2009 International Conference on Computer Technology and Development Success Factors for Higher Education ERPs Razvan Bologa, Ana-Ramona Bologa, Gheorghe Sabau Department of Computer Science, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania ramona bologa@ie,ase.ro, razvanbologa@ase.ro, sabau@ase.ro Abstract : In this paper we have identified some critical plementation factors of an ERP project plementation "in universities. Taking into nsideration that for industry implementations there ¢ already many performed studies we started by sidering university implementations as a particular se for the industry ones. The purpose of our research to make a list of the main success factors in pplementing an ERP in the academic environment. ‘Keywords: ERP, IT Systems, Higher education benefits. The study underlines the need of qualitative and quantitative evaluation of systems, taking into consideration sts stall impact ‘on the competitive position organization. 2 A Web based DSS to assist organizatin evaluate the success of their ERP implet and measure the benefits obtained is p [20], The study proposes a measurement ERP benefits and a list of productivity init Hedman [7] proposes a practical a Introduction using narratives as a means of impr ‘The Romanian educational system is now at the systems as & complement co aditional 7 methods starting from three vint where it needs to implement a software solution integrate and increase the efficiency of the siversity processes. ‘Adopting and implementing an ERP (Enterprise source Planning) solution has impact on all aspects Fa business, affecting activities and processes, ‘ganizational structure and the environment [4], [6] i]. The adoption and implementation of an ERP evaluations should make the bases for natratives can make evelwation more rele evaluations should be made with the improving selection, implementation the system; 2 = [II] examine an attempt of i intangibles into traditional cost-benefit : an ERP project; : \volves high risks, mainly because of the huge initial i = = Software solutions to assist the selection westment, the frequent over budget cases (90%), th ion ivesiment, the frequent over budget cases (O06) like PERFECT Fit® Software Scletion Bt yw suceess rate (20%), the missing of the initially roposed ROI (65-90% of the cases), partially chievernent of the intially planned implementation te [22], that gathers primary data to software solutions against unique client and technical needs. ‘The purpose of evaluating BRP solutions is to improve their selection, development, implementation ind usage (71 ‘The attempt of evaluating the solutions that exist on he market and identifying the best fitted for a Romanian university was hindered by the impossibility Sf finding a compatible evaluation framework for this Iype of solution, Of course, there are some evaluation ~_‘Inter-dependencies | between frameworks for industry ERP solutions, although this factors [1], (9] were studied by relevance of the critical success facors 8 sas 2 neglected research area. Here are some examples: by Somers [17] in order co estab 2. Critical success factors “The concept of critical success factor fo system implementation is well defined in the literature, Hero are some of the performed sti ‘their main focus. 695 392-1109 $26.00 2009 16EE atooncerD 2009.142causes determining the failure or the success of an implementation ond the confirmation of @ direct relationship between critical suocess factors. = Relovance of critical success factors reported to the success or failure of the ERP implementation projects (13}, (21) ~The incidence and the impact of critical success factors during the entire implementation project from the temporal point of view [18]. The study concluded the main activities and personnel categories that have a decisive influence during the first four-five stages of the project are: the existence of a managing board formed of key- users oF super-users, top management support, clearly defined objectives and user training, = Quantification of relevance and incidence degree of critical success factors during each phase of the implementation project: initiation, adoption, adaptation, acceptance, routinization, and infusion; the conclusion was that inter-department communication and cooperation prevails as relevance degree in four of the six phases [15]; ~The incidence of critical success factors in ERP system multi-site implementations (11][16), presenting a high implementation difficulty level from the perspective of: business strategy, system configuration, IT platform and execution management or the incidence of critical success factors. in multi-national ERP. system implementations [12], confirming the critical success factors universality. The study also approached the international software vendors’ impact on multi-site ERP implementations, suggesting the positive