were at that time quite recent. The publications analysed show that ERP researchers mainly concentrated on issues related to the implementation phase of the ERP life cycle. Until then the other phases had been almost forgotten. The authors conclude their paper by stating that ERP systems offer many potential areas for research and, due to their pervasive nature, ERP systems are of interest to a wide range of scholarly disciplines (from software engineering to accounting), in addition to the IS ﬁeld. They also suggest that ERP research could or should be interdisciplinary and that the number of publications would grow exponentially in 2001 and 2002. In their review of 76 ERP publications, Shehab et al. (2004) classify the literature according to selection and implementation, and major extracts of each paper are
Year 1 2 3 4 5 2001 2004 2005 2005 2007 2010
Author Esteves and Pastor (2001) Shehab et al. (2004) Botta-Genoulaz et al. (2005) Cumbie et al. (2005) Esteves and Bohorquez (2007) The present review
Papers 189 76 80 49 640 885
Span 1997-2000 1990-2003 2003-2004 1999-2004 1001-2005 2000-2009
Frame Annotated bibliography Selection/implementation Identiﬁes six areas of research Implementation/operation/beneﬁt Life cycle Topic/discipline/method
Table I. Earlier literature reviews
Another point of criticism is that the reader is not provided with an insight into how the numbers are reduced from 250 to 80. Of the publications. since no information is provided as to why these particular shortcomings are mentioned and not others. optimisation. Shehab et al. (2005) use web search facilities to identify publications to be included. the remaining papers were published in the period from 2000 to 2003.addressed and analysed. operation and beneﬁts. They ﬁnd an increasing level of activity during the ﬁve-year period. The review presents a well-structured method for collecting and analysing the publications. another that ERP captures the attention of several research disciplines. (2005) analyse 49 ERP publications published between 1999 and 2004 in eight top information systems (IS) journals and seven top operations management (OM) journals with the aim of identifying gaps and motivating other researchers to close such gaps. management through ERP. Included in the review are 76 publications – ﬁve books. (2004) do not present the method for selection of the publications included in the review. Additionally. They analyse 49 ERP publications published in the journals chosen according to both content and methods. we will question whether the study does give an overview of the ERP ﬁeld. The authors conclude their paper by identifying shortcomings in the literature on issues of interest to the authors. but only publications published in top journals. In their paper the method used for selecting the publications is presented. classiﬁcation and analysis and synthesis. from two Review of the ERP research ﬁeld 489 . 28 focused on implementation. 14 on operation and seven on beneﬁts. At the same time they ﬁnd very few multi-disciplinary studies. 15 in total. During their analysis of the publications. we question the validity of the identiﬁed shortcomings. From their analysis they draw several conclusions. one being that ERP research is published in a variety of journals. using well-documented methods in three phases: selection. However. Botta-Genoulaz et al. eight conference papers and 63 journal publications published from 1990 to 2003. In their ﬁrst selection round of publications they ﬁnd 250 publications. (2005) published a survey on research literature on ERP systems from 2003 and 2004 in which they analyse 80 academic contributions from various disciplines in order to identify the trends of the research literature. or just an overview of publications and disciplines randomly selected by the authors themselves. they selected six different areas for classiﬁcation of the publications: implementation. which they state have constituted a rather consistent framework for classifying the publications. The aim of the paper is to identify fruitful opportunities for further research within ERP. Even though this study provides the reader with an overview of the ERP ﬁeld in 2003 and 2004. this number is reduced to 80 publications to be included in the analysis. no method for excluding the 170 publications is presented in the paper. and also that several research methods are either underrepresented or absent. three general areas emerge: implementation. we ﬁnd that only nine of these papers were published before 2000. Taking a closer look at the references. Cumbie et al. the ERP tools. In order to structure their analysis of the 80 publications. and the authors state that they hope that their paper can reinforce the ongoing research on ERP and provide a broad view of the current status in ERP research. with a slightly biased distribution of ERP publications in IS journals compared with OM journals. Botta-Genoulaz et al. which leads us to question whether the paper actually does provide an overview of the literature in general. ERP and supply-chain management software and case studies.
None of the existing literature reviews include publications published after 2005. In the review we will answer and address the following questions: (1) How many peer-reviewed publications have been published each year and how has the ﬁeld evolved? (2) Which journals have published ERP peer-reviewed publications and which have published the highest number of publications? (3) Which authors have contributed the most? (4) Which disciplines have contributed to the ERP ﬁeld? (5) Which topics have been studied? (6) Which methods have been used? We also discuss the questions raised below: (7) (8) (9) (10) Is it fair to state that the ERP ﬁeld has matured? Is the ERP research ﬁeld a new research discipline? Is the ERP research ﬁeld an interdisciplinary ﬁeld? Is it possible to develop a conceptual framework for important issues in regard to ERP systems to be used by researchers and practitioners interested in ERP systems? (11) Is the methodological framework usable to analyse a speciﬁc aspect of ERP. and only look at the IS discipline. They classify the papers according to topic. The goal of their study is to provide an updated annotated bibliography of ERP publications categorising the publications through an ERP life-cycle framework structured in phases. They further suggest that ERP-related research could and should be interdisciplinary. Additionally. e. and not only the ﬁeld of IS. providing the reader with only a limited overview of the ﬁeld. 15 on acquisition. will be presented in the following. BPR? The methodology used for conducting the literature study. zero on retirement. Of the publications. leaving a knowledge gap about the entire ERP ﬁeld. Esteves and Bohorquez (2007) state that ERP systems offer potential areas for research and. which leaves the ERP ﬁeld with a knowledge gap about publications published from 2005 onwards.g. . 207 on implementation. 35 on education and ﬁnally 40 publications were categorised as general: papers not related to the ERP life cycle. 25 are categorised as focusing on adoption. 59 on evolution. and the review does not provide an overview of the ERP research ﬁeld.JEIM 23. 68 on usage. due to their pervasive nature. none of the reviews provide an overview of the total number of academic journal publications regardless of and/or across research disciplines. Esteves and Bohorquez (2007) categorise 640 publications mainly published in 23 IS journals and ten IS conferences from 2001 to 2005 through an ERP life-cycle-based framework. ERP systems are of interest to a wide range of professional and scholarly disciplines (from software engineering to accounting). making it possible to answer and address the above questions. Our review sets out to ﬁll this gap and aims at providing an overview of the ERP ﬁeld by analysing ERP peer-reviewed journal publications from 2000 to 2009.4 490 research disciplines are included. not according to methods.
Methodological framework for comprehensive literature studies . abstract or keywords of the paper. a structured research methodology is needed. The ﬁrst phase is the search for and selection of papers to include in the review. one has to develop a framework to use in the analysis of the publications. e. To be able to perform a classiﬁcation analysis one needs ﬁrst of all the taxonomy according to which the papers will be classiﬁed. the framework includes two different types of analysis. how many different journals have published papers about the phenomenon in question.3. In the second phase. axial Review of the ERP research ﬁeld 491 Figure 1. e.g. The content of this taxonomy will depend on the questions one wants to address during the review.g. open coding. 2005) (see Figure 1).. which keywords one wants to use in the search and where the keywords should appear. content analysis using a constant comparative method (Cavana et al. e.g. conference papers or books. 1982). either the title. one has to decide in which period and where to search for papers. to include in the review. in speciﬁc journals. based on the questions one wants to address in the review. To make a comprehensive literature study of a vast amount of publications. The head counts are simply a matter of counting. e. Methodology To be able to gain an overview of a research ﬁeld and answer the questions above.g. bibliography databases or conference proceedings. one being strict head counts and the other being the classiﬁcation of papers (see Figure 1).g. In the ﬁrst phase has to decide which types of publication. e. 2001) or content analysis using different coding techniques. and the second phase is the classiﬁcation of the papers. The methodology is divided into two phases (Cumbie et al.g. a classiﬁcation system that includes a quest for regularity and standards as well as topics encompassed by the data (Bogdan and Biklen. Additionally. journal publications.. the classiﬁcation process of the papers can begin. how many different publications have been published per year and how many different authors have contributed to the ﬁeld. e. After the development of the taxonomy. During the classiﬁcation process different analysis approaches can be used.
