The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0398.htm

JEIM
23,3 Critical success factors for ERP
implementations in Belgian SMEs
Claude Doom, Koen Milis, Stephan Poelmans and Eric Bloemen
378 Hogeschool Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

Received January 2009

Revised April 2009 Abstract
November 2009 Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the critical success factors of ERP
Accepted December 2009 implementations in Belgian SMEs and to identify those success factors that are specific to a SME
environment.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors survey the literature to discover and classify
critical success factors that are potentially applicable to small and medium-sized enterprises. Through
a survey and a multiple case study within four Belgian companies, the authors investigate which of
these critical success factors apply to SMEs.
Findings – The results show that most of the success factors found in the literature apply to SMEs.
Nevertheless, distinct differences were found as well. Some factors, such as a clear scope definition and
a standardised infrastructure, are not regarded as critical success factors for SMEs. Moreover, SMEs
tend to rely relatively heavily on the input of consultants, who they use as a source of knowledge and
experience. Moreover, SMEs need to be able to adjust their businesses quickly to be able to exploit
their niche to the fullest extent.
Research limitations/implications – The research is limited to Belgian enterprises.
Originality/value – For SMEs, it is particularly important to recognise the elements for a successful
ERP implementation. This paper examines the critical success factors of ERP implementations in
small and medium-sized enterprises, while the existing literature on critical success factors of ERP
implementations focuses on large enterprises.
Keywords Manufacturing resource planning, Critical success factors, Small to medium-sized enterprises,
Belgium
Paper type Research paper

Journal of Enterprise Information
Management
Vol. 23 No. 3, 2010
pp. 378-406
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1741-0398
DOI 10.1108/17410391011036120
Introduction
ERP systems are extensive, integrated software systems supporting the internal
operations of an enterprise. They bring about enormous investments in software and in
package customisation. Many cases are known of ERP implementations failing to
deliver the promised functionality and even endangering the future of the
implementing company. The best-known example is probably the ERP project
carried out by the American company FoxMeyer, which supposedly led to the
bankruptcy of the company in 1996 (Scott, 1999). The company claims to have suffered
damages of $500 million because of the malfunction of the ERP system, implemented in
1993.
However, a survey in the USA revealed that 70 per cent of companies implementing
ERP consider the project successful (Mabert et al., 2000). More than 55 per cent of
companies admit that the planned budget was exceeded, by an average of 60.6 per cent.
When these budget overflows are counted as failures, the success rate of ERP
implementations does not reach 50 per cent.
 In view of these alarming figures, researchers and companies have been looking for Critical success
ways of improving the chances of success of ERP implementations. Research into ERP factors for ERP
implementations around the globe has revealed some of the critical ERP success
factors (Al-Mashari et al., 2003; Arnold, 2006; Bradley, 2008; Bingi et al., 1999; Chang
et al., 2008; Mabert et al., 2000; Olhager and Selldin, 2003; Parr and Shanks, 2000a, b).
Previous research in this area has focused predominantly on the implementation of
ERP systems in large organisations. This comes as no surprise, since the ERP market 379
– which was primarily focused at the high-end spectrum – only changed its focus
towards SMEs at the end of the 1990s, due to a saturation of the high-end market
combined with a decrease in hardware costs (Kremers and van Dissel, 2000).
Critical success factors for the implementation of ERP in a SME environment may
differ substantially from ERP implementations in large enterprises: it is by no means
obvious that the critical success factors of ERP implementations can be extrapolated to
SMEs. Indeed, the factors influencing SMEs’ adoption of enterprise systems
(technological and organisational factors) are substantially different from those of a
large companies, which focus more on environmental factors (Ramdani et al., 2009).
Moreover, here we focusing on one particular region: Belgium. As Shanks et al. (2000)
and Chwen et al. (2004) showed, the approach to ERP implementation should not be
copied from one country to another.
In this paper, we develop a view of critical success factors of ERP implementations
in small and medium-sized companies. In a first instance, we search the literature for
critical success factors of ERP implementations. This leads to a general classification
framework for ERP success factors. We then study four medium-sized companies with
successful ERP implementations. Through a detailed survey and interviews with key
players within these companies, we verify whether the ERP success factors discovered
in the literature are relevant for these companies.
In the next section we present the literature search and the overall classification of
ERP critical success factors. Then, we describe the case study of four companies,
followed by a comparison, between the results of the case study and the literature
review. Finally, conclusions are presented for the critical success factors of ERP
implementations in SMEs.

Critical success factors for ERP implementation

A critical success factor (CSF) is a factor which, if addressed, significantly improves
the changes of successful project implementation (Pinto and Slevin, 1987). There is no
general consensus on the critical success factors of an ERP implementation. In the
literature, the number of CSFs varies from nine to 16 (Arnold, 2006; Bradley, 2008;
Chang et al., 2008; Ernst & Young, 2006; Holland and Light, 1999; Loh and Koh, 2004;
Nah et al., 2001; Parr and Shanks, 2000a, b; Shanks et al., 2000; Sumner, 2005; Umble
et al., 2003; Ngai et al., 2008; Somers and Nelson, 2001; Zang et al., 2003; Soja, 2006).
Some of the critical success factors for ERP implementations are in line with the more
general CSFs for IT projects (Milis and Mercken, 2002; Ugwu et al., 2003), although all
studies on CSFs in ERP implementations mention CSFs specifically related to ERP
implementations. Most studies on CSFs in ERP implementations consider only large
companies, although some limited studies exist that consider enterprise size and its
relation to ERP implementation factors (Laukkanen et al., 2007).
JEIM The merging of the lists of CSFs for ERP implementations found in the literature
23,3 leads to a list of over 40 candidate CSFs. In order to structure these candidate CSFs, we
divide them into five groups according to the following themes:
(1) vision, scope, and goals;
(2) culture, communication, and support;
380 (3) infrastructure;
(4) approach; and
(5) project management.

Below, we review these groups of CSFs and we discuss their meaning.

Vision, scope, and goals

This group contains CSFs relating to the vision of the enterprise, the scope of the ERP
project and the goals of the implementation. The critical success factors of this group
are:
. vision;
. strategic goals; and
.
business plan.

Vision, strategic goals and business plan. These items occur as CSF in several studies.
According to Ernst & Young (2006) the presence of clear strategic goals is the fourth
most important CSF out of nine. However, Umble et al. (2003) reduce this factor to a
clear understanding of the strategic goals. Holland and Light (1999) identify “having a
clear business vision” as a CSF. Nah et al. (2001) expand this factor to the business plan
and the vision.
Summarising, the following elements are considered to be important:
.
a clear and motivating overall business vision (Holland and Light, 1999; Nah
et al., 2001; Umble et al., 2003; Ngai et al., 2008);
. a clear project mission, related to the business needs (Nah et al., 2001);
.
clear definition of strategic goals of the project, i.e. identification of project
expectations, results and benefits (Ernst & Young, 2006; Holland and Light,
1999; Nah et al., 2001; Umble et al., 2003);
.
a clear business plan, describing strategic and tangible benefits, the project
resources and timing, the costs and the risks (Nah et al., 2001; Ngai et al., 2008;
Loh and Koh, 2004); and
.
a clear model of the target business after the implementation of the project
(Holland and Light, 1999, Nah et al., 2001).

Scope. Which includes the need for a clear scope definition (Parr and Shanks (2000a, b)
define two CSFs related to scope: the definition of the project scope before project start
and the limitation of the scope. In this respect, Ernst & Young (2006) also mention
scope, limited to the essentials as a CSF).
In summary, the following elements pertaining to scope are considered important:
 .
a clear definition of the ERP project scope (Parr and Shanks, 2000a, b; Shanks Critical success
et al., 2000); and factors for ERP
.
the limitation of the scope to essential business functions (Parr and Shanks,
2000a, b; Ernst & Young, 2006).

Efficient management reporting. Sumner (2005) mentions the inclusion of management

reporting into the ERP project requirements as a CSF. 381

Culture, communication, and support

This group includes CSFs related to the corporate culture, the internal communication
and the project support by the stakeholders. The critical success factors given below.
Senior management support. This CSF appears frequently in the literature. Ernst &
Young (2006), Chang et al. (2008) and Holland and Light (1999) consider senior
management support as a particularly crucial element for success. Others mention
several senior management support factors (Arnold, 2006; Loh and Koh, 2004; Nah
et al., 2001; Parr and Shanks, 2000a, b; Shanks et al., 2000; Umble et al., 2003; Ngai et al.,
2008; Somers and Nelson, 2001), including:
.
project approval;
.
identifying the project as top priority;
.
senior management participation;
.
defending and supporting the project;
.
mediating between parties in times of conflict;
.
involvement with corporate strategy;
.
understanding of ERP technology and issues; and
.
proper assignment of resources to the project.