character of their involvement, as it facilitates the establishing of precise implementation objectives, the user training and education related to the new economic processes and the forming of a competence team to ensure the project management (14) ERP systems for higher education represent 2 special case of ERP implementation. Which ate the characteristic elements that _must be take into consideration in the analysis of critical success factors in this case? We have identified some important differences regarding: communication structure, management involvement, ‘organization, implementation team competences, inter-department communication, user training, suppliers/ customers partnership, extemal consultants. Our research method ‘was the direct interview performed by the members of our team, 2» 2.4, Communication structure Unlike universities, companies have usually clearly established formal communication structures, There is a small number of coherent groups, using clearly identified commmication and reporting channels, This is the reason why the communication structure is rarely identified as a success factor by the classical corporate ERP related literature. In universities, we find a large number of very different groups, having different objectives and interests, activating in different fields, so that ‘communication is more difficult. ‘An important role is played by promotion of trust and mutual respect, and there are recommended informing meetings and discussions with small groups of people in order to eliminate the miscommunication or even the lack of communication. Of course, these types of communication are time consuming. In the ERP projects developed in universities, the communication can have various approaches: = Asstrict control of the project information flows by the project team and top management in order to control the ERP project resistance. This approach can lead to negative consequences, like distrust and spreading of negative rumors about the project, or even fear or panic. = A very open attitude towards communication, pleading for the ERP project through numerous committees and meetings. These lead to a general understanding of the project objectives in the cetire organization and to an increase of tolerance. = Convietion and involvement of department managers and stakeholders, 50 that they have the possibility to express their own vision, to agree and to sign « project support statement. = Inclusion of members of the financial department jn the project team in order to ensure theit involvement and support 2.2. Management involvement For a successfll implementation of an ERP system, in a university, the top management support is a decisive factor. In the mode! presented in [17], the top management support was identified as the most important critical success factor. The top management is the one that establishes the organization agenda, influenced by the strategic objectives, responsibility to the university members, political, university power relationships and also external influences. [Examples from the specialty literature demonstrated that a low initial top management support means that the ERP implementation can be considered a feilure.conganizaton, differences that influence the means of ERP implementation ree tearetion inthe university We mst nelnge Fat Prnpl, from the point of view ofthe fllowes ie nnisative management stature and STN Pies case of companies both the general ers of agquctre, it must have @ clear and Swe ‘arategy andthe one elated to the SBhomive understanding of university smc corr on stem development are clearly defined, Jp ‘Sopment plans and of is main objectives Ht must aoe of universities, with rare exceptions, there A srry well the genera integration plan A coe mplex stags, reported 1 many arent Put meee Me ustue is necessary, snchuding bolh [FV precisely defined, Dust frives and administration representatives > Pretr case of companies the responsibilities te ea ne eer ea fe ere a oe a eg create a maximum synergy IGE ficiops (ue, sdminisiative and didactic; es tong performed activities, Teaaibilies overlays). Because the 1 of oe ee It is important to resort personnel ot competencies, there may Pe ‘unallocated ae 2 plementary expertise, inorder Pat generally, the responsibilities | Sele wplemeraatons, to facilitate | planing and control are much more diffse and = get validations for the perfor the success of the sMemenation plan depends mostly on the s\ppeT ERP project must be very well organized, jeing the constitution of « decision commie for to external consultants for to get responsibilities, description and vague. Seemmpanies have established contol system actly efficiency, 10 belp them function Ht & 2 here tyement of administrative management aid On serve environment, Inthe ease of univers Mime ey st effor of developing 8 Pol ayatems can take various forms, ORG | prehensive and complet pan, For examples in tne coat ones, adapted and customized according wo coer a Romanian university, the management ‘he needs ofa specific department or staff 3 frnmittee should include: The work style is also different. Companies Tierabers of the executive senete board the recter, socks on tasks and results of task performances wii Members Sore responsible for academic activity, ST seat a exible, existentialist style of | Be "the administrative activity, for researeh uninprnepted 10 the emerging needs and loos | ivity, for information technology, (He wiped, wth stronger focus on individual wore cniversity administrative manager; Grganivationsl culture bas 2 major impart ov _ The, managers of the Computer Scieneh implementing an ERP system in universes, may | Deparment and of the Computer Network eresplained by the crash of cultures that 06k place | Department; Mring the last 20 years. On one side, thet i bealel aera Department and Financial Department (ht are verity culture should rely on the ideoloty AS the values of the private sector: “The Une as that education is @ business 2 plementation, t© iidation efforts, But managers; __RAIMEETE deans and. members of Profssor’s cone recognize 1 Board: Students are customers” = ‘The project manager; ‘university members pl values reflected in a wor . 2 External consultants eee portant ole in a university ERP tnd academic autonomy ] smpernentaton project isthe “project champion’ 1a car implementation and business roo impemerson who makes the project work, he must Be reengineering can be seen as an amt of chant osen with much responsibility and care the university culture atthe dee 4 er nian versity, the project champion SNE due to the could be the information technology vice F610, power to the middle management, coed by an. extemal consultant for specie fo business information anytime. memeimary objective. of an ERP. prlect is Jpregation aspects. He is on 2 position that oor him he established implement Dest_ prac where possible, fo support the project realization on t time end budget imPntaining the accuracy of | information reserving good intemal conttols thoushor C 2.3, Organization (culture) are The organizational changes may ine vvfassfying positions, shifting, work and/or posite ences resulting fom a fom one dopants another, retraining Ui Somt eassigement of duties and new expectations 1) ‘There are_many diffe ff compared 10 @ company sue tft postions. The organizational, pou university organization itselocedural changes must be discussed with all Jepartments involved in the change process. 14, Implementation team competences ‘An ERP project involves many persons working in fifleent university departments, and also extemal ponsultants. Lack of participation inthe implementation process could influence the new system acceptance by the university community and tnay contribute 10 a lack of communication between ‘management and staff perception. ‘An important success factor for the project is the ibility of different groups of forming & unique team, Where there are not “us versus them” groups (ie. fmetional vs. technique group, anyone vs, contractor, ttc), Technical and functional management must stablish a real working partnership. Regarding the project team, a relatively new soncept is in use: competence center. It is formed of thre teams: 1. Business process team ~ having as main tasks: a. Change management; '. Continuous process improvement; © Operational architecture; Level two user support, | 2. Application development and ‘esm-having as main tasks: System architecture; Castom programming; Application integration; Business-to-business integration; Application operation team- having as main integration Technology architecture; '. Configuration of multiple ERP environments production, test, ete); c. _ Maintenance and upgrades. ‘Traditional IT functions (PC support, networking, tic) are not included among the functions of a ‘ompetence center. The key users play an important tole inthis model, as they are the first support line for end-users, Teams must be formed considering: main functional areas (financial, HR, rectors’ office, dean’s office, technical), infrastructure, institution network, Jesising software services/applications, information sooty. 5. Inter-department communication | Ine classic ERP project there are many parts involved: decision makers, developers, users and other persons. In the case of Romanian universities, the main volved parts are: I | I 31 ~ University senate and rector; = IP department manager; - HR manager and managers of all departments implementing ERP modules; = Dean and Professor’s Board for each of the faculties. A faulty communication between these parts is 4 major failure cause in implementing information systems (Le. between IT specialists and users or IT specialists and university management) [7] Communication is associated with other success factors like user and management involvement, project monitoring, ete The lack of feedback in communication, an ambiguous or unsteady communication and a lack of confidence between the involved parts can lead to an increase of communication complexity. For example, there are differences between the language used by IT specialists and the one used by university management that can lead to a communication complexity increase [2]. 