g. We chose to include only journal publications in the review.g. leaving us with a total pool of 1. Our literature review was carried out in accordance with these two phases: phase 1 – selection and accumulation of a journal publication pool and phase 2 – classiﬁcation of the publications by research discipline. (2004) were able to ﬁnd very few published journal papers about ERP prior to 2000. one in 2004. and Aloini et al. and (2) conference papers can be difﬁcult to access. Strauss and Corbin. We therefore decided to gather publications from the period from 2000 to 2009.196 journal publications for analysis and classiﬁcation in phase 2. book reviews. collected in three time slots. (2007) only included literature published after 1999 in their review on ERP and risk management. 3. Esteves and Pastor (2001) and Shehab et al.4 492 coding or selective coding (Glaser and Strauss. To exclude editorial comments and. event-related brain potential. e. (2004)) the second at the beginning of 2008 and the last in December 2009. During the time span between the three time slots in the gathering of publications. 1967.JEIM 23. 2002). 176 publications were excluded since they turned out to have been included in the total pool of publications twice and another 139 publications were excluded as it was obvious from their titles that the particular publications did not deal with ERP systems.564 journal publications. It therefore seems reasonable to conclude that publications about ERP systems were rather rare before 2000. In each of these databases we searched for the keywords “ERP” and “Enterprise Resource Planning” within titles. During the export of these journal publications to our EndNote database[1. and 62 papers were excluded since they were published in the 53 different journals not included in the databases before 2008 and to include them would give us data that were not comparable. The publications were gathered in three time slots. We chose to search for journal publications in academic journals we had access to through the library web-search facilities.g. Not many journal publications were published prior to 2000. another at the beginning of 2008 and the last in late December 2009. as also illustrated in Table II. one in 2004 (the result of this was previously reported in Møller et al. There are two main reasons for concentrating on journal papers: (1) journal papers contain more up-to-date data than books (Dale et al. . The two phases will be discussed in the following paragraphs. e. Nine different bibliographies databases were used. From this initial search we ended up with a total pool of 1. abstracts or keywords.2]. as mentioned previously. the coverage of the databases changed slightly and some databases changed names and publishers. e.. The papers were. the length of the papers had to be at least four pages. and that they emerged in 2000 and onwards. 1994. which gave us access to a very high number of journals (see Table II). but had used the acronym ERP for something very different. Webster and Watson.1 Phase 1: selection and accumulation of a journal publication pool The ﬁrst decisions we had to make were which period to include in the literature study. 2001). topic studied and methods used. The choice of analytical approach will depend on the questions one wants to address in the review.
Kluwer. marketing. technology and medicine full text and bibliographic information Wiley InterScience provides access to publications from John Wiley & Sons. and ﬁnally (4) if no abstract existed. the publication was excluded as well. It features over 1. The subjects covered include management. Swetscan) and organisations (such as IEEE/IEE Electronic Library – IEL) The library contains 54. Springer. journals and company directories. publishers (such as Academic Press. Oxford University Press. mechanical engineering. including databases (such as ABI/Inform. Bibliographical databases included During phase 2 an additional 303 journal publications were excluded. Emerald.Emerald ScienceDirect (Elsevier) Wiley InterScience EBSCO (Business Source Premier) ProQuest General BusinessFile Digital Article Database Service (DADS) ACM Digital Library AIS Library Emerald publishes a range of management titles and library and information services titles by any publisher worldwide. Their exclusion was based on four different criteria: (1) publications only mentioning ERP or Enterprise Resource Planning systems as an example of one system among other systems. It was later renamed Business & Company Resource Centre DADS provides access to data from several providers. librarianship. Blackwell Publishers. electronic and electrical engineering ScienceDirect is an electronic collection of science. Elsevier. (2) some were excluded if ERP or Enterprise Resource Planning systems were only mentioned as contextual variables. COMPENDEX and INSPEC).000 online articles from 30 journals and 900 proceedings from the Association for Computing Machinery A service from the Association of Information Systems providing full-text access to journals and conferences sponsored by AIS Review of the ERP research ﬁeld 493 Table II.000 journals EBSCO Publishing offers a wide range of full text and bibliographic databases. Karger. . newspapers. and via EBSCOhost the database Business Source Premier was reached as well The ProQuest online information service provides access to thousands of current periodicals and newspapers General BusinessFile International provides access to a combination of international broker research reports. (3) editorial notes were excluded. HRM. The ﬁnal pool of publications had then been reduced to 885 to be included in the literature review. trade publications.
made a list of the journals that had published the highest number of papers. 1997) to develop the categories to use in the classiﬁcation of the papers according to method used and topic of interest. The coding form was created during a joint pilot study of 20 per cent of the papers. began. dealt-with-topics and used methods (see Section 2). e. To classify each journal we either used the discipline that the journal itself refers to on its web page. and to develop a coding form containing the categories into which to classify the papers. as mentioned previously. management and operations management/SCM. who classiﬁed ERP research with regard to computer science. In developing the categories. the classiﬁcation by Piccolo and Ives (2005) – case study(ies).g. 2005). made a list of the journals that had published ERP articles. equalling 177 papers. archival. the classiﬁcation of papers according to the taxonomy. we gained inspiration from previous studies. After the head count. information systems. On account of the subjective nature of classiﬁcation of the papers according to method and research topic. which journals had published ERP papers and ﬁnally which authors had contributed to the ﬁeld. and . This was a rather easy task. read the “aim and goal” or classiﬁed the journals according to ﬁve different disciplines.2 Phase 2: analysis In this phase we started out by making the head count.JEIM 23. We: . thus providing a more rigorous process (Cumbie et al. (2005). To be able to address the ﬁrst area of interest – which disciplines had contributed – we carried out a preliminary reading of the abstracts. During the pilot study we jointly read the abstract and used the techniques from open coding principles (Neuman. we decided to carry out a content analysis. This set of disciplines was to a great extent coherent with earlier observations made by Botta-Genoulaz et al. counted the number of papers published per year. that do not have an explicit technical view Journals focusing on an engineering tradition. Research disciplines Other . containing in our case contributing research disciplines. During this preliminary reading ﬁve different disciplines emerged (see Table III for the different disciplines according to which we classiﬁed the papers). prior to the pilot study. . interested in disclosing how the ﬁeld had evolved during the period. theoretical and survey – served as Discipline Information systems Accounting Organisation and management Operation management Computer science Deﬁnition Journals focusing on use or management aspects of information technology Journals focusing on accounting or related themes such as ﬁnancial matters Journals focusing on organisational and management issues as such. focusing on production planning and control Journals focusing on technical aspects of information technology Journals focusing on aspects not included in the abovementioned ﬁve disciplines Table III. For developing categories for the used method. identiﬁed the authors who had contributed the most publications.4 494 3.. . We were.
Strauss and Corbin. for developing the categories for research topic. until no new categories were found (Glaser and Strauss. See Table IV for the methodological categories used and their descriptions. optimisation. ERP tool and supply-chain management – served as the inspiration source. we set out to classify the papers in accordance with the topic classiﬁcation used by Botta-Genoulaz et al. (2005): Category Case study(ies) Archival Theoretical Survey Experiment Descriptive Design science Combined Not mentioned Description Papers reporting on studies that are involved with a single site or a few sites often over a certain period of time are located in this category Papers using secondary data such as public records. combination of methods and a category that we named “not mentioned”. 2002). Since analysing and classifying 885 papers based on abstracts is a time-consuming job. 1994. After the joint pilot study we had compiled a coding form consisting of nine categories to be used in the classiﬁcation of papers according to used methods and nine categories for the classiﬁcation of papers according to research topic (see Tables IV and V). As regards classiﬁcation according to research topic. we set out to classify the publications in accordance with the methodology classiﬁcation used by Piccolo and Ives (2005). experiment. design science. various categories and schemes have previously been applied among researchers. the categories by Botta-Genoulaz et al. As mentioned previously. During the pilot study we continued to add new categories if the topic or method used in the particular paper was not covered by the categories already identiﬁed. management. existing data sets and statistics fall into this category Papers analysing existing theory. for this purpose we were inspired by Chen and Hirschheim (2004). fall into this category Papers that fall into this category gather data by means of questionnaires This includes papers using either laboratory or ﬁeld experiments Papers solely describing or arguing for a phenomenon and often very practically oriented Papers that construct systems and/or tools fall into this category Papers using a combination of the above-mentioned categories fall into this category Papers that do not mention any methods either explicitly or implicitly Review of the ERP research ﬁeld 495 Table IV. we both read the abstract and discussed it until we agreed on a classiﬁcation. Methodology categories . however. This classiﬁcation scheme could not. and when one of us had difﬁculties in classifying a paper. Piccolo and Ives do not deﬁne the four categories they use. and it was necessary to develop more categories. (2005) – implementation. typically with the aim of developing new theory.the inspiration source. Webster and Watson. we decided to split the total pool of papers into two (including those from the pilot study). We added: descriptive. cover the whole ERP literature base. During the classiﬁcation. analysing and classifying 442 each. we physically sat in the same room. With regard to classiﬁcation according to the method used. 1967. using the coding form developed during the pilot study.