In addition, Nah et al. (2001) mention that top management should initiate changes to
the organisational structure and culture:
. identify and support new goals and objectives;
.
communicate the shared organisational vision and the role of the new system to
the staff;
.
identify and approve new organisational structures, roles and responsibilities;
and
.
approve codes of conduct for the use of the new system.

Senior management support is instrumental during the whole project

implementation. It may be encouraged by an appropriate corporate compensation
policy (Nah et al., 2001). Strong leadership is important for major projects. It may
therefore be advisable to have a senior manager take responsibility for the ERP
project (Umble et al., 2003).
User involvement. Although this factor is not generally mentioned in the ERP CSF
literature, it is considered the second most important success factor by Ernst & Young
(2006). Loh and Koh (2004) also consider this to be an important success criterion.
JEIM Effective change management. It is vital to manage and control the changes
23,3 occurring during the implementation of ERP systems (Nah et al., 2001; Shanks et al.,
2000; Sumner, 2005; Umble et al., 2003; Ngai et al., 2008; Somers and Nelson, 2001).
Some company-specific attributes may impact the ease of acceptance:
.
a corporate culture with shared values and common goals (Nah et al., 2001);
.
a culture that encourages open communication (Sumner, 2005);
382 .
a strong corporate identity (Nah et al., 2001);
.
a flexible organisation that is open to change (Nah et al., 2001, Umble et al., 2003);
.
an emphasis on quality (Nah et al., 2001);
.
strong information technology capabilities (Nah et al., 2001);
.
determination to accept and use new technologies (Nah et al., 2001); and
.
determination to overcome implementation problems (Parr and Shanks, 2000a, b).

Internal communication. Holland and Light (1999), Nah et al. (2001) and Ngai et al. 2008
consider communication to be a critical success factor. This includes:
.
communication of expectations at all company levels;
.
formal presentations by the project teams and announcement of the project
results within the company; and
.
announcement of the project scope, objectives and activities before the project
onset.

Supplier management. Sumner (2005) mentions supplier management as an important

critical success factor. According to Sumner, successful ERP projects have a
“vendor-accelerated implementation strategy” ensuring timely implementation of the
systems.

Infrastructure
This group contains critical success factors related to the IT infrastructure. It contains
two critical success factors.
A standardised IT infrastructure. This factor is mentioned by Ernst & Young (2006)
but is not considered to be very important. However, Ross et al. (2006) consider
standardisation in IT infrastructure to be an important success factor for all IT
implementations.
Suitable business and IT legacy systems. Holland and Light (1999), Nah et al. (2001)
and Ngai et al. (2008) consider the impact of existing corporate IT systems. They argue
that a stable and successful business- and IT context is essential for an ERP
implementation. Holland and Light (1999) consider existing business processes,
organisational structure, culture and IT systems as legacy systems. Nah et al. (2001)
make an explicit difference between business and IT legacy systems.

Approach
This group contains critical success factors related to the overall approach to the ERP
implementation. The critical success factors of this group are as follows.
A formalised project approach and methodology. Ernst & Young (2006) argue that
the use of a formalised methodology is essential. Holland and Light (1999) state that a
suitable methodology is vital to the implementation success. They propose three basic Critical success
methodological approaches: factors for ERP
(1) the skeleton approach, where the project starts with implementing the core of
the ERP or only a limited number of functionalities, which are expanded in
subsequent versions;
(2) the single module approach, where the ERP system is implemented module per
module; and 383
(3) the big bang approach, where a complete system is implemented.

Focus on user requirements. This critical success factor is mentioned by Sumner (2005).
Use of external consultants. This CSF is mentioned by Shanks et al. (2000), Sumner
(2005) and Somers and Nelson, 2001. Many ERP implementations make extensive use
of ERP consultants, bringing useful expertise in cross-functional business processes,
system configuration and specific module customisation. The proper use and
management of external consultants is a critical factor for a successful implementation.
User training. Shanks et al. (2000) and Sumner (2005) argue that the emphasis in user
training should be on the business processes, not on the technical aspects. Umble et al.
(2003) propose that 10-15 per cent of the total budget be reserved for training in order to
obtain an overall implementation success rate of 80 per cent. Arnold (2006), Bradley
(2008) and Somers and Nelson (2001) also emphasise the importance of user training.
Data accuracy. Shanks et al. (2000), Umble et al. (2003) and Zang et al. (2003)
recognise the importance of data accuracy. The input of erroneous data into the new
ERP system may have a devastating effect, because of the integrated nature of ERP
software. Two factors are of importance here:
(1) the data quality of the input from legacy systems into the ERP system should be
guaranteed; and
(2) the absolute need to input correct data into the ERP system, supported by the
proper data entry procedures, is recognised.

Alignment with business processes. Holland and Light (1999) and Nah et al. (2001) argue
that the ERP software should be properly aligned with the business processes in order
to come to a successful ERP implementation. This requires that a software package is
chosen that closely matches the existing business processes (Parr and Shanks, 2000a,
b). On the other hand, companies should be willing to modify their business processes
(Nah et al., 2001).

Project management
Many authors consider project management related factors to be critical for a
successful ERP implementation. The main critical success factors from this group are
as follows.
Proper project planning, phasing and follow-up. Proper project planning is widely
recognised as a critical success factor for a successful ERP implementation (Holland
and Light, 1999; Nah et al., 2001; Shanks et al., 2000; Sumner, 2005; Umble et al., 2003).
ERP project planning should contain at least the following elements:
.
Description of the project goals. The goals should be realistic in terms of required
quality, time and money (Ernst & Young, 2006; Parr and Shanks, 2000a, b).
JEIM .
The project scope. This includes the identification of the business processes
23,3 affected by the ERP implementation, the choice of ERP modules and the
identification of the changes to the standard ERP packages. It is essential that
these choices are made correctly.
.
The project plan with phasing and the critical path.
.
The milestones and deadlines
384 .
The resources plan.
.
The organisation of the project follow-up.
.
Contingency measures.

Proper project management. Ernst & Young (2006) and Sumner (2005) emphasise the
critical importance of a good project manager. Both cite experience as the most
important quality for the project manager. Also, the presence of a project champion, a
dedicated advocate of the project, is considered to be a critical success factor as well
(Nah et al., 2001; Parr and Shanks, 2000a, b; Shanks et al., 2000; Sumner, 2005; Ngai
et al., 2008; Somers and Nelson, 2001).
Good project teams. . Attention should be paid to the composition of the project
team, containing both business and technical team members (Nah et al., 2001; Parr and
Shanks, 2000a, b; Shanks et al., 2000). Parr and Shanks (2000a, b) and Umble et al.
(2003) also mention project team empowerment as a critical success factor. Giving
project teams the necessary decision power will improve the project implementation.
Somers and Nelson (2001) emphasise the importance of team competence. Nah et al.
(2001) also mention the importance of good collaboration between project team
members, whereas Chang et al. (2008) emphasise the necessity of collaboration between
different departments and parties involved. Some of the specific issues they mention
are:
.
collaboration in a single physical location;
.
incentives for teams delivering within time and budget;
.
regular meetings managing partnerships; and
.
incentives and risk-sharing agreements between partners.