4, Conclusion ERP solutions are very complex software packages. To improve the chance of success, they must be carefully evaluated and selected, needing a proper evaluation and analysis framework. ‘The performed analysis shows that there are a number of success factors which are to be taken into consideration when implementing an ERP in universities, “The above list is part of our research to establish a guideline for choosing and implementing and ERP inside universities. As a future work, we plan to ereate a framework for comparing current academic ERPs. 5. References UU] H. Akkermans, Helden van K, “Vieious and virtuous implementation: a case study of interrelations between critical", European Journal of Information Systems, Volume 11, 2003, Pages 35-46; [2] L. M. Applegate, F. W. MoFarlan, & J. L. McKenney, Corporate information systems management, (Sth ed.). New York: Ini, 19995, [3] A. R. Bologa, R. Bologa, Gh. Sabau, M. Muntean, “Management Information Systems in Romanian Universities", Proceedings ofthe Intemational Conference on e-Business (ICE-B 2008), 26-29 July, Porto, Portugal, 2008, Pages 425-42 iene Mtn[4] TH. Davenport, Mission Criteal: Realizing the Promise of Enlerprise Systems, Harvard Business School Press Boston, MA, 2000; [5] M. Haris, IM. Lowendab, M, Zastrocky, 2008, “Magic ‘Quadrant’ for Higher Education Administrative “Suites”, Gartacr Industry Research note G00161549, 10 Oct. 2008. 16) 3, Hedman, T. Kalling, 17 and Business Models Concepus and Theories, Liber and Abstrakt, Malmé, Sweden, 2002; (7) J. Hedman and A, Borell, “Nasratives in ERP Systems Evaluation’, Journal of Enterprise Information Management 1713), 2004; [8] KK. Hong, ¥.G, Kim, "The ertical success factors for ERP implementation: an’ organizational fit perspective" Taformation and Management, Vol. 40 No.1, 2002, Pages 25 40; (9) E. Kamhawi, “Critical Factors for Implementation Success of ERP Systems: An Empirical Investigation from Bahrain”, International Joumal of Enterprise Information Systems, 2007, Volume 3, Issue 2, Pages 34-49 [10} A. R. Lupu, R. Bologa, Gh. Sabau, M. Muntesn, “The Romanian Universities in the Process of Data and Information System Integration”, Proceedings of the 7th WSEAS International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Knowledge Engineering And Databases (AIKED ‘08), Cambridge, Febr. 2008, Pages 527-532; [11) KE. Murphy, SJ. Simon, "Intangible benefits valuation in ERP projects’, formation Systems Journal, Vol. 12 Nos, 2002, Pages 301-20; [12] D.L. Olson, B. Chae, C. Shou, “Issues in multinational ERP implementation”, Intemational Journal of Services and Operations Management, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 7- 2s [13] A. Parr, G. Shanks, “A model of ERP project implementation”, Journal of Information Technology, 2000, Volume 15, Isue4, Pages 289-295; [14] R, Plant, L. Willeocks, “Cri Intemational ERP implementations: a case approach”, The Journal of Computer Information System 2007, Volume 47, Issue 3, Pages 60-71; 115) U, Remus, “Chita success tors for implemening ese porta A comparison th ERP implementation Sealeees Process Management Joural, Volume 13, Isee§, 3 DDO7, Pages 5385S. : [16] 1. Scotta, “The anatomy of a multisite ERP. implementation - a Romanian SME's case stu’ Proceedings of the Intemational Conference on Busines | Information Systems, Info BUSINESS, 2006, Pages 103-108, 117) 7. Somers, K. Nelson, “The Impact of Cries Suse Favors across the Stages of Enterprise Resource Plt Inplrmenntons, Proceedings of the 3ath Annual Hl Inerational Conference on System Sciences (HICSS3) Volume 8 = Volume 8, 200%; [18] T. Somers, K. Nelson, “A taxonomy of players ad ‘activities across the ERP project life cycle”, Information & Management, Volume 41, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 257-278 {19} CJ Stefsnou, "A framework for the exante evaluat | ‘Of ERP software’, European Journal of Information Syie ‘Vol, 10 Not, 2001, Pages 204-215. [20] A.B. Zsitan and Z, Zainol, “A Web Based DSS for ht | Evaluation of an ERP’ System", iTWAS 2008 workshops ERPAS 2008: Data mining and agents for applications, Pag 698-701; [21] Z. Zhang, M. Lee, P. Huang, L. Zhang, X. Hoang, framework of ERP systems implementation success in ‘An empirical study", International Journal of Producitt Economies, Volume 98, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 56-80; (22) htp#wunw panorama-consultin tion. hem