We chose to exclude their sixth category – case studies – since we regard this as a method and not a research topic.JEIM 23. ERP users. cultural issues in ERP use and ﬁnally papers concerning understanding ERP as a phenomenon What are ERP systems and ERP modules and applications? Papers concerned with systems architecture. and we will start by answering the ﬁrst questions formulated in section 2: how many peer-reviewed . are included in this category How education and training in ERP systems can be included in university curricula – papers concerning the development of ERP courses. Table V describes each topic in more detail. business process alignment during the implementation and organisational diffusion How ERP can be used better in the organisation – including papers concerning post-implementation. ERP and best practices. integrating ERP systems into existing university programmes and lessons learned from doing so are included in this category How the ERP systems market evolves – papers concerning market demands. using various frameworks. market share of different vendors. Findings about the ERP ﬁeld In this section our ﬁndings from the literature study will be presented. organisational changes. customisation. the ERP impact on the organisation.4 Topic Implementation Issues addressed and description How the ERP system can be introduced into the organisation – including papers concerning selection. usefulness. During the pilot study we found that these ﬁve categories did not cover the entire range of topics published within the ERP ﬁeld. macro diffusion of ERP in particular industries and/or geographic areas are included in this category Papers that do not ﬁt into any of the above categories 496 Optimisation of ERP Management and ERP issues The ERP tool ERP and supply chain management Studying ERP ERP and education The ERP market and industry Table V. add-ons to ERP systems and ﬁnally ERPII systems as tools How ERP systems can be used in the context of a group of companies – papers concerning the use of ERP systems in system integration with other information technologies and systems and ERP contribution to cooperation in supply chains are included in this category How ERP systems may be studied – papers concerning how ERP systems can or should be studied. systems language and integration norms. optimisation. achievement of competitive advantage through ERP. ﬁnancial beneﬁts of ERP and ERPII in an organisational context How the implementation of ERP affects the management and the organisation – including papers concerning managerial issues of implementation. the ERP tool and supply-chain management. critical success factors. management. 4. the various steps of implementation and related problems. ERP and education and the ERP market and industry. Three additional categories were formulated: studying ERP. Topic classiﬁcation Others implementation.
After 2003 the number of publications in 2004 was 105. and the number of papers published in 2005 and 2006 reached a similar level as at the beginning of the century. The Business Process Management Journal. had each published more than 30 papers: in total these 120 papers equal 13 per cent of the pool. The ten most publishing journals (the ten most publishing journals and the exact number of publications each year can be found in Table VIII) have published approximately 30 per cent of the total pool and they have published 2.7 on average each year. and a rather large amount of papers about ERP in developing countries by the end of the period.g. ﬁnally to reach a yearly publication rate of 66 in 2009. Approximately 50 per cent of the papers had been published by 20 journals. The publication range of numbers and journals publishing ERP papers has changed during the period (see Figure 3). The high increase in number in 2008 can be explained from our data by the introduction of new journals with a special interest in ERP systems. how has the ﬁeld evolved. 16 journals had published around ten to 19 ERP papers each. In 2007 the number of publications dropped to 66. The remaining 348 papers. 37 per cent. When we looked at the distribution of published ERP research papers. Accounting for 10 per cent of the pool.75 Review of the ERP research ﬁeld 497 Figure 2. the lowest in the period. which has published 43 papers since 2000. which journals have published ERP peer-reviewed publications and which have published the highest number of publications? Which authors have contributed? 4. accounting for 18 per cent of the pool. e.9 papers on average in each publishing journal over the entire period. ﬁve journals from various disciplines had published 20-29 papers each. Industrial Management & Data Systems. when 116 papers were published. the highest number of papers published in one year. published 13 ERP papers in 2001 and 3. we found that 226 different journals had published ERP papers from 2000 to 2009 – which equals 3. the Business Process Management Journal and the Journal of Enterprise Information Management (see Table VI). had been published in more than 230 different journals (see Table VII). and three journals. accounting for 23 per cent of the pool. The number of papers published per year was rather steady until 2003 (see Figure 2). Number of ERP journal publications per year .1 Publications and journals The total number of peer-reviewed journal publications was found to be 885. the International Journal of Enterprise Systems in 2005.publications have been published each year. and ﬁnally 25 journals had published between ﬁve and nine ERP papers. followed by an increase in 2008 with 96 papers published.
JEIM 23. . did not publish any papers until 2004 and published seven papers on average per year in the period 2004-2006. but did not publish any ERP papers in 2007. A similar pattern can be found for Industrial Management & Data Systems. niine papers in 2004 and on average 5. seven each year. in 2008 and 2009 it again published papers. which has published more than 30 papers. and again in 2008 it published ﬁve papers and in 2009.4 30 þ 20-29 498 10-19 Table VI. Journals publishing ERP-related research papers on average in the period from 2002 to 2006. whereas no publications were found in 2007. but after that it did not publish any ERP papers. in 2008 and 2009 it again published papers. The International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems did not publish any papers on ERP before 2007 and published as many as 11 papers in 2008. the Journal of Enterprise Information Management. Another journal. ﬁve and six respectively.33 papers per year until 2006. Journals with ten or more papers published Business Process Management Journal Industrial Management & Data Systems Journal of Enterprise Information Management International Journal of Production Economics Communications of the ACM Information & Management Computers in Industry International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems Information Systems Management Strategic Finance Journal of Computer Information Systems European Journal of Operational Research Journal of Information Systems Education International Journal of Operations & Production Management Systems Research and Behavioral Science Decision Support Systems Expert Systems with Applications Information Systems Frontiers International Journal of Production Research Journal of Strategic Information Systems Information Systems Journal Journal of Information Technology Journals n 30 þ 20-29 10-19 5-9 1-4 Total 3 5 16 25 177 226 (%) 1 2 7 11 78 100 n 120 93 218 167 286 885 Papers (%) 14 10 25 19 32 100 Sum (%) 14 24 49 68 100 Table VII. which also published 43 ERP papers in the period 2000-2009. eight papers. but did publish above average ERP publications in 2008 and 2009. The most publishing journals in the period did not publish any papers in 2007.
Journal 1 2 0 0 13 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 1 1 1 2 3 1 0 3 5 0 3 2 7 1 13 2 0 0 1 0 1 2 5 0 2 1 3 1 3 4 0 0 2 2 0 3 9 7 3 3 4 2 7 6 6 5 0 0 11 0 4 8 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 5 3 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 7 5 5 5 1 5 1 3 11 2 2009 7 6 8 3 1 2 2 0 1 2 Total 43 43 34 25 23 23 22 19 19 18 Business Process Management Journal Industrial Management & Data Systems Journal of Enterprise Information Management International Journal of Production Economics Communications of the ACM Information & Management Computers in Industry International Journal of Accounting and Information Systems International Journal of Enterprise and Information Systems Information Systems Management Review of the ERP research ﬁeld 499 Table VIII. Publication in the ten most ERP publishing journals over time .
seven authors have contributed ﬁve papers (see Table X). (see Table IX). either as single authors or as co-authors.C. Authors and publications . Publications 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Note: 1. ﬁnally. Lenny Koh with 12 publications.C. Journals over time In total 1.JEIM 23. followed by E.564 different authors Number of authors 1. have contributed to the total pool of papers. Yen. three contributed six and.639 different authors. A. Four authors have contributed seven papers each. eight papers. Gunasekaran has published nine papers and D.4 500 Figure 3. The most contributing author was S.297 190 36 21 8 3 5 1 1 1 0 1 Table IX.297 authors have contributed to a single paper only and 190 to two papers etc. 1. Bendoly with ten papers.
E. which has contributed 233 of the publications. Halingten E. Nah J.G.M. Al-Mashari B. Somers F. Bendoly A.C.C. Accounting accounts for the smallest number of publications. Everdingen Table X. being the most contributing discipline (see Figure 4). The second most contributing discipline is information systems. Percentage of papers published in different disciplines .A.T. namely 9 per cent.4. and ﬁnally we were not able to classify 8 per cent of the papers according to the categories used. Gunasekaran D. Soh G. Verville T. equalling 309 papers (see Table XI for the exact number of papers in each discipline over time). The most publishing authors Figure 4. Klein J. Computer science contributed with 15 per cent followed closely by organisation and management with 13 per cent of the publications.J. 31 per cent were published in operations management. Mabert Y. Light C. Review of the ERP research ﬁeld 501 Number of publications 12 10 9 8 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Author S.-H. van Hillegersberg M. Scott J.M. Jiang V. Yen A. Lenny Koh E.F. 24 per cent of the pool. Wang J.2 Research disciplines Of the papers.