Methodology
In order to discover whether the critical success factors found in the literature are also
valid for ERP implementations within Belgian SMEs, we selected 76 SMEs with known
successful ERP implementations. In this selection, we considered companies with a
number of employees from ten up to 250 and with yearly revenue of less than e50m or a
balance total of less than e43m to be small to medium-sized enterprises. The number of
employees, the revenue and balance total were verified in the Trends Top 100,000 of
Belgian companies (Biblo-Roularta, 2007). Information on ERP implementations in
these companies was obtained from company websites, websites of ERP vendors,
partners and via personal contacts with ERP consulting firms.
The 76 companies were provided with a list of questions on their implementation
(see the Appendix). This list of questions was designed to obtain as much formation as
possible on the company, the profile of their employees, the ERP implementation and
the use of the system. This information enabled us to select four representative
companies for further study. A polar sampling technique was used to limit bias: cases Critical success
with very diverse characteristics were selected (different sectors, single versus factors for ERP
multi-site, local versus international, different ERP vendors, etc.). Moreover, we opted
for cases that were expected to maximise return in terms of insights gained. In all four
cases, information on the company and the ERP implementation was retrieved from
databases and press articles, enabling us to improve data triangulation and partly
validate the data collected during the interviews. General information on the four 385
studied companies is given in Table I.
A multiple case research methodology was chosen, due to the fact that a holistic
view was deemed necessary to grasp the complex phenomenon of ERP systems
implementations. For each company, the answers of the initial survey were examined,
the information from the company websites, vendors, partners etc. were thoroughly
analysed and a key player in the ERP implementation project was interviewed to verify
the information found and to allow more in-depth analyses of the ERP implementation.
A structured interview technique was applied (Saunders et al., 2007). Interviewees
were presented a total of 76 questions. Of these, 21 questions related to their company,
the position of the interviewee in the company and to the general circumstances of the
ERP implementation. The other 55 questions related to the critical success factors of
the ERP implementation. In order to obtain standardised answers that may be
compared between the different cases studied, all possible answers to the questions
were predefined, although interviewees were given the opportunity to deviate from the
predefined answers (Healey and Rawlinson, 1994).

Case study in four Belgian companies

F-CO
F-Co is a leading European manufacturer of latex foam products. The company has
production sites in Belgium and the Czech Republic and has sales offices in Portugal,
Spain, Italy, Greece, the USA, Canada, China, South Korea, Japan and Australia. From
2001 to 2004 the company restructured its production lines and closed down two sites,
moving part of its production from Belgium to the Czech Republic. After three years of
losses, the company has been profitable since 2005.
F-Co implemented the SAP ERP system, including modules supporting purchasing,
order entry, materials management, production planning, financial accounting,
distribution and logistics and asset management. According to F-Co, 10 per cent of
each of the implemented modules needed to be modified to suit the needs of the
company. In addition, F-Co implemented a datawarehouse/business intelligence

Companya Activity Number of employees Revenueb Balance totalb Profit (loss)b

F-Co Latex foam 1,123 34.1 24.5 1.0

M-Co Process engineering 57 14.5 8.2 (0.2)
O-Co Vegetable oils 87 84.0 43.3 0.3
W-Co Tyres and wheels 51 40.5 79.2 4.6 Table I.
Properties of the four
a b
Notes: The names of the companies have been changed for reasons of confidentiality; figures are companies considered in
millions of euros the multiple case study
JEIM system and an advanced planning system, and the company is considering the
23,3 integration of its customer information system with its ERP system.
Before the introduction of the ERP system, the ICT infrastructure of F-Co was rather
limited. The ERP system was implemented at one single site (Belgium). The
implementation project was divided into several small sub-projects, each with its own
deliverables. However, the ERP system was introduced operationally using a “big
386 bang” approach (Sumner, 2005).
F-Co spent ample effort to manage the ERP implementation project and to keep it
under control. The duration of the project was initially estimated at six months, but the
project took between seven and 12 months to complete. The total cost of the cost was
within the planned budget of e1-1.5m. The company aims at a lifetime of ten years for
the ERP system. The division of the total expenditures over different components is
given in Table II.
The users were heavily involved in the implementation of the ERP system. Before
initiating the project, users were informed. Users could participate in the project by
offering suggestions and advice. They were also involved in the identification of the
requirements. Although no formalised acceptance procedure was developed for the
users, acceptance appeared to be high and the attitude of users towards the new system
was largely positive. Several actions were undertaken to help users to get accustomed
to the ERP system. Users were specifically trained in correct data entry, emphasising
the importance of correct data in the ERP system. To ensure correct data entry, data
quality control procedures were set up.
Senior management at F-Co had a pivotal role in the ERP implementation. Senior
management approved the project. They also assumed final responsibility for the
project and gave the project top priority, defending the project whenever necessary.
This proved to be of the utmost importance, as the ERP project led to major
reorganisations within the company. Openness to change and an organisational
culture of open communication were important factors in the final success of the ERP
project. Other aspects that were considered of importance were a strong corporate
identity, a commitment to new technology and a strong will to overcome operational
problems.
F-Co appointed a project champion. This person, from middle management, became
the promoter and facilitator of the ERP project, defending the project n all occasions
and resolving internal and external project conflicts.
A quarter of the ERP implementation project team was composed of external
consultants (see Table III). The project manager was chosen based on the person’s
competences and experience, with reputation and flexibility being the secondary
factors. Team members were selected among the top performing staff of the company.
Some team members, being involved in several projects, were only involved part-time

Component Percentage of total cost

Hardware 10
Table II. Software 60
The division of the total Consulting 5
cost of the ERP Implementation team 5
implementation of F-Co Training 20
in the ERP project. The project team did not have the authorisation to take critical Critical success
decisions independently. These decisions were taken by the company management, in factors for ERP
close consultation with the project team. The project team was motivated by offering
additional compensation for delivering on time and within budget.

M-Co
M-Co is the Belgian branch of a major worldwide provider of specialised products and 387
technologies for separation, heat transfer and fluid handling. M-Co constructs new
machinery and modifies and upgrades existing installations. M-Co is divided into two
divisions: one for the development and implementation of equipment for complex
processes and another providing products and services for high-performance
engineering.
M-Co implemented the Intentia ERP suite by Lawson. It supports purchasing, order
entry, materials management, financial accounting, distribution and logistics and
financial management. The Intentia system has interfaces with a data warehouse and
with third-party query and reporting tools. The Intentia system was chosen because it
covered the required functionalities, offered appropriate support and because of
experiences with previous implementations. M-Co is considering extending the system
with advanced planning tools.
M-Co reported considerable improvement in performance after the ERP
implementation. Information is more readily available, business processes are better
integrated, and supply and financial management have improved. The company has a
better customer order management and a shorter order-to-delivery cycle. More
deliveries are on time, the level of supplies stock is lower, and cash management has
improved. However, M-Co reports that staff management processes and supplier
relationships have not improved after the introduction of ERP.
The vanilla ERP system covered about 80 per cent of the business processes of
M-Co. To close the gap, both the business processes and the ERP software were
modified. To modify the business processes, M-Co used business process
re-engineering and process modelling tools. Most of the modifications were in the
distribution and logistics module, where 30 per cent of the module needed modification.
About 20 per cent of the financial modules needed modification, as did about 5 per cent
of the purchasing module. The order entry and materials management modules were
not modified.
The ERP project was divided into several subprojects. Of particular importance
were the multi-site issues, as the ERP system needed to be rolled out at several sites,
within the framework of a standardised infrastructure.
The overall ERP project, including the division into subprojects, was planned in
advance. No contingency planning and no overall new business architecture were
developed.

Percentage of project staff

Users 50 Table III.

Business analysts 15 The composition of the
Technical experts 10 ERP implementation
External consultants 25 team at F-Co
JEIM The ERP project received a higher priority on time, budget and staffing than other
23,3 projects at M-Co. The project overran slightly in budget and staff and had a major
overrun in time, taking between seven and 12 months to complete. The total project
cost was between e1m and e1.5m. The allocation of the costs over different categories
is shown in Table IV. The progress and performance of the project was only measured
by project management related criteria. Operational criteria were not considered,
388 although user feedback was taken into account.
Users were informed in good time about the project, but were not actively involved.
Only management participated actively in the project by offering requirements, advice
and feedback. However, the project was positively accepted by the users. Probably, the
appointment of job helpers was instrumental for user acceptance. Users received
extensive training – both technical- and business-oriented training – to understand
the business processes behind the ERP software. Data accuracy was emphasised
during training sessions.
The participation of M-Co’s top management was crucial for the success of the ERP
project. Top management approved the project and assumed responsibility. They
publicly characterised the project as top priority and supported throughout the
organisation. The corporate culture of flexibility, open communication, shared values
and common goals had a positive effect as well. The top management also selected a
project champion from the middle management, although it remained unclear how this
person contributed effectively to the success of the ERP implementation.
The project manager was selected because of his capabilities and flexibility.
Another selection criterion was reputation. Experience was not taken into account. The
composition of the project team is shown in Table V. Not all project team members
were assigned full-time to the project. The project team needed to consult with the
management to make critical decisions. There was no extra compensation for
completing the project on time and within budget.

O-Co
O-Co is the European division of a global player in the development and production of
vegetable oils and fats, used in food and snacks, especially in chocolates, cookies and

Component Percentage of total cost

Hardware 30
Table IV. Software 35
The division of the total Consulting 10
cost of the ERP Implementation team 10
implementation of M-Co Training 15

Percentage of project staff

Table V. Users 40
The composition of the Business analysts 20
ERP implementation Technical experts 20
team at M-Co External consultants 20
ice creams. These products are also used in the baby-food industry, and for the Critical success
production of margarines and deep-fried snacks. factors for ERP
O-Co implemented the SAP ERP system to support purchasing, order entry,
materials management, production planning, financial accounting, distribution and
logistics and financial management. Other business functions are implemented with
specific software interfaced with the SAP system. In addition, the ERP system contains
a data warehouse module, management query and reporting tools and advanced 389
planning facilities. O-Co is considering opening up the system to its customers.
The functionalities offered, combined with the level of vendor support offered, were
the prime factors in the selection of the ERP software. O-Co estimates the useful
lifetime of the ERP system to be five years. The ERP system was implemented to
replace existing specifically developed systems. Simplification, standardisation and
the improvement of relationships with customers and suppliers were other factors
influencing the transition to ERP.
The major benefit of the ERP implementation at O-Co was the improved integration
of business processes. Other benefits were improved quality and availability of
information, a better financial management and – to a lesser extent – improved
materials management. O-Co also registered slightly improved interaction with
customers and suppliers and slightly better cash management.
About 70 per cent of the existing business processes were directly supported by the
ERP software. The implementation required significant modifications to the ERP
package. To close the gap, business processes were modified and modifications to the
ERP software were implemented. Special attention was paid to keep modifications to
business processes and software to a strict minimum. Before migration from the existing
systems to ERP, the existing data was monitored extensively for errors. In addition,
users were made aware of the importance of entering correct data into the ERP system.
Project management and follow-up posed no significant problems. The project was
accorded very high priority, so budget, time and staff were allocated with priority to
this project. The project was completed within time and budget and showed a slight
staff overrun. The total cost of the ERP project was between e1m and e1.5m. The
project took between seven and 12 months to complete. The breakdown of the total cost
in categories is shown in Table VI.
The project was evaluated against project management criteria only, ignoring
operational criteria. No particular extra compensation was provided for completing the
project within budget or within time.
During the implementation, particular attention was paid to the involvement of users.
Users were informed in good time on the ERP project. In addition, their requirements,
remarks, reactions and feedback were thoroughly scrutinised and taken into account.
The project team considered it important to actively seek the approval of users. Another

Component Percentage of total cost

Hardware 10
Software 10 Table VI.
Consulting 50 The division of the total
Implementation team 20 cost of the ERP
Training 10 implementation of O-Co
JEIM important factor was the active involvement of the top management, who gave the
23,3 project all possible support, i.e. approval, identification as top priority, conflict
resolution, advocating, commitment and active participation. However, O-Co’s top
management did not assume final responsibility for the project; this was the
responsibility of the operational management team. The adoption of the ERP system
was further enabled by a corporate culture of open communication, openness to change,
390 a commitment to new technology and a strong will to overcome operational problems.
To further aid the adoption of the ERP system, change agents were appointed. O-Co
also appointed a project champion, selected from middle management. The tasks of
this person included presenting the advantages of the system, defending the project
against critics, resolve conflicts, keeping contact with users, and detecting problems.
The project team was composed of the best staff members from within O-Co. The
composition of the team is shown in Table VII. It is remarkable that half of the project
team consisted of end users. The remainder of the project team largely consisted of
external consultants, with limited participation by internal business analysts. The
most important factors in the selection of the project manager were capabilities,
experience, reputation and flexibility. All critical decisions in the project were taken by
the corporate management.

W-Co
Part of a global industrial corporation, W-Co is a provider of industrial and agricultural
tyres and complete wheels. These are used in agricultural machines, but also in
forklifts and other industrial machines. W-Co has three sites:
(1) a sales office;
(2) a distribution centre; and
(3) a site dedicated to agricultural tyres.

Since the restructuring of the company, production no longer takes place in Belgium,
having being relocated to Sri Lanka and Spain.
W-Co implemented the Intentia ERP software by Lawson. The functions supported
are purchasing, order entry, materials management, production planning, financial
accounting, distribution and logistics and financial management. The ERP system also
contains e-business functionalities and management query and reporting tools. An
interface is made to a data warehouse.
The ERP system was implemented to simplify and standardise the ICT procedures
and to improve interaction and communication with suppliers and customers. The
Intentia ERP software was selected based on the functionalities offered, vendor
support and references.

Percentage of project staff

Table VII. Users 50

The composition of the Business analysts 10
ERP implementation tea Technical experts 0
at O-Co External consultants 40
Up to 95 per cent of the existing business processes were covered by the ERP software. Critical success
The remaining gap was closed by modifying the ERP software. Business processes factors for ERP
remained unchanged or were at most marginally modified. The production planning,
distribution and logistics modules required a 5 per cent modification. The order entry
module required a 10 per cent modification. The ERP system was rolled out in a single
operation.
The ERP project was only loosely planned: there were no critical paths defined and 391
there was no room for contingency. However, the project was spilt into subprojects and
a complete model of the future business was elaborated. The project completed within
time and budget and with the allocated staff. There was a small budget overrun. The
cost of the ERP implementation was e1.5m. The project took between seven and 12
months to complete. The cost was between e1m and e1.5m. The breakdown of the
project cost is shown in Table VIII.
The project was evaluated using project management criteria only. The return on
investment of the project was estimated at 5 per cent, the useful lifetime being
estimated at three to five years. No specific extra compensation was provided for
project completion within budget or within time.
At the onset and during the project, user input was solicited. Their initial
requirements and feedback on the final implementation were taken into account,
although users were not asked for formal approval. Users were represented by a few
peers, although the complete user community was timely informed about the project.
Users were trained extensively and well in advance, emphasising data accuracy. Most
of the training concentrated on practice with the new system Additionally, job helpers
were appointed. Globally, users played a major role in the ERP implementation at
W-Co.
Several changes in the structure and culture of the organisation were necessary at
W-Co. Top management was instrumental, clarifying the role of the ERP system and
the required changes in corporate culture. Top management participated actively in
this project: approving the project, alignment with corporate strategy, public
identification as top priority and conflict mediation. In addition, top management
provided a project champion and took final responsibility for the project.
The composition of the project team at W-Co is shown in Table IX. The project
members were selected among the best available staff. Not all project team members
were assigned full-time to the project. The principal criteria for the selection of the
project manager were the person’s reputation and flexibility. The project team was
authorised to take quick, critical decisions autonomously, although proper
communication with the management was considered important.

Component Percentage of total cost

Hardware 5
Software 15 Table VIII.
Consulting 50 Division of the total cost
Implementation team 10 of the ERP
Training 20 implementation of W-Co
JEIM Discussion: a comparison of critical success factors
23,3 In this section, we elaborate on the level of success of the ERP implementation
presented in the previous section. We then compare the results of the four cases with
the theoretical CSF framework elaborated in section 2.

Success criteria
392 Table X gives an overview of the criteria used to evaluate the success of the four ERP
projects. These are largely equivalent to the general success criteria of projects
(Rosenau, 1998; Atkinson, 1999; DeLone and McLean, 1992, 2003). Table X also shows
how the four implementations under examination fulfil these criteria. Table X shows
that completion within time was generally a problem. However, the time overruns did
not affect the quality of the final system. On the other hand, user satisfaction and the
realisation of tangible benefits were largely fulfilled for all four implementations. We
therefore conclude that all four ERP implementations were successful.