502 JEIM 23. Number of papers in each discipline over time 2000 17 7 11 16 27 6 84 20 8 13 19 32 7 100 11 12 9 33 11 11 87 13 14 10 38 13 13 100 26 9 11 26 12 9 93 28 10 12 28 13 10 100 26 14 11 35 16 14 116 22 12 9 30 14 12 100 34 8 11 36 10 6 105 32 8 10 34 10 6 100 21 5 12 34 13 3 88 24 6 14 39 15 3 100 18 8 24 24 5 5 84 21 10 29 29 6 6 100 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 22 2 6 19 11 6 66 33 3 9 29 17 9 100 2008 30 7 4 44 7 5 97 31 7 4 45 7 5 100 2009 20 3 5 29 7 2 66 30 5 8 44 11 3 100 Total 225 75 104 296 119 67 886 24 9 13 31 15 8 100 .4 Information systems Accounting Organisation and management Operations management (SCM) Computer science Other Information systems (%) Accounting (%) Organisation and management (%) Operations management (SCM) (%) Computer science (%) Other (%) (%) Table XI.
with more than twice as many papers published that year as in 2003 and 2004. with minor exceptions (see Table XI and Figure 6 for the exact number of published papers in each discipline). 30 per cent. The most contributing discipline to the ERP research ﬁeld is operation management. 80 per cent can be classiﬁed as falling into 4 different research topics.3 Research topics Of the research within ERP. The information systems disciplines seem to have kept their rather high number of publications during the period. In 2007 papers published within the information systems discipline accounted for 33 per cent of the total number of papers published. One exception is the discipline organisation and management. where the highest number of publications was found in 2006. whereas the information systems discipline “only” accounted for 24 per cent on average. focused on Review of the ERP research ﬁeld 503 Figure 5. 4. Discipline over time (numbers) . Disciplines over time Figure 6. accounting for 31 per cent of the publications. The highest percentage of research.In general the number of publications over time in each discipline (see Figure 5) seems to have been rather stable during 2000 to 2009. and the percentage of the total number of papers increased during the period.
representing as many as 25 per cent of the papers published in 2007. The changes in research topics of interest (see Figure 8) have only changed slightly during the period. The percentage of research in the topic “managing and ERP” increased slightly until 2007. Topics over time . supply-chain management.JEIM 23. how to study and education – have been rather stable with no remarkable variation in the percentage of papers being published within these topics.4 504 implementation aspects. Percentage of papers presenting different topics Figure 8. The last 19 per cent is divided between the remaining research topics. Most research topics – implementation. in that it has been reduced by 50 per cent from the ﬁrst half of the period to the second half. 17 per cent on optimisation of ERP and ﬁnally 14 per cent on the ERP tool itself (see Figure 7). whereas afterwards it dropped to the same level as at the beginning of the period. Research into the optimisation of ERP has increased Figure 7. 20 per cent on managing and ERP systems. approximately 15 per cent. Research into the ERP tool and the ERP market and industry has changed during the period.
In the previous section we raised the question of whether it is fair to state that the ERP ﬁeld has become mature. here BPR. The percentage use of case studies was the same in 2000 and in 2009. is the ERP research ﬁeld is an interdisciplinary ﬁeld? Further we present a conceptual framework for important issues in regards to ERP systems and ﬁnally we discuss the structured methodological framework usefulness in analysing a speciﬁc aspect of interest in regards ERP system. 9 per cent have used design-science methods. Discussion of the ﬁndings In this section we discuss the ﬁndings and address the previously raised discussion questions: is it fair to state that the ERP ﬁeld has matured.steadily during the period from only representing 11 per cent in 2000 to representing 30 per cent of the publications in 2009 (see Table XII and Figure 9 for detailed numbers of publications within the category research topic). We were not able to classify 16 per cent of the papers on the basis of the abstract. To address this question we analysed which methods the different journal publications had used.4 Research methods As regards methods used in studying ERP. “theoretical” and “survey”. Only 5 per cent of the publications had used surveys in 2000. this percentage increased remarkably during the time of investigation to 29 per cent in 2009. 5. At the same time there was a dramatic fall in papers that did not mention which Review of the ERP research ﬁeld 505 . A total of 12 per cent of the papers have used a descriptive and/or normative method. this was only approximately 5 per cent of the papers in 2007. Our ﬁndings suggest that the dominating method used has been case studies with a slight decline in the last part of the period. Whereas in 2000 as many as 43 per cent of the published papers did not mention the research method in their abstracts. The rest of the used-method categories have represented a rather stable percentage of the published papers during the period (see Table XIII and Figure 11 for detailed numbers of publications within the category methods). since no methodological consideration was mentioned at all (see Table XIII and Figure 11 for detailed numbers of publications within the research method category). approximately 17 per cent. Experimental studies were not published until 2002. 15 per cent of the papers in 2009. 8 per cent of the papers have used archival methods. The methods used (see Figure 12) have changed during the period. 2008 and 2009. has the ERP research ﬁeld become a new research discipline. whereas surveys had already taken over as the most used method in 2006. 11 per cent of the papers have been strictly theoretical. Theoretically based papers increased from only representing 4 per cent of the papers published in 2000 to representing on average 14 per cent of the papers published in the last three years. In 2000 6 per cent of the published papers used survey data. case studies have been the most prevalent and were used in 22 per cent of the papers (see Figure 10). 5 per cent have used combined methods. after which the percentage of papers using experimental methods increased to 8 per cent of the published papers in 2009. whereas almost 30 per cent of the papers from 2002 to 2005 used case studies. whereas 29 per cent did in 2009. followed by papers using surveys. and only 2 per cent have used experimental methods. 4. The most remarkable change has taken place in the categories “not mentioned”. An even more remarkable change can be found in the category “survey”. which account for 15 per cent.
4 Implementation Optimisation of ERP Managing and ERP systems The ERP tool ERP and supply chain management How to study ERP Education ERP – market and industry Other (combined) Implementation (%) Optimisation of ERP (%) Managing and ERP systems (%) The ERP tool (%) ERP and supply chain management (%) How to study ERP (%) Education (%) ERP – market and industry (%) Other (combined) (%) (%) Table XII.506 JEIM 23. Research topic over time 2000 22 9 11 20 6 1 3 7 24 84 26 11 13 24 7 1 4 8 6 100 21 15 20 13 6 1 3 6 2 87 24 17 23 15 7 1 3 7 2 100 25 16 15 16 6 2 5 7 1 93 27 17 16 17 6 2 5 8 1 100 39 14 16 24 5 1 1 13 3 116 34 12 14 21 4 1 1 11 3 100 24 21 16 13 10 2 10 7 2 105 23 20 15 12 10 2 10 7 2 100 29 19 20 8 8 1 0 3 0 88 33 22 23 9 9 1 0 3 0 100 27 16 21 6 4 2 1 7 0 84 32 19 25 7 5 2 1 8 0 100 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 22 14 14 6 4 3 2 1 0 66 33 21 21 9 6 5 3 2 0 100 2008 35 26 10 11 9 0 3 3 0 97 36 27 10 11 9 0 3 3 0 100 2009 18 24 7 7 3 0 2 4 1 66 27 36 11 11 5 0 3 6 2 100 Total 262 174 150 124 61 13 30 58 14 886 30 20 17 14 7 1 3 7 2 100 .
When we combine the above with the fact that the number of theoretical papers rose from 4 per cent to 14 per cent. Research topics over time (numbers) Figure 10. a variety of authors have contributed only one or few publications . our ﬁndings show that a lot of different authors and journals have contributed to the ERP research ﬁeld: 1. contributions from authors and the evolution within numbers of publications in speciﬁc journals. clearly indicating that the interest has declined. it is fair to state that the ERP ﬁeld has matured. we analysed our ﬁndings according to the number of published papers.654 authors have contributed to the 885 papers published in 227 different journals.Review of the ERP research ﬁeld 507 Figure 9. To address the question of whether the ERP research ﬁeld is a new research discipline. Additionally. from 43 per cent to 3 per cent in 2009. the amount of theoretical papers has increased and at the same time publication demands for explicating the research methods used have increased remarkably during the period 2000-2009. Percentage of papers based on different methods method they had used. After 2003 the number reduced year by year (2008 being an exception) to 66 papers in 2009. The number of published papers reached its highest in 2003 with 116 papers.