Comparison of the observed CSFs

In this section, we compare the observed critical success factors of the four cases with
the theoretical framework, developed in the literature review.
(1) Vision, scope and goals:
.
Vision, strategic goals and business plan – Most of these factors were
observed. The cases confirm the importance of vision, strategic goals and
business plan as a CSF.
.
Scope – The scope was properly defined in the four cases. However, the
cases show that an explicit limitation of the scope is less important for SMEs
than for large enterprises. A SME has a limited number of business
processes, naturally limiting the scope of an ERP implementation.
.
Efficient management reporting – All four companies have implemented
query- and reporting tools for management reporting. However, it is not
possible to determine to what extent these reporting tools contributed to the

Percentage of project staff

Table IX. Users 10

Composition of the ERP Business analysts 50
implementation team at Technical experts 20
W-Co External consultants 20

Criterion F-Co M-Co O-Co W-Co

Completed within time 2 2 þ þ

Completed within budget ^ ^ þ þ
User satisfaction þþ þþ þþ þþ
Table X. Tangible benefits þþ þþ þþ þþ
Success criteria for ERP
projects Notes: 2 , insufficient; ^, partly fulfilled; þ , largely fulfilled; ++, completely fulfilled
 success of the ERP implementation, although there is no doubt about the Critical success
importance of the tools for the overall business.
factors for ERP
(2) Culture, communication and support:
.
Senior management support – The study of the four cases shows that senior
management support was an important factor for the success of all the ERP
implementation examined, confirming the importance of this CSF. However,
only two out of four had additional compensation schemes in place, 393
rewarding successful project completion.
. User involvement – Three of the four implementations actively involved the
users. At O-Co users even had a primary role in the implementation. User
approval of the final system was less pronounced, but was also present in three
cases.
.
Effective change management – Only one of the companies, O-Co, performed
a business process re-engineering. However, all of the companies studied had
the necessary corporate culture to embrace change. This leads to the
conclusion that active change management is not an important factor for
SMEs, provided that the company has a suitable corporate culture, with
sufficient openness for change.
.
Internal communication – This factor was considered important by all four
studied ERP implementations.
.
Supplier management – Three of the four companies collaborated closely
with their supplier to ensure ERP implementation success.
(3) Infrastructure:
. A standardised IT infrastructure – F-Co and W-Co had rather standardised
IT infrastructures while the two other companies did not. This appears to
suggest that a standardised IT infrastructure is not an important CSF for
ERP implementation in SMEs.
.
Suitable business and IT legacy systems – The situation in the four studied
companies is varied, so we cannot draw any conclusions regarding this CSF.
(4) Approach:
.
A formalised project approach and methodology – The four implementations
used a formalised project approach.
.
Focus on user requirements – Three of the four studied implementations
emphasise the need to focus on user requirements and considered this to be a
CSF.
.
Use of external consultants – All studied companies used external
consultants. Three companies stated that this was done to tap into expertise
of business processes, systems configuration and module customisation.
Although none of the four companies outsourced its project completely to
external consultants.
.
User training – . Three out of four studied companies cite user training to be
a critical factor. The companies offered both technical and functional
training to the users, although the fraction of technical training varies from
30 per cent technical training (O-Co) to 75 per cent technical training (W-Co).
JEIM .
Data accuracy – Although all four cases took measures to ensure data
23,3 accuracy, both during conversion and during the use of ERP, it is not clear
that this is actually a critical success factor for a successful ERP
implementation.
.
Alignment with business processes – In all four cases, there was good
alignment between existing business processes and the ERP software,
394 reducing the necessary modification and programming effort. As SMEs
normally have a more limited number of business processes than large
enterprises, we conclude that alignment is a less important CSF for SMEs
than for large enterprises.
(5) Project management:
.
Proper project planning, phasing and follow-up – The ERP projects were all
properly planned, although W-Co did not cater for contingency and did not
analyse the critical paths of the project planning. Follow-up was foreseen in
all project plans. Three companies divided the project into subprojects,
although only F-Co defined expected benefits per subproject. The four
companies confirmed the importance of project planning for the success of
their project.
. Proper project management – Good project management is strongly related
with proper project planning. The four studied ERP projects reported good
project management.
.
Good project teams – This includes the choice of a good project leader, the
appointment of a project champion and the proper staffing of project teams.
Three out of four companies mention capabilities and experience as major
factors to select a project leader. Reputation and flexibility were generally
considered less important. All four companies appointed a project champion,
although the contribution of the project champion to the final result is not clear.
The composition of the project teams, being a mix between external
consultants, internal business- and technical analysts and users, varies from
one project to the other.

Conclusions, limitations and suggestions for further research

The largest fraction of the critical success factors found in the literature applies to the
four implementations studied. This indicates that a majority of critical success factors
that are valid for large companies are also applicable to SMEs. The most important
critical success factors for SMEs identified in this study are:
.
a clear vision of the strategic goals of the ERP implementation;
.
senior management support;
.
active user involvement;
.
a suitable corporate culture that is open to change;
.
internal communication on the ERP project, both before and during the project;
.
proper management of the ERP supplier;
.
a formalised project approach and methodology;
. a focus on user requirements;
 .
the use of external consultants; Critical success
.
user training, both on technical aspects and on business aspects, oriented factors for ERP
towards practice;
.
proper project planning, phasing and follow-up;
.
proper project management; and
.
a project team, composed of a mix of users, i.e. internal technical and business 395
experts and external consultant.

When we compare the critical success factors we find in this study to those found in the
literature (see the section on literature review above), we find that most of the
important critical success factors found in studies of ERP implementations in large
enterprises also occur in SMEs. This is particularly true for the list of the most
important critical success factors in SMEs given above. However, there are a few
critical success factors of ERP implementations found in large enterprises that are
notoriously absent in the SMEs we examined:
The explicit limitation of the scope appears to be no issue for SMEs. Possibly, this
could be explained by the high level of top management involvement and the
involvement of senior people in the project teams. Close monitoring by the senior
management prevents projects from running out of control.
In contrast to large companies, having a standardised IT infrastructure appears not
to be a success factor either. The IT infrastructure of SMEs is in average far less
complex than the infrastructure of large companies and as such does not provide an
unsolvable problem.
In addition, the specificity of SMEs and the role they play in the economic
environment lead to a number of specific issues that differentiates the set of critical
success factors in comparison to large companies:
.
There is a relatively high reliance on the input of consultants. By hiring
consultants, SMEs tap into an important source of knowledge and experience
that is often missing in their organisation due to the limited number of IT staff
members.
.
Belgium has an economy that is rather small and open in nature. Consequently,
most Belgian SMEs rely heavily on exports. This makes them vulnerable to the
pressures of fast-changing international markets. They need to be able to adjust
their businesses quickly to be able to exploit their niche to the fullest extent.
Hence, most Belgian SMEs have a corporate culture that embraces change. As
such, employees are accustomed to change, making change management a far
less important issue.

Although the sets of critical success factors of SMEs and large companies are similar to
a large extent, they are not completely interchangeable. This study demonstrates that
critical success factors for the implementation of ERP systems in SMEs may differ
substantially on some specific factors.
We are able to point out the differences in the sets of critical success factors for ERP
implementations, although the number of cases examined is too limited to make an
in-depth analysis of the differences found. Hence, future research should focus on each
of these differences and study them to discover the mechanisms behind them.
JEIM Moreover, similar studies should be executed in different countries to gain a better
23,3 understanding of the impact of culture on critical success factors for ERP
implementations in SMEs. Hence, the results of this research should be interpreted
taking into account that we studied only Belgian companies.

References
396 Al-Mashari, M., Al-Mudimigh, A. and Zairi, M. (2003), “Enterprise resource planning: a taxonomy
of critical factors”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 146, pp. 352-64.
Arnold, V. (2006), “Behavioral research opportunities: understanding the impact of enterprise
systems”, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Vol. 7, pp. 7-17.
Atkinson, R. (1999), “Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a
phenomenon, it’s time to accept other success criteria”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 337-42.
Biblo-Roularta (2007), Trends Top 100,000, available at: www.trendstop.be (accessed 18 July
2007).
Bingi, P., Sharma, M.K. and Godla, J.K. (1999), “Critical issues affecting an ERP implementation”,
Information Systems Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 7-14.
Bradley, J. (2008), “Management based critical success factors in the implementation of enterprise
resource planning systems”, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems,
Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 205-25.
Chang, M.K., Cheung, W., Cheng, C.H. and Yeung, J.H.Y. (2008), “Understanding ERP system
adoption from the user’s perspective”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 113 No. 2, pp. 928-42.
Chwen, S., Bongsug, C. and Yang, C.L. (2004), “National differences and ERP implementation:
issues and challenges”, Omega, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 361-71.
DeLone, W. and McLean, E. (1992), “Information systems success: the quest for the dependent
variable”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 60-95.
DeLone, W. and McLean, E. (2003), “The DeLone and McLean model of information systems
success: a ten year update”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp. 9-30.
Ernst & Young (2006), “Een ERP in een KMO: een utopia of realiteit?”, Ernst & Young studie
over ERP-oplossingen voor KMO’s, available at: www.ey.com/global/download.nsf/Belgi
um_D/pdf_ERP_FOR_PME2006_NL/$file/ERP_FOR_PME_NL.pdf (accessed 23 March
2007).
Healey, M.J. and Rawlinson, M.B. (1994), “Interviewing techniques in business and management
research”, in Wass, V.J. and Wells, P.E. (Eds), Principles and Practice in Business and
Management Research, Dartmouth Publishing, Aldershot, pp. 123-46.
Holland, C.P. and Light, B. (1999), “A critical success factors model for ERP implementation”,
IEEE Software, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 30-6.
Kremers, M. and van Dissel, H. (2000), “ERP system migrations”, Communications of the ACM,
Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 53-6.
Laukkanen, S., Sarpola, S. and Hallikainen, P. (2007), “Enterprise size matters: objectives and
constraints of ERP adoption”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 20
No. 3, pp. 319-34.
Loh, T.C. and Koh, S.C.L. (2004), “Critical elements for a successful enterprise resource planning
implementation in small and medium sized enterprises”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 42 No. 17, pp. 3433-55.
Mabert, V.M., Soni, A. and Venkataramanan, M.A. (2000), “Enterprise resource planning survey
of US manufacturing firms”, Production and Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 2,
pp. 52-88.
Milis, K. and Mercken, R. (2002), “Success factors regarding the implementation of ICT Critical success
investment projects”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 80, pp. 105-17.
Nah, G.F.H., Lau, J.L.S. and Kuang, J. (2001), “Critical factors for successful integration of
factors for ERP
enterprise systems”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 285-96.
Ngai, E.W.T., Law, C.C.H. and Wat, F.K.T. (2008), “Examining the critical success factors in the
adoption of enterprise resource planning”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 59, pp. 548-64.
Olhager, J. and Selldin, E. (2003), “Enterprise resource planning survey of Swedish 397
manufacturing firms”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 146 No. 2,
pp. 365-73.
Parr, A.N. and Shanks, G. (2000), “A taxonomy of ERP implementation approaches”, Proceedings
of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI, 4-7 January,
Vol. 7, IEEE Computer Society, Piscataway, NJ, p. 7018.
Parr, A.N. and Shanks, G. (2000), “A model of ERP project implementation”, Journal of
Information Technology, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 289-303.
Pinto, J.K. and Slevin, D.P. (1987), “Critical factors in successful project implementation”, IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 22-7.
Ramdani, B., Kawalek, P. and Lorenzo, O. (2009), “Predicting SMEs’ adoption of enterprise
systems”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 10-24.
Rosenau, M.D. (1998), Successful Project Management: A Step-by-Step Approach with Practical
Examples, 3rd ed., Wiley, New York, NY.
Ross, J.W., Weill, P. and Robertson, D.C. (2006), Enterprise Architecture as Strategy, Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2007), Research Methods for Business Students, 4th ed.,
Pearson Education, Harlow.
Soja, P. (2006), “Success factors in ERP systems implementations: lessons from practice”, Journal
of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 646-61.
Somers, T.M. and Nelson, K. (2001), “The impact of critical success factors across the stages of
enterprise resource planning implementations”, Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI, 3-6 January, Vol. 8, IEEE
Computer Society, Piscataway, NJ, p. 8016.
Scott, J.E. (1999), “The FoxMeyer Drugs bankruptcy: was it a failure of ERP?”, paper presented at
The 5th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), Milwaukee, WI.
Shanks, G., Parr, A., Hu, B., Corbitt, B., Thanasankit, T. and Seddon, P. (2000), “Differences in
critical success factors in ERP systems implementation in Australia and China: a cultural
analysis”, Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS
2000), Vienna, 3-5 July, pp. 537-44.
Sumner, M. (2005), Enterprise Resource Planning, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Ugwu, O.O., Kumaraswamy, M.M.T.S. and Lee, P.K.K. (2003), “Agent-based collaborative
working in construction: understanding and modelling design knowledge, construction
management practice and activities for process automation”, HKIE Transactions, Vol. 10
No. 4, pp. 81-7.
Umble, E.J., Haft, R.R. and Umble, M.M. (2003), “Enterprise resource planning: implementation
procedures and critical success factors”, European Journal of Operational Research,
Vol. 146 No. 2, pp. 241-57.
Zang, L., Lee, M., Zang, Z. and Banerjee, P. (2003), “Critical success factors of Enterprise Resource
Planning systems implementation success in China”, Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, HI, 6-9 January, IEEE Computer
Society, Piscataway, NJ, pp. 236-45.
JEIM Appendix: Questionnaire
The questions used in the structured interviews are given below. For most questions, the
23,3 interviewees could answer by indicating one of the predefined options. Questions are indicated
by “Q”. The predefined answers are indicated by “A”, the options being separated by
semicolons.

398
Part I: Company parameters
1. Q: What is the position of the interviewee in the company? Indicate one answer.
A: Board member; Logistics manager; Manufacturing; IT manager; Operations
manager; Purchasing; Other.
2. Q: What is the yearly turnover of the company? Indicate one answer.
A: Less than e2m; Between e2m and e10m; Between e10m and e50m; Between e50m
and e100m; Larger than e2m.
3. Q: What is the number of employees in the company? Indicate one answer.
A: Less than 10; Between 10 and 50; Between 50 and 250; Between 250 and 500; Larger
than 500.
4. Q: What is the current situation of ERP in the company? Indicate one answer.
A: The ERP system is installed; Installation is in progress; We plan to implement in the
coming 18 months; No ERP is planned.

Part II: Pre-implementation activities

5. Q: What are the motivations to implement ERP? Evaluate each motivation on a scale
from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important).
A: To replace existing systems (scale of 1 to 5).
To simplify and standardise the systems (scale of 1 to 5).
To obtain a strategic advantage (scale of 1 to 5).
To improve the interaction and communication with suppliers and customers (scale of
1 to 5).
To ease the regular update of systems (scale of 1 to 5).
To solve the year-2000 problem (scale of 1 to 5).
To catch up with competitors (scale of 1 to 5)
6. Q: What was the strategic approach in the ERP implementation? Indicate one answer.
A: One single ERP package; One single ERP package in combination with other
systems; Several ERP packages in combination with other systems; A “best of breed”
of several ERP packages; In-house development; In-house development, supplemented
with specific package functionality.
7. Q: Has there been a formal internal evaluation of the ERP project before
implementation? Indicate one answer.
A: Yes; No.
8. Q: If a formal evaluation has been made, what evaluation methods were used? Indicate
all methods used.
A: Payback period; Return on investment; Net present value; Internal rate of return;
Total cost of ownership; Other.
 9. Q: If a formal evaluation has been made, what was the expected return on investment? Critical success
Indicate one answer.
A: Less than 5 per cent; Between 5 per cent and 15 per cent; Between 15 per cent and 25
factors for ERP
per cent; Between 25 per cent and 50 per cent; Larger than 50 per cent.

Part III: Implementation experiences

399
10. Q: What was the planned duration of the project? Indicate one answer.
A: Less than six months; Between six months and 12 months; Between 13 months and
18 months; Between 19 months and 24 months; Between 25 months and 36 months;
Between 27 months and 48 months; larger than 48 months.
11. Q: What was the real duration of the project? Indicate one answer.
A: Less than six months; Between six months and 12 months; Between 13 months and
18 months; Between 19 months and 24 months; Between 25 months and 36 months;
Between 27 months and 48 months; larger than 48 months.
12. Q: What was the adopted implementation strategy? Indicate one answer.
A: “Big Bang” (full implementation in one roll-out); Skeleton approach (first a limited
version, adding functionality later); Single module approach (one module at a time);
Phased approach per site (complete functionality per physical location).
13. Q: What was the total budgeted cost of the ERP implementation? Indicate one answer.
A: Less than e0.5m; Between e0.5m and e1.5m; Between e1.5m and e5m; more than
e5m.
14. Q: What was the total actual cost of the ERP implementation? Indicate one answer.
A: Less than e0.5m; Between e0.5m and e1.5m; Between e1.5m and e5m; more than
e5m.
15. Q: How is the actual cost spread over the following categories? Indicate a percentage
for each category with a total of 100 per cent.
A: Software (0-100 per cent); Hardware (0-100 per cent); Consultancy (0-100 per cent);
Training (0-100 per cent); Implementation team (0-100 per cent); Other (0-100 per cent).