Research methods over time 2000 14 6 3 5 2 7 36 11 0 84 17 7 4 6 2 8 43 13 0 100 18 7 8 5 4 4 25 16 0 87 21 8 9 6 5 5 29 18 0 100 22 7 4 5 3 10 20 20 2 93 24 8 4 5 3 11 22 22 2 100 34 12 4 16 1 16 20 12 1 116 29 10 3 14 1 14 17 10 1 100 22 8 17 13 5 12 13 12 3 105 21 8 16 12 5 11 12 11 3 100 24 11 8 15 5 10 7 8 0 88 27 13 9 17 6 11 8 9 0 100 15 5 14 16 9 6 11 5 3 84 18 6 17 19 11 7 13 6 4 100 11 7 11 19 1 6 3 6 2 66 17 11 17 29 2 9 5 9 3 100 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 21 4 21 20 6 8 6 8 3 97 22 4 22 21 6 8 6 8 3 100 2009 10 6 9 19 5 4 2 6 5 66 15 9 14 29 8 6 3 9 8 100 Total 191 73 99 133 41 83 143 104 19 886 22 8 11 15 5 9 16 12 2 100 .4 Case study(ies) Archival Theoretical Survey Combination Design science Not mentioned Descriptive/normative Experimental Case study(ies) (%) Archival (%) Theoretical (%) Survey (%) Combination (%) Design science (%) Not mentioned (%) Descriptive/normative (%) Experimental (%) (%) Table XIII.508 JEIM 23.
Our ﬁndings indicate that a great variety of authors have contributed only one or a few papers to the ﬁeld.Review of the ERP research ﬁeld 509 Figure 11. These ﬁndings leave us to suggest that the publications on ERP were the result of an interest in an empirical phenomenon. The fact that the most publishing journals during the period did not publish any papers in 2007 and that the journals that published the highest amount of papers in 2009 published above their own average leaves us to suggest that the “quick movers” as regards publishing ERP research lost interest in ERP-related research after a while. Methods over time and fewer than 15 per cent of the authors have contributed three or more papers. and that the journals that published ERP papers at the end of the period were “slow starters” and were dominating as the publication channel at the end of the period. from both authors and journals. Methods over time (numbers) Figure 12. It seems fair to suggest that . and that the interest declined during the second half of the period.
An indication of the relevant issues in each “area of concern” will be presented in terms of questions to be asked: (1) Implementation: . 2009)? (2) Optimisation and post-implementation: . It is one thing to suggest and discuss. Which criteria should be used in selecting the ERP system. 2001b)? . Based on the ﬁndings above our study conﬁrms that the ﬁeld of ERP is very much an interdisciplinary ﬁeld. Esteves and Pastor (2001) suggest in their paper that ERP systems offer many potential areas for research and. 2000. Esteves and Bohorquez (2007) further state that ERP-related research could and should be interdisciplinary. How can we prioritise between the different ERP maintenance initiatives (Ng et al. 2002)? . Should a business process reengineering process take place before or simultaneously with the ERP implementation (Koch. Which critical success factors should we have in mind during the implementation (Ngai et al. 2005.. 2004)? . Dezdar and Sulaiman.. Based on the literature study we believe this is indeed possible. Kraemmergaard and Rose. The next discussion point that we want to address is whether the ERP research ﬁeld is an interdisciplinary ﬁeld as suggested by Esteves and Bohorquez (2007). and the distribution of papers among disciplines is quite balanced applying the taxonomy we have used. the “comprehensive”. 2008. Even though the two disciplines of operations management (SCM) and information systems (IS) together count for 55 per cent of all the papers.g. 2004)? . 2000)? . rather than the beginning of a new research discipline. e. Wei and Wang. How can we examine the process of system review during the post-implementation phase (Nicolaou. “middle road” or “vanilla” implementation strategy (Parr and Shanks. Our ﬁndings show that the ERP research ﬁeld has been an interdisciplinary ﬁeld. Which strategy should the implementation use.JEIM 23. they expected ERP systems to be of interest to a wide range of scholarly disciplines (from software engineering to accounting). How can we optimise the use of the ERP system in the organisation? . Which work tasks and organisational and managerial challenges can be expected in each phase of the implementation (Markus et al.. Our list of ﬁve different research disciplines accounts for more than 90 per cent of all the papers. Using an open coding technique in the content analysis of the 885 abstracts with the purpose of dividing the categories to be used into the classiﬁcation of the papers gave us a good indication of the issues of concern (see Figure 13). Their suggestions have “come true” and the ERP research ﬁeld has indeed been interdisciplinary. to reﬂect on real research practice is another. due to their pervasive nature at that time.g.4 510 the interest in ERP was the result of a temporary widespread interest in an empirical phenomenon.. how well does the ERP system ﬁt the business strategy (Wei et al. no discipline can be said to be predominant. 2002)? . The next question that we set out to discuss based on the literature review was the question of whether it is possible to develop a conceptual framework of areas of concern in regard to ERP. e.
managerial. standardisation. Which strategic. 2006)? . Which organisational changes and impact can be expected implementing an ERP system and can they be predicted (Rikhardsson and Kraemmergaard. Conceptual framework for “areas of concern” regarding ERP systems Which business beneﬁts of ERP systems evolve during the post-implementation period (Staehr. 2010)? . How do the characteristics of ERP systems (speciﬁcally its integration. . How do the communities exhibit distinct culture guides but also constrain practice in regard to ERP implementation and use (Wagner and Newell. operational and organisational beneﬁts are the result of the ERP implementation (Shang and Seddon. 2002)? (3) Management and organisation: . 2003)? .Review of the ERP research ﬁeld 511 Figure 13. 2004)? . routinisation and centralisation) facilitate and reinforce processes of management accounting change (Scapens and Jazayeri.
. Hawking et al... e. Boyle. PLM.. 2005)? Supply chain management and ERP: . 2006)? . 2003. 2002.. 2004. 2005.. Johnson et al. Wang et al. Ekanayaka et al. 2004)? .4 (4) 512 (5) (6) (7) (8) To want extent does the ERP-led BPR implementation leads to fundamental changes within an organisation’s structure. 2003)? . 2007)? . How can be expected to be the future development of ERP systems (Ford. 2001)? . 2005. O’Leary. Antonucci et al. Bradford et al. Nielson.. e-procurement and e-marketplaces to foster cooperation and collaboration across the entire value chain (Nah. How are ERP systems adopted in speciﬁc country. Zhang et al. 2007)? . 2002. 2002. How is an ERP constructed (Sprott. How well are the integration of the supply chain management and the ERP systems for competing in the future supply chain (Lenny Koh et al. How can ERP be used as a technology enabler for supply chain management (Boubekri. e. 2000. What are the calls for and suggestion on ERP research agendas and issues (Lee. How can ERP and SCM systems be integrated with CRM. 2004)? Studying ERP: .JEIM 23. How to integrate ERP systems and other systems (Frank. India or Greece (Tarafdar and Roy. Sutton.. 2004. 2000)? . Where and how has ERP inﬂuenced the IS curriculum (Becerra-Fernandez et al. 2004)? Market and industry: . 2003. through ASP’s (Bennett and Timbrell. Esteves and Bohorquez.. 2000. culture and management process (Huq et al.g. Møller. Which impact will ERP have on supply chain management (Akkermans et al. 2003)? .. 2002)? . How can ERP systems be supplied to customers. What has over time been written about ERP (Botta-Genoulaz et al.. How to teach and compose the content of an ERP course (McComb and Shariﬁ. How can ERP systems be customised and conﬁgured (Volkoff. 2004. Smets-Solanes and de Carvalho. 2006)? . 2000. 2006)? The ERP tool: . 2006)? Education and training: . 2004)? . Kostopoulos et al... 2000)? . What are ERP systems (Kumar and van Hillegersberg. . How can different courses be integrated using ERP systems (Cannon et al..g. 2000. 2003.