Part IV: ERP package and customisation

16. Q: What is the most important ERP package implemented? Indicate one answer.
A: SAP; Oracle; Peoplesoft; Microsoft Dynamics; Baan (Invensys); IBS; IFS; Intentia; JD
Edwards; Solid Data; Systemat Popsy; CCS; Aktiv; Briljant; TopPower; Other.
17. Q: How do you estimate the amount of required customisation? Indicate one answer.
A: Large; Significant; Small; No customisation.

Part V: Implemented modules and level of customisation

18. Q: What ERP modules were implemented and what percentage of each implemented
module was modified? Indicate all modules implemented and give a percentage for
each implemented module.
A: Purchasing (modified: 0-100 per cent); Order entry (modified: 0-100 per cent);
Materials management (modified: 0-100 per cent); Production planning (modified: 0-100
JEIM per cent); Accounting (modified: 0-100 per cent); Distribution and logistics (modified:
0-100 per cent); Financial management (modified: 0-100 per cent); Asset management
23,3 (modified: 0-100 per cent); Human resources (modified: 0-100 per cent); Quality
management (modified: 0-100 per cent); Maintenance (modified: 0-100 per cent);
Research and development (modified: 0-100 per cent).
19. Q: Which of the following extensions to the ERP system are being implemented (I),
400 Planned (P), Considered (C) or not planned (N)? Indicate for each extension: I, P, C or N.
A: Customer access to the ERP system (I, P, C or N).
Data warehouse, business intelligence (I, P, C or N).
E-business and e-commerce (I, P, C or N).
Supplier access to the ERP system (I, P, C or N).
Supply chain integration (I, P, C or N).
CRM (I, P, C or N).
Advanced planning tools (I, P, C or N).

Part VI: Benefits

20. Q: What were the benefits of the ERP implementation? Score each benefit from 1 (no
benefit) to 5 (large benefit).
A: Information is available faster (scale of 1 to 5).
More interaction between employees (internally) (scale of 1 to 5).
Better control over orders/Better order processing (scale of 1 to 5).
Better financial management (scale of 1 to 5).
Better customer intimacy (scale of 1 to 5).
Fewer delays in deliveries (scale of 1 to 5).
Better supplier intimacy (scale of 1 to 5).
Less operational costs (scale of 1 to 5).
Lower inventory (scale of 1 to 5).
Better cash management (scale of 1 to 5)
21. Q: To what extent were benefits realised in the following domains? Score each domain
from 1 (no benefit) to 5 (large benefit).
A: Information availability (scale of 1 to 5).
Business processes integration (scale of 1 to 5).
Information quality (scale of 1 to 5).
Inventory management (scale of 1 to 5).
Financial management (scale of 1 to 5).
Flexibility towards customers (scale of 1 to 5).
Supplier management (scale of 1 to 5).
Human resources management (scale of 1 to 5).
IT cost improvement (scale of 1 to 5).

Part VII: Critical success factors: vision, scope and goals

22. Q: Which of the following aspects were thoroughly considered before the project and
were followed-up during the project? For each aspect, indicate whether it was
considered (C), Followed-up (F) or both (CF).
A: A vision on the ERP project (C, F or CF).
Strategic goals (C, F or CF).
 A new business model (C, F or CF). Critical success
A business plan, spelling out the:
benefits (C, F or CF); factors for ERP
resources (C, F or CF);
costs (C, F or CF);
risks (C, F or CF);
time line (C, F or CF).
401
23. Q: Was the project mission clearly articulated? Indicate one answer.
A: Yes; No.
24. Was the project mission related to the business needs? Indicate one answer.
A: Yes; No.
25. Q: How many modules (functionalities), business processes, users and sites were
included in the project? For each, answer with one (1), a limited number (L) or All (A).
A: Modules (1, L or A); Business processes (1, L or A), Users (1, L or A), Sites (1, L or A).
26. Q: How would you describe the level of the basic requirements? Indicate one answer.
A: Low; Rather low; Average; Rather high; High.
27. Q: How were management query and reporting tools considered? Indicate one answer.
A: They were part of the required ERP functionality; They were purchased from a
third party; Neither.

Part VIII: Critical success factors: culture, communication and support

28. Q: Were the following groups informed about the project? Did they provide input? Did
they actively participate in the implementation process? Did they have a facilitating
role in the project? For each group, indicate whether they were not informed (1),
informed but not actively participating (2), provided input (3), actively participated (4)
or had an active facilitating role (5).
A: Top management (1-5); Senior management (1-5); IT management (1-5); IT staff
(1-5); Line management (1-5); Operational staff (1-5).
29. Q: Indicate which of these statements applies to top management during the ERP
implementation process. For each statement, indicate whether it applies (Y) or not (N).
A: Top management . . .
approves the project (Y or N).
. . . publicly supports the project and calls it a top priority (Y or N).
. . . mediates in conflicts, arising in the project (Y or N).
. . . actively engages and participates in the project (Y or N).
. . . is concerned with the integration of the ERP project in the enterprise (Y or N).
. . . understands ERP (Y or N).
30. Q: What changes in organisational structure and culture were communicated by the
top management? Indicate all changes that apply.
A: Guidelines for the introduction of the new system.
A shared vision on the organisation and the role of the new system.
New organisation goals.
New organisational structures, roles and responsibilities.
Other (please specify).
JEIM 31. Q: What priority did the ERP project receive in comparison to other large IT projects in
the domains of staffing, budget and time? For each factor, give a score of 1 (much less),
23,3 2 (less), 3 (equal amount), 4 (more) or 5 (much more).
A: Personnel (1-5); Budget (1-5); Time (1-5).
32. Q: To what extent did the approved means suffice to implement the project? For each
factor, give a score of 1 (much less), 2 (less), 3 (equal amount), 4 (more) or 5 (much more).
402 A: Personnel (1-5); Budget (1-5); Time (1-5).
33. Q: How was the project budget determined? Indicate one answer.
A: The budget was fixed before the project start; The budget was somewhat flexible,
but a payback period was imposed; There was no budget control.
34. Q: Which of the following properties does your organisation have and was
instrumental for the ERP project? Indicate all that apply.
A: A culture with shared values and common goals; A culture of open communication;
A strong corporate identity; A flexible organisation, open to change; An emphasis on
quality; Strong IT capabilities; The will to accept new technologies; Perseverance with
respect to implementation problems.
35. Q: Which measures were taken to improve the integration of ERP into the
organisation? Indicate all that apply.
A: User training; Regular communication; Use of “change agents”; Referral to the
corporate culture; On-the-job user assistance; Conflict management; Other (please
specify).
36. Q: What kind of information was solicited from the users before, during and after the
project? Indicate all that apply.
A: Requirements (before); Remarks (during); Feedback (afterwards); Approval
(throughout).
37. Q: What kind of user information was taken into account? Indicate with 1 (not taken
into account) to 5 (fully taken into account).
A: Requirements (before); Remarks (during); Feedback (afterwards); Approval
(throughout).
38. Q: What is the general level of acceptance of the ERP system by the users? Indicate one.
A: Very positive (enthusiasm); Positive (acceptance); Neutral; Negative (no acceptance);
Very negative (resistance).
39. Q: When were the users informed about the following aspects of the ERP project? For
each aspect, indicate B if users were informed before the start, D if they were informed
during the project or A if they were informed after the project. Indicate N if users were
not informed about this aspect.
A: The project existence (B, D, A or N).
The project importance (B, D, A or N).
The project scope (B, D, A or N).
The project goals (B, D, A or N).
The performance expectations (B, D, A or N).
The time frame (B, D, A or N).
The project activities (B, D, A or N).
Project updates (B, D, A or N).
 40. Q: How is the relation with the ERP software supplier? Indicate one. Critical success
A: The ERP supplier is only the seller of the system; The supplier also provides
implementation consultants; The supplier is a partner.
factors for ERP

Part IX: Critical success factors: Infrastructure

41. Q: How would you qualify the IT infrastructure at the start of the ERP project? Indicate 403
one answer.
A: Standardised; Rather standardised; Rather proprietary; Proprietary
42. Q: How complex would you call these aspects of your organisation before the ERP
implementation? Score each aspect with 1 (simple), 2 (rather simple), 3 (average), 4
(rather complex) or 5 (complex).
A: Business processes (1-5); Organisational structure (1-5); IT (1-5).
43. Q: How varied would you call these aspects of your organisation before the ERP
implementation? Score each aspect with 1 (simple), 2 (rather simple), 3 (average), 4
(rather complex) or 5 (complex).
A: Business processes; IT platforms; IT applications.