Tounsi. This search left us with 42 papers in total. Comparing these ﬁndings with the ﬁndings of the total pool of 885 papers. research .. Conclusion and implications We set out to conduct a comprehensive literature review on ERP based on a vast amount of papers published. This left us with 20 papers to analyse for theoretical lenses. what has already been done and which theoretical lenses will be able to provide new insight. S. How are ERP systems adopted in a speciﬁc industry or type of companies (Everdingen et al. indicates that BPR related ERP research to a higher degree than ERP research in general uses case study as a research method and relates it to implementation issues.g. Our ﬁndings show that different theoretical lenses have been used. Using this methodology quickly gave us insight into how the publications link ERP and BPR in the ERP research ﬁeld. Next we set out to ﬁnd out which theoretical lenses researchers have used to studying the link between ERP and BPR. Subramoniam and M. In a short time we got valuable insight into the aspect of BPR within the ERP research ﬁeld.g. selecting and accumulating the publication pool. Making the head-count of the papers. abstracts or keywords. . have contributed with more than one paper. almost half were published within the operations management discipline and 38 per cent were using case study as a research method. followed by theory on process modelling. Yang et al. The result of this analysis can be seen in Table XIV.. Finally using the methodological framework quickly gave us an understanding of which journals that had published the highest number of papers studying the link between ERP and BPR using theoretical lenses. The question as to whether the methodological framework can be used to analyse a speciﬁc aspect of ERP. The Business Process Management Journal accounts for almost half of the publications using theoretical lenses. that theory on critical success factors is dominant in eight out of the 20 papers. During this initial analysis 22 papers were excluded since they either were strictly descriptive papers or did not mention any link between ERP and BPR. 2003. showed that more than half of the papers addressed the topic of implementation. e. 2000. To select these papers we searched the ERP EndNote ﬁle for papers with “BPR” or “Business Process Re-engineering” in either their titles. and phase two. analysing the publication pool. The papers had been published by 24 different journals and only two authors. Using this framework for conducting the comprehensive literature review provided us with an overview of the ERP research ﬁeld regardless of research disciplines. is yes. 2006)? What are the market share and demand of ERP (Arnesen and Thompson. Craighead and Laforge. BPR? To address this question we had to select the papers that dealt with BPR.. 2003)? Review of the ERP research ﬁeld 513 The last discussion point we want to address is whether the methodological framework is usable to analyse a speciﬁc aspect of ERP e. To be able to conduct such a review we developed a methodological framework. consisting of two phases: phase one. We initially analysed the 42 papers by reading the abstracts. 6. This insight is believed to be useful for researchers who want to study the link between BPR and ERP using theoretical lenses and researchers who want to position their own research within the ﬁeld.
Studies on the implementation of ERP have been the most researched topic. used in 22 per cent of the papers.g. (2009) Subramoniam (2008) Newman and Zhao (2008) Koch (2001a) Huq et al. our review and analysis reveal that the body of academic knowledge about ERP systems has reached a certain maturity. (2003) Samaranayake (2009) Burns et al. 31 per cent. (2006) Byrne and Heavey (2006) Subramoniam and Tounsi (2009) Stijn and Wensley (2001) Lee (2008) 514 Formal (business) modelling Connectionist model Innovation processes Organizational sociology Change management Supply chain theory Table XIV. accounting for 29 per cent of the papers. Based on the classiﬁcation of the papers according to the topic of interest a useful conceptual framework for “areas of concern” with regard to ERP systems has been . that the ERP research ﬁeld is very much an interdisciplinary ﬁeld and that the ﬁeld has been driven by an interest in an empirical phenomenon more than indicating that the ERP research is a new research discipline. but in the later part of the decade the use of this method is declining on the expense of. (2008) El Sawah et al. (2008) Scheer and Habermann (2000) Chiplunkar et al. and that the 20 most publishing journals have published approximately 30 per cent of the publications. (2003) Emad (2007) Ming-Ling and Wade (2008) Ngai et al.4 Theoretical lens Critical success factors Journal Business Process Management Journal International Journal of Operations & Production Management European Journal of Operational Research European Journal of Operational Research International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems Business Process Management Journal Computers in Industry Business Process Management Journal Communications of the ACM Computers & Industrial Engineering Business Process Management Journal Journal of Organizational and End User Computing Industrial Engineer Business Process Management Journal Business Process Management Journal Journal of Change Management International Journal of Production Economics Business Process Management Journal Author Nah and Lau (2001) Schrenederjans and Kim (2003) Somers and Nelson (2003) Umble et al. Additionally. followed by studies on the management (18 per cent) and optimisation of ERP (17 per cent).JEIM 23. Furthermore we have “tested” whether the methodological framework may be useful to analyse a speciﬁc aspect of ERP. e. Case studies have been the most used method. The operation management discipline has published the largest amount of the papers. Our study reveals that more than 250 journals have published papers about ERP. surveys. Theoretical lenses used in BPR linked ERP research categorised by journals and authors Object orientation Organizational memory Business Process Management Journal Adoption model Business Process Management Journal topics and research traditions and a conceptual framework of “areas of concern” in regard to ERP systems. followed by the IS discipline yielding 24 per cent of the publications. but no discipline has predominance.
The results can also be used to identify the journals favouring this type of papers (e. Some would probably argue that other interesting analyses could have been performed and ﬁndings found. a sub-literature review to analyse each discipline to see what the particular discipline has focused on.g. With a limited amount of efforts the 42 papers published on BPR and ERP were analysed showing that BPR related ERP research to a higher degree than ERP research in general is based on case-studies and is related to implementation issues. the conceptual framework can assist in creating an understanding of the broad spectra issues of concern that one has to take into consideration in regard to ERP systems and the questions one needs to deal with and be aware of when involved with ERP systems. organisational change and managerial implications.g. For managers. For researchers with an interest in ERP systems. We have provided the reader with an overview of the ERP research ﬁeld and a conceptual framework of the different areas of concern. 3. Bibliographical data from each paper were organised in an End-Note database fully populated with meta-data and with easy access to a full-text library. supply-chain management and the ERP system itself. where to locate and publish different types of ERP-related research. The EndNote database is available for free download at the web sites: www. etc. The usefulness of the methodological framework developed in the present paper was conﬁrmed by applying it to a speciﬁc aspect of ERP research. meet at conferences and publish in the same range of journals – and may be members of the same association. Review of the ERP research ﬁeld 515 Notes 1. a citation analysis to see who has had the greatest impact in terms of references within the ﬁeld. based on the total pool of journal publications and the EndNote ﬁle. The ﬁndings can hopefully act as a foundation for researchers for further research in ERP. the ERP market and industry. the bibliographical EndNote database and its rich set of empirical data can hopefully be used by others in future research and analyses. . Seven areas of concern were identiﬁed: implementation. e.g. and assist other researchers in the identiﬁcation of related studies in the literature review phase of their work. a sub-literature review to analyse trends and progress in academic knowledge in the different research topics. aspx?pid ¼ 23792 2.developed. and in creating an understanding of the broader context of ERP-related research. a correlation analysis to see whether there is any correlation between topic and research discipline. e. education and training. Finally.g. The main theoretical lens applied in the papers was that of critical success factors. the conceptual framework can be used for positioning their own research and interests. post-implementation.asb. The free access to our EndNote ﬁle will hopefully serve as a motivator in this respect. Business Process Management Journal ) thus providing guidelines for where to publish and an understanding of the nature of the speciﬁc (sub-)ﬁeld. implementation during the period. e. We used the term discipline to include (open) groups of scholars who interact. We would certainly support these arguments and hopefully others will take up these challenges. namely BPR. issues that have implications for both managers and researchers.dk/article.
A. 3. G. (2003). 67-89. John Wiley & Sons. 93-101. 227-34. 85 No. Communications of the ACM. B. 5. 4. T. 44 No. 352-64.. 14 No. Vol. J. 2 No.. B.L. 56 No. pp. 80 No. (2001). Vol.A. (2004). European Journal of Operational Research. G.. Information Systems Journal. M. Dulmin. V. Vijayaraman. pp. Chen. Vol. Brisbane. pp. H. Corbitt. Jung. Vol. International Journal of Production Economics. V. N. R. Boyle. 15 No. Computers in Industry.L. (2007). Vol. Vol. pp. 6. Vol. 103 No. “Technical-oriented enterprise resource planning (ERP) body of knowledge for information systems programs: content and implementation”. and Harris. Antonucci. 197-235. Communications of AIS. 12 No.J. pp. A. No. “The status of ERP integration in business school curricula: results of a survey of business schools”. 146 No. “A survey on the recent research literature on ERP systems”. “Enterprise systems education: where are we? Where are we going?”. 43 No.J. S. Vol. (2006).M. M. Bradford. (2000). and Grabot. 284-301. (1982). (2004). “A paradigmatic and methodological examination of information systems research from 1991 to 2001”.JEIM 23.A. Vol. 21 No. J. Boubekri. and Hoffman. R. Allyn & Bacon. pp. pp. Journal of Information Systems Education.A.T. pp. Information & Management. U. C. Y. (2001). Byrne. Cannon. Klein. pp. Bogdan. P.. Millet. Vol. “Risk management in ERP project introduction: review of the literature”. 2. . P. 2. M. L. Delahaye. “Integrating ERP in the business school curriculum”. D. I. 146 No. Al-Mudimig. (2000). 267-75. (2007). 82 No. Al-Mashari.. and Simon. Murphy. Journal of Education for Business. Botta-Genoulaz. R. and Biklen. and Heavey. 4. “ERP merger mania”. Vol. 2. 394-9.R. Arnesen. Bennett. and Chandra.4 516 References Akkermans. 510-22. D. 3. C. Burns. (2005). Qualitative Research for Education. “Curriculum integration using enterprise resource planning: an integrative case approach”. and Timbrell.. Bogard. 547-67. (2004). Yucesan. 30-6. pp. “Process orientation through enterprise resource planning (ERP): a review of critical issues”. Becerra-Fernandez. 2. (2001). S. (2009). 437-56. Applied Business Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. pp. S. 2. 6. and Hirschheim. L.. Koste. G. 3. M. “Application service providers: will they succeed?”. (2003). Information Systems Frontiers. K. and Mininno.. “The impact of ERP on supply chain management: exploratory ﬁndings from a European Delphi study”. 6. B. pp. 12. Knowledge and Process Management. 420-37. 195-211. pp. Vol. E. A. (2003).L. W. and Sekeran.J. 8 No. Boston. pp. A. MA. P. Vol.. pp. Vol. and Zairi. Stewart. S. R. “Capturing and comprehending the behavioral/dynamical interactions within an ERP implementation”. “The impact of information sharing and forecasting in capacitated industrial supply chains: a case study”. “Enterprise resource planning: a taxonomy of critical factors”... Journal of Education for Business.. and Thompson.E.. H. Cavana. J.Y. Aloini. and van Wasserhove. 175-85. Vol. Al-Mashari. pp. D. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing.N. 1.L. European Journal of Operational Research. “Technology enablers for supply chain management”. and Magal.. (2003).S. 39-41. Integrating Manufacturing Systems. Strategic Finance.
Dezdar. Logistics Information Management. 7 No. 245-54. (2000). 4. 1. (2001). 1. 8. Hirschheim.G. “Enterprise resource-planning systems research: an annotated bibliography”. H.W. 43 No. McCarthy. and Waarts. “A quantitative model to predict the Egyptian ERP implementation success index”. A. A. 104 No. (2005). “BPR and ERP: realizing a vision of process with IT”. and Stein. and Seltsikas. Lorents. “Fad. pp.R. Review of the ERP research ﬁeld 517 ..K.L. “Delivering enterprise resource planning systems through application service providers”. B. (2004). A. Journal of Change Management. (2001a). 288-306. Vol. 2. Industrial Management & Data Systems. 7 No. Esteves. and Craighead. pp. and Chattopadhyay. Peachy. M. 3. Vol. and Bohorquez. (2006). 79 No. de Gruyter. Z. (2007). Dugo. and Rasmy. Business Process Management Journal.T. and Laforge. 5. P. R.. 11. Deshmukh. Huq. A. 3. “ERP adoption by European midsize companies”. J. B. Industrial Management & Data Systems. and Strauss.. pp.E. and Sulaiman.. 34-49. 14 No. and Ozmun. 15 No. 3. Y. E. 237-93. International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems. Vol.. Huq. Vol. Hawking. 15 No. T. 45 No. Glaser. 3. (2002). fashion and ﬁt: an examination of quality circles. (1967).C. 418-29. Computers & Industrial Engineering. (2000). New York. “An updated ERP systems annotated bibliography: 2001-2005”. 1-52. Y. (2003). Ford. van der Wiele. P. Everdingen. pp. Vol. pp. K. T. 327-32. pp. 192-203. 3. 27-31.V..V. pp. 4 No. Vol. B. 41 No. 137-52. 67-85. pp. International Journal of Production Economics. pp. T. pp. Jourdan. J. Currie.. “Taxonomy of information technology adoption patterns in manufacturing ﬁrms”. R. 5. “Enterprise resource planning research: where are we now and where should we go from here?”. 73 No. Journal of AIS. 3 No. C. Craighead.M.H. (2004).. S.Chiplunkar.K. S. A.. M. F. Esteves. Tharwat. “Beyond ERP”. 21-36.F. Vol. (2008). R. Business Process Management Journal. J. J. 2. Morgan. D. Communications of the ACM. “Architecture for integration of distributed ERP systems and e-commerce systems”. pp. “Second wave ERP education”. Cumbie. 3. Vol. (2004). “Critical factors for implementation success of ERP systems: an empirical investigation from Bahrain”. pp. “A customized ERP/SAP model for business curriculum integration”.W. Frank. Vol. Manufacturing Engineering. business process re-engineering and statistical process control”. C. 347-74.F. W. Communications of AIS. M. Vol. The Communications of the AIS. 19. Journal of Information Systems Education.. “BPR through ERP: avoiding change management pitfalls”. 6 No.G. and Klein. 1037-52. Vol.L. Emad. Journal of Information Systems Education. (2003). Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application. pp. Z. 15 No. No. Vol.B.G. (2003). (2001).. 109 No. J. pp. (2009). 10. Hillegersberg. Elkjaer. Vol. L. “Application of principles of event-related open systems to business process reengineering”. pp. V. J. pp.A. NY. Dale. Johnson. C. pp. 210-13. The Discovery of Grounded Theory.A. Vol. 258-65. Vol. A. and Pastor. International Journal of Production Research. pp. Koch. Ekanayaka. 2. Vol. A. C. Vol. A.. S. El Sawah. (2007).L. and Cutright. 2431-49.. 386-446. and Williams. “Crisis in the IS ﬁeld? A critical reﬂection on the state of the discipline”. 7 No. “Successful enterprise resource-planning implementation: taxonomy of critical factors”.
P.K.. 2. and Angappa. and Lau. L. Møller.L. Saad.H. 199-211.C. 405-26. “Examining the critical success factors in the adoption of enterprise resource planning”. and Zhao. 14 No.P. (2004). (2000).L. “Quality of post-implementation review for enterprise resource-planning systems”. 7 No. “Researchable directions for ERP and other new information technologies”. pp.A. pp. P. MIS Quarterly. pp. and Chan. Needham Heights. Vol. F. Vol. (2002). 675-93.. pp.I.L. Kraemmergaard. Vol. Newman. 1. 483-97. K.C. G.. . J. “Competing in the 21st century supply chain through supply chain management and enterprise integration”. F. 64 No. and Prastacos. S. Møller. Neuman. 59 No. 5 No. Møller. P. P. D. p. 22-6. 548-64. S.N. (2008). 71-5. iii-viii. Journal of Systems and Software. 3. and Arunachalam. (2002). Business Process Management Journal. C. Journal of Computer Information Systems. Brachos. M.F. and Wat. pp. (2008). “Where good ERP implementations go bad: a case for continuity”. pp. 17 No. Kræmmergaard.T. pp. C. 18 No. McComb. 43 No. 5. A. 1. Information Systems Frontiers. 6.S. Kostopoulos. Aarhus. 25-49. M. Law. C.W. Business Process Management Journal. and Due. Vol. 4. pp.C. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. McGaughey. Journal of Enterprise Information Management. Y. R. “Multisite ERP implementations”.. 327-37. 1. Vol.B. C. J. G. (2000). IFI working paper. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management. 455-65. “Determining factors of ERP adoption: an indicative study in the Greek market”. “ERP II: a conceptual framework for next-generation enterprise systems?”. Information Systems Journal. “Supply chain and enterprise systems management and solutions”. Rikhardsson.G.4 518 Koch. pp. Computers in Industry. Aarhus School of Business. 64. “The process of enterprise resource-planning implementation and business process re-engineering: tales from two Chinese small and medium-sized enterprises”. Nicolaou. 4. 4. T. (1997). Lenny Koh. Vol. H. Ng. Gable. 24 No. Kumar. pp.-S. 4 No. 14 No. 1. Communications of the ACM. 2. and Wade. E. Vol. “Critical factors for successful implementation of enterprise systems”. Lee. Markus. Vol. Allyn & Bacon. S. E. (2000). K. July-September. Engineering Management Conference.E. P. Ming-Ling. J. M. 1.. Vol. 6. 3. (2001b). pp. Nah. Jensen. P. S. pp.. “Enterprise resource planning: introduction”. 287-91. and Shariﬁ. A. Business Process Management Journal.C. (2004). Journal of Organizational Change Management. 43 No. Lee. 2. pp. “An empirical study of enterprise resource management systems implementation”. G. (2008). Vol.T. 42-6.-H. “Enterprise resource planning information technology as a steamroller for management politics?”. (2004). (2004). “A comprehensive ERP bibliography – 2000-2004”.. “Design and implementation of an ERP oracle ﬁnancials course”. Communications of the ACM. 3. p. “An ERP-client beneﬁt-oriented maintenance taxonomy”. (2005). Information Resource Management Journal. Tanis. (2008). pp.A. (2001). and Rose. 14 No. MA. 285-96. (2006). 3. G. Vol. 18 No. 23-35. Vol. 43 No. Vol. present and future”. (2007). C. Nah.C. “Enterprise resource planning (ERP): past. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems. 36 No. F. Ngai. T. and van Fenema. pp. Vol. pp. Vol.. Vol. Vol.JEIM 23.. Vol. “Managerial competences for ERP journeys”. 87-109. International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems. 4. and van Hillegersberg. W. S.C. (2002). 3 No.
J. S. F. K. (2003).B. Vol. Rikhardsson. and Nelson. pp.W.. 271-300. Journal of Enterprise Information Management. 315-38. 43 No. P. M. strategic enterprise management systems and management accounting: a Danish study”. 1 August. 43 No. 12 No. “Identifying the impacts of enterprise system implementation and use: examples from Denmark”. pp. 504-26. (2000). open-source ERP architecture”. 1. C. 15 No. and Robertson. pp. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems. (2000). (2000). 5 No. Enterprise Architecture as Strategy. 24. and Kraemmergaard.. European Accounting Review. S. “Implementing enterprise resource-planning systems with total quality control and business process reengineering survey results”. pp.. Parr. “ERP5: a next-generation. Vol. Communications of the ACM. P. (2000). Vol. 43 No. “Assessing and managing the beneﬁts of enterprise systems: the business manager’s perspective”. Shehab. Vol. L. G. “Cultural ﬁts and misﬁts: is ERP a universal solution?”. B. 7 No. pp. Shanks. “Componentizing the enterprise application packages”. Sprott. “Business process integration. Review of the ERP research ﬁeld 519 . P. Scheer. R. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. Journal of Information Technology. 57-61. Vol. 201-33. and Ives. “A model of ERP project implementation”. “Discussion of information system assurance for enterprise resource planning systems: unique risk considerations”. pp. O’Leary. C. pp. (2006). Supramaniam. Schrenederjans. (2002). 4. 47-51. and de Carvalho. 38-44. Vol. and optimization in ERP: integrated approach using enhanced process models”. Vol. and Habermann. G.E.M.A.C. E. pp. and Tay-Yap. MIS Quarterly. automation. P. 10 No. “A model of ERP project implementation”. 16 No. Sharp. and Shanks. 4. “IT-dependent strategic initiatives and sustained competitive advantage: a review and synthesis of the literature”. The Communications of the AIS.S. Ross. and Rohde. 4. (2003). 19 No. “Enterprise resource-planning systems. pp. A. 747-76. 4. Kien. and Spedding. 4. Vol. 50-66. Business Process Management Journal.W.G. (2006). (2006). Vol. (2002). Business Process Management Journal. Harvard Business School Press. 1. T. (2003). (2000). pp. G. 15 No. 4. (2002). 115-26. Communication of the ACM. Samaranayake. 9 No. 23 Nos 3/4. Journal of Information Systems. Rom. Soh. Vol. 2. 341-71. 146 No. Vol. pp. Vol.-W. pp. 4. 4. D. 12 No. M. J. IT Professional.M. MA. 418-29. “ERP systems and management accounting change: opportunies or impacts? A research note”. pp. Journal of Information Technology. Shang. Vol. pp.A. European Journal of Operational Research. Scapens. 1. 36-49. M. Boston. 63-9. Vol. 29 No. Smets-Solanes. “The AMCIS 2002 workshops and panels V: teaching ERP and business processes using SAP software”. pp. 289-303.Nielson. “The impact of strategy and integration mechanisms on enterprise system value: empirical evidence from manufacturing ﬁrms”. Weill. R. Somers. 359-86. (2009). G. 4. A. D. 15 No. P. and Jazayeri. “Enterprise resource planning: an integrative review”. “Making ERP a success”. A. (2004). 1. Vol.P. (2005). Communications of the ACM.J.. Vol. R. Piccolo. T. Information Systems Journal. 4. (2003). Vol. and Kim. J. and Seddon. D. pp.
-F. E. 109-18. L. 7 No. 4. (2010).. 1-6. “Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review”. Journal of Global Information Technology Management.. Volkoff.J. Business Process Management Journal. (2006).J. Y. Wei. MIS Quarterly. Tarafdar. E. 13 No. C. pp. (2005). 15 No.M. K.-T. pp. 47-62. Vol. Industrial Engineer: IE. R. W. 56 No. Vol. O.M. Vol. Haft.. Business Process Management Journal. Tounsi. 5. 20 No. and Corbin. 305-22. “A comprehensive framework for selecting an ERP system”. and Akanle. in Denzin. 2. R. Sutton. (1994). N. . (2006). “Enterprise systems and the re-shaping of accounting systems: a call for research”. Vol. Yang. 343-60. “Conﬁguring an ERP system: introducing best practices or hampering ﬂexibility?”. 161-9.Z.com/reprints . xiii-xxiii. “Analyzing the adoption of enterprise resource-planning systems in Indian organizations: a process framework”. M. London. 7 No. and Roy. and Umble.4 520 Staehr. Zhang. (2009). International Journal of Accounting Information Systems. Y. Strauss. M. 40 No.-Y. Subramoniam. 23 No.K. pp. pp. “The role of BPR in the implementation of ERP systems”. 22 No.V. 96 No.-Y. Computers & Industrial Engineering. 26 No. C.-C. Webster. M.K.-M. Vol. Vol. Umble. and Wang. pp. Handbook of Qualitative Research. pp. Vol. Corresponding author Pernille Kraemmergaard can be contacted at: pkj@epa. and Wang. Lin. A. International Journal of Production Economics. 319-24. 15 No. 181-94.R.JEIM 23. 217-85.J. Vol. S. M. T. J.J. and Wensley. Vol. 305-28. pp. pp.com Or visit our web site for further details: www. Subramoniam. 653-68. 3. J. 3. C.. pp.dk To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.S. A. (2003). 1. Vol. Chen. pp. . S. Stijn.aau. pp. S. Vol. Vol. and Lincoln. (2001). (2003). J. (2009). “An AHP-based approach to ERP system selection”. “An object-oriented intelligent environment of ERP systems”. Journal of Strategic Information Systems. E. (Eds). Business Process Management Journal. 6 No. Lin. M. 44-8. (2004). (2006). and Chen. and Tounsi. 1. 298-322. A. 2.-B. 3. Wang. Journal of Information Systems Education. D. and Krishnankutty. 3. M-J. European Journal of Operational Research. and Huang. Wagner. “Commanding the internet era”.T. Vol. C.I.V. C. “Design of a meta model for integrating enterprise systems”. 213-38.C. Computers in Industry. pp. and Watson. International Journal of Project Management. 10. “Enterprise resource planning: implementation procedures and critical success factors”. Vol.-T. R. Y.G. (2002).. “Understanding the role of managerial agency in achieving business beneﬁts from ERP systems”. pp. and Newell. 51 No. Wei. “Organizational memory and the completeness of process modelling in ERP”. “Grounded theory methodology”. Vol. 1. (2008). Vol. Chien. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management.-C.. 241-57.emeraldinsight. Information Systems Journal. 3. 1. 31-51. Anosike.. pp. M. pp. “An agent-based approach for e-manufacturing and supply chain integration”. 14 No. “A study on applying FMEA to improving ERP introduction: an example of semiconductor-related industries in Taiwan”. pp. S. 2. Subramoniam. 2.. (2003). 146 No. “Best for whom? The tension between best practice ERP package and diverse epistemic cultures in a university context”. S.. (2005). Sage. O. (2004). pp. C.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.