Part X: Critical success factors: General approach

44. Q: How was the implementation organised? Indicate one answer.
A: Phased approach per product line; Phased approach per location; Simultaneous
introduction for all products and all locations.
45. Q: What was the major goal of the implementation? Indicate one answer.
A: Standardisation of processes over all locations; Local optimisation of processes.
46. Q: How important were these arguments in the choice of the ERP package? Score each
argument from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important).
A: Vendor support (1-5); References (number of previous implementations of the
package) (1-5); Functionality match (1-5).
47. Q: To what extent was there a match between the existing business processes and the
business processes, supported by the chosen ERP package? Give a percentage.
48. Q: How was the gap between required and supported functionality closed? Indicate one
answer.
A: The ERP system was adjusted to the business processes; The business processes
were adjusted to the ERP system; Both were modified.
49. Q: To what extent was the ERP system modified? Indicate one answer.
A: No modification; Simple parameterisation, no or minimal code modifications; Complex
parameterisation, no or minimal code modifications; Extensive code modifications.
50. Q: To what extent were business processes modified? Indicate one answer.
A: No modifications; Minor modifications; Business processes were redesigned (Business
process re-engineering).
51. Q: If business processes were re-engineered, which ones of the following statements are
true? Indicate all that apply.
JEIM A: Process modelling tools were used; The re-engineering was started before the onset of
the ERP project; The re-engineering was iterative.
23,3
52. Q: Rank the following factors in order of emphasis during the project. Indicate the factor
with the most emphasis as 1.
A: New technology; Business benefits; User requirements; Other (please specify).

404 53. Q: What percentage of the ERP implementation budget was allocated to user training?
Give a percentage.
54: Q: What percentage of the user training was dedicated to the following subjects. Indicate a
percentage for each subject, with a total of 100 per cent.
A: Technical knowledge of the ERP system with its reference models (0-100 per cent).
User technical training (how to use the software) (0-100 per cent).
User business training (how to support business processes) (0-100 per cent).
Other (please specify) (0-100 per cent).
55. Q: When were the users trained? Indicate one answer.
A: Long before the system was rolled-out; At system roll-out; After roll-out.
56. Q: Were external consultants used in the ERP implementation? Indicate one answer.
A: Yes; No.
57. If consultants were used, for what purpose? Indicate all that apply.
A: Expertise in cross-functional business processes; Expertise in system configuration;
Expertise in application-specific modules; Knowledge transfer to internal IT staff; Other
(please specify).
58. Q: What happens/happened to the existing systems, replaced by the ERP system, at ERP
roll-out? Indicate one answer.
A: Existing systems were made unavailable to the users; Existing systems are only
available in case of emergency; Existing systems run in parallel with ERP systems.
59. Q: What measures were taken to ensure data accuracy in the new system? Indicate all
answers that apply.
A: None; Quality control before migration from the existing systems; User
communication of the importance of data accuracy; Training on correct data entry
during user training; Other (please specify).

Part XI: Critical success factors: Project planning & control

60. Q: Which of the following plans were defined before the onset of the project and were
followed-up during the project? For each plan, indicate D for defined before the onset
and F for followed-up during the project.
A: Project plan (D, F); Project goals (D, F); Scope delimitation (D, F); Activity plan (D,
F), Milestones (D, F); Resources plan (D, F); Follow-up plan (D, F); Continuity plan (D,
F).
61. Q: Was the ERP project divided into smaller subprojects? Indicate one answer.
A: Yes; No.
62. Q: If the project was divided into subprojects, did each of these subprojects have its
own goals in terms of business benefits? Indicate one answer.
A: Yes; No.
 63. Q: What criteria were used to evaluate the project progress and performance? Indicate Critical success
all that apply.
A: Project management based criteria (e.g. milestones, delivery times, resource usage);
factors for ERP
Business-related performance criteria.
64. Q: Was user feedback taken into account during the project? Indicate one answer.
A: Yes; No.
405
65. Q: How long after the roll-out will the performance of the ERP system be monitored?
Indicate one answer.
A: No monitoring; one month; six months; one year; two years; as long as the system is
operational.

Part XII: Critical success factors: project team

66. Q: Give the composition of the project team. For each kind of participant, give a
percentage, totalling 100 per cent.
A: Technical IT experts (0-100 per cent); Business analysts (0-100 per cent); Users
(0-100 per cent); External consultants (0-100 per cent); Other (please specify) (0-100 per
cent).
67. Q: Was the project team created specifically for this project? Indicate one answer.
A: Yes; No.
68. Q: Are/were all team members full-time assigned to the project? Indicate one answer.
A: Yes; No.
69. Q: How broad is the authority of the team? Indicate one answer.
A: The team is authorised to take decisions autonomously, whereby management is
informed; The team continuously communicates with the management, but is authorised
to take urgent decisions; All important decisions are taken by the management.
70. Q: Does the project team receive special compensation for completion of the ERP project
within time and within budget? Indicate one answer.
A: Yes; No.
71. Q: Does the top management receive special compensation for completion of the ERP
project within time and within budget? Indicate one answer.
A: Yes; No.
72. Q: Does the project team receive special compensation if the ERP system performs
according to or exceeding expectations? Indicate one answer.
A: Yes; No.
73. Q: Does the top management receive special compensation if the ERP system performs
according to or exceeding expectations? Indicate one answer.
A: Yes; No.
74. Q: How important were the following criteria in the choice of a project manager? Score
each criterion from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important).
A: Skills (1-5); Experience (1-5); Reputation (1-5); Flexibility (1-5); Other (please specify)
(1-5).
JEIM 75. Q: Was a project champion appointed? Indicate one answer.
A: Yes; No.
23,3
76. Q: What are the main characteristics of the project champion? Indicate all that apply.
A: The project champion . . .
. . . is part of the business;
. . . is a top manager;
406 . . . is a middle manager;
. . . is the internal promoter of the project;
. . . has a clear vision on the future;
. . . inspires others to share a common vision;
. . . emphasises the benefits of the project;
. . . defends the ERP system at all times;
. . . manages resistance to change;
. . . solves conflicts;
. . . keeps in touch with the users;
. . . supervises the use of the new system.

About the authors

An astronomer by education, Claude Doom has 15 years of experience as a networking planner,
ICT strategist and architect. He worked for major industrial companies, the government and for
international consulting organisations. Since 2001 he has been Professor of Business Information
systems at the Hogeschool Universiteit Brussel, where he teaches IT strategy and architecture
and IT governance and management. Claude Doom is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: claude.doom@hubrussel.be
Koen Milis is currently Assistant Professor at the Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, where he
teaches MIS and ERP courses. He obtained a Master’s in Applied Economics, a postgraduate
degree in MIS and a postgraduate degree in Statistics. He wrote his PhD at Hasselt University on
the management of enterprise wide systems and he still pursues research in this area.
Stephen Poelmans is a Researcher and Lecturer in the Business Information Management
group at the Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel (Department of Business Economics). His teachings
focus on business intelligence, data modelling and information management. Professor Poelmans
is also affiliated with the Catholic University of Leuven and has conducted research on the
deployment and evaluation of business process management and ERP systems, IS usability
(with a focus on e-learning systems) and service-oriented architectures (service design and its
architectural impact).
Eric Bloemen is a Researcher and Lecturer in the Business Information Management group at
the Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel (Department of Business Economics). His teaching focuses
on project management, telecommunications, systems development and advanced strategies in
ICT. Prior to this, Professor Bloemen worked for 15 years in the private (telecommunications)
sector with Alcatel, where he was mainly responsible for small and medium-sized computer
office systems and new developing ICT technologies.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints