M

D
6
1
C
r
e
a
t
e
f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
4
0
1
M
E
5
9
N
C
o
n
v
e
r
t

t
o
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

o
r
d
e
r
M
I
G
O
P
o
s
t

g
o
o
d
s
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
s
4
0
5
M
I
R
O
P
o
s
t

i
n
v
o
i
c
e
4
0
6
F
-
5
3
P
o
s
t

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
4
0
7
C
O
4
1
M
a
s
s

r
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
1
0
C
O
1
5
C
o
n
f
r
m
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
4
1
1
V
L
0
1
N
C
r
e
a
t
e

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
4
1
3
V
F
0
1
C
r
e
a
t
e

b
i
l
l
i
n
g
4
1
4
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
o
r
d
e
r
G
o
o
d
s

r
e
c
e
i
p
t
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
C
a
s
h











A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.






R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y











F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d


c
h
a
n
g
e














p
r
o
d
u
c
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
C
o
n
s
.




















R
a
w

r
a
w



















m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
R
a
w

m
a
t









G
R
/
I
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R


G
R
/
I
R











A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.










C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d

















P
r
o
d
.
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s














o
u
t
p
u
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
s
a
l
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
R
a
w
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y

c
h
a
n
g
e
s
o
l
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
y

o
u
t
p
u
t
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s






C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
M
D
0
7
R
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
0
9
3
0
5
M
D
0
1
E
x
e
c
u
t
e

M
R
P
M
D
6
1
C
r
e
a
t
e
f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
4
0
1
M
E
5
9
N
C
o
n
v
e
r
t

t
o
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

o
r
d
e
r
M
I
G
O
P
o
s
t

g
o
o
d
s
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
s
4
0
5
M
I
R
O
P
o
s
t

i
n
v
o
i
c
e
4
0
6
F
-
5
3
P
o
s
t

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
4
0
7
C
O
4
1
M
a
s
s

r
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
1
0
C
O
1
5
C
o
n
f
r
m
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
4
1
1
V
L
0
1
N
C
r
e
a
t
e

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
4
1
3
V
F
0
1
C
r
e
a
t
e

b
i
l
l
i
n
g
4
1
4
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
o
r
d
e
r
G
o
o
d
s

r
e
c
e
i
p
t
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
C
a
s
h











A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.






R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y











F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d


c
h
a
n
g
e














p
r
o
d
u
c
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
C
o
n
s
.




















R
a
w

r
a
w



















m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
R
a
w

m
a
t









G
R
/
I
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R


G
R
/
I
R











A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.










C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d

















P
r
o
d
.
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s














o
u
t
p
u
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
s
a
l
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
R
a
w
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y

c
h
a
n
g
e
s
o
l
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
y

o
u
t
p
u
t
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s






C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
M
D
0
7
R
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
0
9
3
0
5
M
D
0
1
E
x
e
c
u
t
e

M
R
P
Beal & Prabhakar - Public Sector ERP
CHAPTER 20
Readings on Enterprise Resource Planning
Preliminary Version - send comments to pml@hec.ca 295
Chapter 20 : Public Sector ERP
Jason Beal (bealbudgetting.com) & Bipin Prabhakar (Indiana University)
increasingly embrace ERP systems to address long-standing
administrative inefciencies and service delivery challenges
associated with legacy administrative systems and processes.
Contributing to the increased adoption of ERP in the public
sector has been an increased focus on government spending
accountability, as well as improved alignment ERP solutions to
this market (Kavanagh & Miranda, 2005).
HISTORY OF ERP IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR
Until the late 1990s, most public sector organizations relied on
disparate or loosely cobbled together administrative systems
for key back ofce business functions such as general ledger
accounting, accounts payable, accounts receivable, payroll,
procurement, and budget preparation. Although point solutions
focused on the public sector market were commercially avail-
able, these applications were typically limited to core fnancial
accounting and, in some cases, the most basic payroll, procure-
ment, and budget preparation functionality. There was also a
plethora of niche solutions for specifc functional areas. In the
absence of truly integrated ERP solutions, public sector organ-
izations used disparate commercially available and home grown
applications with limited or no direct integration (Byrne, 2011).
Such a customized approach provided limited fexibility, was
costly to maintain, and had very limited reporting and analytic
capabilities.
The move toward ERP in the public sector did not begin in
earnest until many public sector organizations faced the
challenge of addressing the year 2000 issue in their legacy back-
ofce systems. The late 1990s saw a wave of public sector ERP
implementations driven more by a need to replace systems
with year 2000 compliance issues rather than business process
improvement (Kavanagh & Miranda, 2005).
Many of the early public sector ERP projects resulted in negative
press stories and, in some cases, outright project failures. The
ERP implementation at King County, Washington is an example
(Songini M. L., 2005). Such stories of cost and schedule overruns,
payroll issues, and fnancial reporting issues likely contributed
to a shift in market focus toward realizing measurable return on
investment for ERP investments.
Introduction
The adoption of ERP by public sector enterprises has signif-
cantly lagged the private sector. This trend is starting to change
with public sector organizations of all sizes increasingly imple-
menting ERP systems. ERP applications and related implemen-
tation approaches have also matured to align more closely with
unique public sector business requirements.
Increased public sector ERP adoption has come with many
well-reported struggles as ERP software vendors and systems
integrators have often, at least initially, failed to adapt to
the unique business requirements of this sector. Moreover,
increased focus on government spending accountability has
brought additional scrutiny to these implementations. Press
articles highlighting failed or troubled implementations under-
score the broad range of challenges that accompany deploying
ERP systems in the public sector. Some of these challenges are
common to ERP across industries and sectors. However, many
of these challenges can be traced back to unique public sector
governance models and diferentiated functional requirements
and controls in core ERP functions.
This chapter looks at issues relating to ERP deployment for feder-
al, state and local governments as well as public school districts
and public higher education institutions in countries with open
and representative forms of government. Since published
research in this area is limited, we conducted several interviews
with industry experts to enrich the material used in this chapter.
The chapter begins with an overview of the emergence of ERP
adoption in public sector and the current public sector ERP
vendor landscape. Subsequently, it addresses unique public
sector ERP implementation barriers such as political subdiv-
isions, public scrutiny, and statutory constraints. Finally, difer-
entiated functional requirements of public sector ERP systems
in core ERP areas such as fnancial accounting, human resource
management and payroll, procurement, and budget prepara-
tion are addressed.
The Emergence of Public Sector ERP
Although ERP systems are deployed in nearly 80% of Fortune 500
frms (Wagner & Antonucci, 2009), public sector ERP adoption
has lagged behind the private sector (Harris, 2004). This gap
is starting to narrow, as public sector organizations of all sizes
M
D
6
1
C
r
e
a
t
e
f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
4
0
1
M
E
5
9
N
C
o
n
v
e
r
t

t
o
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

o
r
d
e
r
M
I
G
O
P
o
s
t

g
o
o
d
s
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
s
4
0
5
M
I
R
O
P
o
s
t

i
n
v
o
i
c
e
4
0
6
F
-
5
3
P
o
s
t

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
4
0
7
C
O
4
1
M
a
s
s

r
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
1
0
C
O
1
5
C
o
n
f
r
m
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
4
1
1
V
L
0
1
N
C
r
e
a
t
e

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
4
1
3
V
F
0
1
C
r
e
a
t
e

b
i
l
l
i
n
g
4
1
4
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
o
r
d
e
r
G
o
o
d
s

r
e
c
e
i
p
t
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
C
a
s
h











A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.






R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y











F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d


c
h
a
n
g
e














p
r
o
d
u
c
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
C
o
n
s
.




















R
a
w

r
a
w



















m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
R
a
w

m
a
t









G
R
/
I
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R


G
R
/
I
R











A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.










C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d

















P
r
o
d
.
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s














o
u
t
p
u
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
s
a
l
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
R
a
w
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y

c
h
a
n
g
e
s
o
l
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
y

o
u
t
p
u
t
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s






C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
M
D
0
7
R
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
0
9
3
0
5
M
D
0
1
E
x
e
c
u
t
e

M
R
P
M
D
6
1
C
r
e
a
t
e
f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
4
0
1
M
E
5
9
N
C
o
n
v
e
r
t

t
o
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

o
r
d
e
r
M
I
G
O
P
o
s
t

g
o
o
d
s
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
s
4
0
5
M
I
R
O
P
o
s
t

i
n
v
o
i
c
e
4
0
6
F
-
5
3
P
o
s
t

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
4
0
7
C
O
4
1
M
a
s
s

r
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
1
0
C
O
1
5
C
o
n
f
r
m
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
4
1
1
V
L
0
1
N
C
r
e
a
t
e

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
4
1
3
V
F
0
1
C
r
e
a
t
e

b
i
l
l
i
n
g
4
1
4
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
o
r
d
e
r
G
o
o
d
s

r
e
c
e
i
p
t
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
C
a
s
h











A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.






R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y











F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d


c
h
a
n
g
e














p
r
o
d
u
c
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
C
o
n
s
.




















R
a
w

r
a
w



















m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
R
a
w

m
a
t









G
R
/
I
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R


G
R
/
I
R











A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.










C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d

















P
r
o
d
.
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s














o
u
t
p
u
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
s
a
l
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
R
a
w
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y

c
h
a
n
g
e
s
o
l
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
y

o
u
t
p
u
t
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s






C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
M
D
0
7
R
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
0
9
3
0
5
M
D
0
1
E
x
e
c
u
t
e

M
R
P
Beal & Prabhakar - Public Sector ERP
CHAPTER 20
Readings on Enterprise Resource Planning
Preliminary Version - send comments to pml@hec.ca 296
Table 1 - Public Sector ERP Vendor Tiers (Kavanagh & Miranda, ERP Industry Structure and Marketplace Dynamics, 2005)
Tier 1 Public Sector ERP Tier 2 Public Sector ERP
Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) Higher total cost Lower total cost
Primary Target Market Mid-size to large enterprises Small to mid-sized enterprises
Firm Structure Larger frms, global focus, or cross-industry focus Smaller frms, regional focus, or public sector only
Features and Functions Robust core erp, extended ERP and business
intelligence
Robust core ERP, limited extended ERP functionality
Technology Advanced technology architecture platform with
service oriented architecture (SOA)
Rely primarily on third party or proprietary technology
platforms
Approach Utilize third party implementation partners with
larger consulting engagements with focus on trans-
formation change
Limited implementation consulting engagements
performed by software vendors with limited focus on
transformational change
After the year 2000 ERP wave, public sector ERP adopters tended
to be more risk averse in their approach, and began to shift from
focusing on replacing legacy systems to focusing on expected
return on investment (Harris, 2004). The shift in focus to measur-
able return on investment forced ERP vendors to revisit their
software and services oferings. Vendors with a history of strug-
gling to ft their private sector-oriented ERP software oferings
into the public sector began to develop public sector-specifc
functionality or modules for their solutions, in an efort to
reduce implementation cost and risk. SAP, for instance, added
fund management, grant management, and position budget-
ing and control to their software ofering specifcally to support
public sector clients.
By 2005, the public sector ERP market had matured, and several
vendors had emerged with products capable of supporting a
broad range of unique public sector functional requirements.
These vendors began to focus on extending their public sector
ERP solution oferings beyond traditional core ERP functional-
ity through internal development or acquisition (Kavanagh &
Miranda, 2005). During this period, there was also signifcant
consolidation of vendors with signifcant focus on public sector
ERP and related enterprise applications, highlighted by the
acquisitions of JD Edwards, PeopleSoft, and Siebel Systems by
Oracle Corporation.
The most recent trend is the move by larger ERP vendors to
extend their oferings into the business intelligence and enter-
prise performance management arenas. These products are
being embraced by public sector ERP customers to improve
the return on investment of their core ERP systems with only
marginal additional investment. Further, vendors like SAP
and Oracle have added public sector-specifc functionality to
business intelligence oferings. For instance, SAP went to market
with a new public sector budgeting solution in 2009 based on
the SAP Business Warehouse and the SAP Business Objects ofer-
ings (Wiggins, 2011), and Oracle followed suit in 2010 with their
new public sector planning and budgeting software built on
the acquired Hyperion product (Oracle, 2010). With government
budgets under unprecedented pressure, these tools are gener-
ating an increased share of revenue for ERP vendors relative to
revenue from new public sector ERP licenses.
Public Sector ERP Vendor Landscape
Characterizing public sector ERP vendors presents challen-
ges, since vendors do not always ft neatly into logical group-
ings. A useful approach involves diferentiation of the broader
public sector ERP market from important business and product
perspectives to create a common profle for vendors in each
market tier. Table 1 uses this approach to contrast public sector
ERP vendors by collectively categorizing them into two tiers
based on key diferentiating characteristics.
M
D
6
1
C
r
e
a
t
e
f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
4
0
1
M
E
5
9
N
C
o
n
v
e
r
t

t
o
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

o
r
d
e
r
M
I
G
O
P
o
s
t

g
o
o
d
s
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
s
4
0
5
M
I
R
O
P
o
s
t

i
n
v
o
i
c
e
4
0
6
F
-
5
3
P
o
s
t

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
4
0
7
C
O
4
1
M
a
s
s

r
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
1
0
C
O
1
5
C
o
n
f
r
m
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
4
1
1
V
L
0
1
N
C
r
e
a
t
e

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
4
1
3
V
F
0
1
C
r
e
a
t
e

b
i
l
l
i
n
g
4
1
4
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
o
r
d
e
r
G
o
o
d
s

r
e
c
e
i
p
t
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
C
a
s
h











A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.






R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y











F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d


c
h
a
n
g
e














p
r
o
d
u
c
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
C
o
n
s
.




















R
a
w

r
a
w



















m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
R
a
w

m
a
t









G
R
/
I
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R


G
R
/
I
R











A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.










C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d

















P
r
o
d
.
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s














o
u
t
p
u
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
s
a
l
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
R
a
w
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y

c
h
a
n
g
e
s
o
l
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
y

o
u
t
p
u
t
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s






C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
M
D
0
7
R
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
0
9
3
0
5
M
D
0
1
E
x
e
c
u
t
e

M
R
P
M
D
6
1
C
r
e
a
t
e
f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
4
0
1
M
E
5
9
N
C
o
n
v
e
r
t

t
o
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

o
r
d
e
r
M
I
G
O
P
o
s
t

g
o
o
d
s
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
s
4
0
5
M
I
R
O
P
o
s
t

i
n
v
o
i
c
e
4
0
6
F
-
5
3
P
o
s
t

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
4
0
7
C
O
4
1
M
a
s
s

r
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
1
0
C
O
1
5
C
o
n
f
r
m
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
4
1
1
V
L
0
1
N
C
r
e
a
t
e

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
4
1
3
V
F
0
1
C
r
e
a
t
e

b
i
l
l
i
n
g
4
1
4
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
o
r
d
e
r
G
o
o
d
s

r
e
c
e
i
p
t
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
C
a
s
h











A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.






R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y











F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d


c
h
a
n
g
e














p
r
o
d
u
c
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
C
o
n
s
.




















R
a
w

r
a
w



















m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
R
a
w

m
a
t









G
R
/
I
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R


G
R
/
I
R











A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.










C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d

















P
r
o
d
.
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s














o
u
t
p
u
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
s
a
l
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
R
a
w
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y

c
h
a
n
g
e
s
o
l
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
y

o
u
t
p
u
t
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s






C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
M
D
0
7
R
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
0
9
3
0
5
M
D
0
1
E
x
e
c
u
t
e

M
R
P
Beal & Prabhakar - Public Sector ERP
CHAPTER 20
Readings on Enterprise Resource Planning
Preliminary Version - send comments to pml@hec.ca 297
Despite the recent ERP market consolidation, there is an exten-
sive landscape of public sector ERP vendors. These vendors
range from small privately held frms to very large multi-nation-
al frms and include :
Cross-industry leading ERP vendors
Niche vendors servicing the public sector ERP software
market exclusively
Niche vendors focused on smaller public sector entities
Vendors with a subset of extended ERP functionality
(beyond core fnancial management, human resources,
and procurement functionality)
Geographically-focused vendors
Prominent large enterprise-focused public sector ERP vendors
with core ERP solutions that meet at least some of the Tier
1 criteria as outlined in Table 1 are described below in
alphabetical order.
CGI
CGIs public sector ERP software client base is primarily in U.S.
federal, state, and local government (Hamerman, 2010), and is
concentrated in the upper end of the public sector ERP market
(Claps & Sood, The U.S. Local Government IT Solution Vendor
Landscape, 2009). CGI ofers the AMS Advantage ERP solution
for state and local governments, and the Momentum ERP
solution for the U.S. Federal market. Unlike Lawson, Oracle, and
SAPs ERP oferings, CGIs public sector ERP applications were
built solely for the public sector (CGI, 2010). Also in contrast,
CGI typically performs its own AMS Advantage implementa-
tions though CGI, in some instances partnering with third party
consulting frms for large engagements (Claps & Sood, The U.S.
Local Government IT Solution Vendor Landscape, 2009).
LAWSON
Lawson has its greatest public sector ERP market share in the
mid to upper-mid size organizations, though Lawson does have
some larger public sector clients such as the State of Michigan.
One Lawson public sector niche is public school districts (Claps &
Sood, The U.S. Local Government IT Solution Vendor Landscape,
2009). Lawson leverages third-party systems integrators such as
Ciber (Claps & Sood, 2009)and ofers its own implementation-
related services (Lawson Software, Inc., 2010).
MICROSOFT
Microsofts more than 18,000 public sector ERP customers
around the world (Johnson C. , 2011) are primarily small to
medium sized enterprises. With the new Public Sector Industry
solution built on Microsoft Dynamics AX2012, Microsoft deliv-
ers a broad range of public sector functionality built to support
large public sector enterprises (Johnson C. , 2011). Microsofts
extensive network of system integrator partners and existing
desktop, database, and infrastructure software footprint in most
of these enterprises could quickly propel Microsoft into a leader-
ship position in the public sector large enterprise market.
ORACLE
Oracle has a global public sector ERP customer base with ERP
applications for all but the smallest size public sector organ-
izations (Government-CRM.com, 2010). Oracle has multiple
core public sector ERP oferings including Oracle PeopleSoft
Enterprise, Oracle EBS, and Oracle JD Edwards EnterpriseOne
(Claps & Sood, The U.S. Local Government IT Solution Vendor
Landscape, 2009). The Oracle PeopleSoft solution is the most
established ERP software package in the upper end of the U.S.
public sector ERP market (Claps & Sood, 2009). Oracle Hyperion
and Oracle Enterprise Taxation Management are also ofered to
support public sector fnancial management functions (Claps &
Sood, 2009). Oracle leverages a myriad of third party systems
integrators such as Accenture and Deloitte Consulting, as well as
their own consulting organization (Claps & Sood, 2009).
SAP
SAPs public sector ERP software customer base is concentrated
in larger enterprises, though it has made inroads into small to
medium-sized enterprises (Claps & Sood, 2009). Though strong
in the overall global public sector market, SAP lags behind
Oracle in U.S. market penetration (Government-CRM.com,
2010). SAPs public sector solution oferings include SAP ERP for
Public Services, SAP Business Planning and Consolidation, SAP
Public Budget Formulation, SAP Procurement for Public Sector,
SAP Defense Forces & Public Security, and SAP Tax and Revenue
Management (Weber, 2011). SAP Business Objects includes
products for fnancial analysis, reporting, and dashboards (SAP,
2010). SAP leverages numerous third party systems integrators
such as Deloitte Consulting, IBM, and Optimal Solutions while
also ofering SAP-led and SAP-supported implementations.
M
D
6
1
C
r
e
a
t
e
f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
4
0
1
M
E
5
9
N
C
o
n
v
e
r
t

t
o
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

o
r
d
e
r
M
I
G
O
P
o
s
t

g
o
o
d
s
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
s
4
0
5
M
I
R
O
P
o
s
t

i
n
v
o
i
c
e
4
0
6
F
-
5
3
P
o
s
t

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
4
0
7
C
O
4
1
M
a
s
s

r
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
1
0
C
O
1
5
C
o
n
f
r
m
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
4
1
1
V
L
0
1
N
C
r
e
a
t
e

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
4
1
3
V
F
0
1
C
r
e
a
t
e

b
i
l
l
i
n
g
4
1
4
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
o
r
d
e
r
G
o
o
d
s

r
e
c
e
i
p
t
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
C
a
s
h











A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.






R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y











F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d


c
h
a
n
g
e














p
r
o
d
u
c
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
C
o
n
s
.




















R
a
w

r
a
w



















m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
R
a
w

m
a
t









G
R
/
I
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R


G
R
/
I
R











A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.










C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d

















P
r
o
d
.
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s














o
u
t
p
u
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
s
a
l
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
R
a
w
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y

c
h
a
n
g
e
s
o
l
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
y

o
u
t
p
u
t
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s






C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
M
D
0
7
R
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
0
9
3
0
5
M
D
0
1
E
x
e
c
u
t
e

M
R
P
M
D
6
1
C
r
e
a
t
e
f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
4
0
1
M
E
5
9
N
C
o
n
v
e
r
t

t
o
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

o
r
d
e
r
M
I
G
O
P
o
s
t

g
o
o
d
s
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
s
4
0
5
M
I
R
O
P
o
s
t

i
n
v
o
i
c
e
4
0
6
F
-
5
3
P
o
s
t

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
4
0
7
C
O
4
1
M
a
s
s

r
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
1
0
C
O
1
5
C
o
n
f
r
m
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
4
1
1
V
L
0
1
N
C
r
e
a
t
e

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
4
1
3
V
F
0
1
C
r
e
a
t
e

b
i
l
l
i
n
g
4
1
4
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
o
r
d
e
r
G
o
o
d
s

r
e
c
e
i
p
t
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
C
a
s
h











A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.






R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y











F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d


c
h
a
n
g
e














p
r
o
d
u
c
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
C
o
n
s
.




















R
a
w

r
a
w



















m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
R
a
w

m
a
t









G
R
/
I
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R


G
R
/
I
R











A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.










C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d

















P
r
o
d
.
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s














o
u
t
p
u
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
s
a
l
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
R
a
w
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y

c
h
a
n
g
e
s
o
l
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
y

o
u
t
p
u
t
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s






C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
M
D
0
7
R
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
0
9
3
0
5
M
D
0
1
E
x
e
c
u
t
e

M
R
P
Beal & Prabhakar - Public Sector ERP
CHAPTER 20
Readings on Enterprise Resource Planning
Preliminary Version - send comments to pml@hec.ca 298
OTHER PUBLIC SECTOR ERP VENDORS
Many other established vendors in the public sector ERP
software market either have primarily smaller customer bases,
or are more aligned with the Tier 2 criteria in Table 1. This list
includes Sungard, Infor, Tyler Technologies, Kronos and Agresso
(Claps & Sood, 2009). In many instances, these frms provide
their own implementation services and do not extensively use
third party systems integrators. Thus, they are less well known
in ERP implementation consulting circles.
Public Sector Governance and ERP
Few, if any, industries require more unique core ERP functional-
ity or pose more ERP deployment hurdles than the public sector.
Many of these public sector ERP challenges can be tied to the
fundamental public sector governance dynamics. In contrast to
private sector organizations, public sector entities typically have
more lines of business (Claps & Sood, 2009), more stakeholders
with more infuence in the organizations business operations,
greater public transparency into budgetary decision-making
(Gossling, 2009), complex webs of political subdivisions and silos,
and often elusive or conficting measures of success (Robinson,
2007). When deploying ERP systems in the public sector, it is
important to understand public sector governance and how it
fundamentally difers from governance in the private sector.
Precisely characterizing public sector governance can be elusive
in part due the broad range of government models around the
world with diferences within branches, agencies, and levels of
government. However, there are some common governance
traits found in open democratic forms of government (McGee
D. Q., 2007). Such traits produce added risk to large-scale
public sector information technology projects (Strauss, 2006).
Important public sector governance traits impacting ERP imple-
mentations are considered in the following paragraphs.
A.4.1 THE ROLE OF THE BUDGET
It can be argued that little happens in the public sector without
a budget. The budget is the primary vehicle for allocating and
managing public sector fnancial, human, and capital resources
to support public demand (Marini, 1992). The decisions made in
the budget process drive nearly everything a government does
for the next year or multiple years (Gossling, 2009). Resource
allocation decisions made as part of a public sector organ-
izations budget process, which often carry the weight of law,
tend to have a more lasting efect than private sector budgets
(Gossling, 2009), (Rubin, 2008). Changes often require legisla-
tive action and all of the challenges and scrutiny that come with
such actions.
True understanding of the potential impact of the budget on
public sector ERP deployments requires an understanding of
the political nature of the budgeting process.
Compared to other ERP-related business processes, budget-
ing processes vary widely among public sector organizations
(Claassens, 2005)due to the underlying political nature of public
sector budgeting (Gossling, 2009), (Rubin, 2008). Thus, public
sector budget decisions often refect a compromise or political
equilibrium amongst a broad range of participating interests
rather than strategic goals (Rubin, 2008). By analyzing public
sector budgets, it is often possible to gain insight into organiza-
tional priorities, infuential stakeholders, core functional require-
ments, and business drivers (Abuelafa, Berensztein, Braun, & di
Gresia) which will impact ERP deployment. Important factors to
consider when reviewing a public sector organizations budget-
ing processes with respect to ERP deployment include :
The Budget Process - Budgeting includes all the steps neces-
sary to adopt and manage a budget through the fscal year
(McGee D. Q., 2007). Understanding this process, including
when and how agencies make their budget requests, the chief
executive makes a budget recommendation to the legislative
body or board, the legislature adopts the budget, the budget
is signed, and the adopted budget is executed provides critical
context to ERP deployment. The budget process may mater-
ially infuence ERP go live schedules, functional confguration
and reporting requirements, and project resource availability.
In addition, changes in a public sector organizations budget
process and budget calendar would dramatically impact an
ongoing or planned ERP project or ERP system confguration,
particularly from reporting, budget preparation, and budget
execution perspectives.
Budget Approach - Most public sector organizations use an
incremental approach to budgeting. Under this approach, it
is assumed that a base or the current level of services will be
provided from budget to budget (Lee, Johnson, & Joyce, 2008 ;
Wildavsky & Caiden, 2004). Budgetary decision-making, in turn,
primarily focuses on incremental adjustments to that budget
from year to year (Miller & Robbins, 2009). Alternately, reform-
oriented budget approaches include program budgeting,
performance-based budget, zero-base budgeting, and respon-
sibility-centered budgeting (Lee, Johnson, & Joyce, 2008).
Most governments adopting these reform budget approach-
es continue to use the incremental approach to budgeting
(Miller & Robbins, 2009) as their foundation, and focus on
adding additional accountability into the budget process by
aligning resource allocation decisions with program activities,
performance outcomes, or strategic goals and objectives.
(Robinson, 2007).
M
D
6
1
C
r
e
a
t
e
f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
4
0
1
M
E
5
9
N
C
o
n
v
e
r
t

t
o
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

o
r
d
e
r
M
I
G
O
P
o
s
t

g
o
o
d
s
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
s
4
0
5
M
I
R
O
P
o
s
t

i
n
v
o
i
c
e
4
0
6
F
-
5
3
P
o
s
t

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
4
0
7
C
O
4
1
M
a
s
s

r
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
1
0
C
O
1
5
C
o
n
f
r
m
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
4
1
1
V
L
0
1
N
C
r
e
a
t
e

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
4
1
3
V
F
0
1
C
r
e
a
t
e

b
i
l
l
i
n
g
4
1
4
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
o
r
d
e
r
G
o
o
d
s

r
e
c
e
i
p
t
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
C
a
s
h











A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.






R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y











F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d


c
h
a
n
g
e














p
r
o
d
u
c
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
C
o
n
s
.




















R
a
w

r
a
w



















m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
R
a
w

m
a
t









G
R
/
I
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R


G
R
/
I
R











A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.










C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d

















P
r
o
d
.
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s














o
u
t
p
u
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
s
a
l
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
R
a
w
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y

c
h
a
n
g
e
s
o
l
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
y

o
u
t
p
u
t
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s






C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
M
D
0
7
R
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
0
9
3
0
5
M
D
0
1
E
x
e
c
u
t
e

M
R
P
M
D
6
1
C
r
e
a
t
e
f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
4
0
1
M
E
5
9
N
C
o
n
v
e
r
t

t
o
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

o
r
d
e
r
M
I
G
O
P
o
s
t

g
o
o
d
s
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
s
4
0
5
M
I
R
O
P
o
s
t

i
n
v
o
i
c
e
4
0
6
F
-
5
3
P
o
s
t

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
4
0
7
C
O
4
1
M
a
s
s

r
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
1
0
C
O
1
5
C
o
n
f
r
m
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
4
1
1
V
L
0
1
N
C
r
e
a
t
e

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
4
1
3
V
F
0
1
C
r
e
a
t
e

b
i
l
l
i
n
g
4
1
4
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
o
r
d
e
r
G
o
o
d
s

r
e
c
e
i
p
t
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
C
a
s
h











A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.






R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y











F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d


c
h
a
n
g
e














p
r
o
d
u
c
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
C
o
n
s
.




















R
a
w

r
a
w



















m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
R
a
w

m
a
t









G
R
/
I
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R


G
R
/
I
R











A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.










C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d

















P
r
o
d
.
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s














o
u
t
p
u
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
s
a
l
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
R
a
w
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y

c
h
a
n
g
e
s
o
l
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
y

o
u
t
p
u
t
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s






C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
M
D
0
7
R
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
0
9
3
0
5
M
D
0
1
E
x
e
c
u
t
e

M
R
P
Beal & Prabhakar - Public Sector ERP
CHAPTER 20
Readings on Enterprise Resource Planning
Preliminary Version - send comments to pml@hec.ca 299
Regardless of which is adopted, an organizations budget
approach will signifcantly impact ERP confguration, especially
master data, integration, and reporting requirements.
Revenue Sources - Public sector organizations often receive
funding from multiple tax sources such as personal income tax,
sales tax, property tax, and other sources including intergovern-
mental revenue, user fees, tolls, or grants (McGee R. W., 2004).
Some revenue streams, such as property taxes, have traditional-
ly been more predictable and less elastic due to this taxs lower
susceptibility to tax avoidance (Lee, Johnson, & Joyce, 2008),
(Bowman & Kearney, 2003), and therefore provide more stable
and predictable funding streams.
Public sector organizations that rely more heavily on grants or
other intergovernmental revenue sources will likely have more
complex fnancial management and reporting requirements
(Lee, Johnson, & Joyce, 2008). State departments of transpor-
tation are good examples of organizations that receive and
administer a large portion of their budget from outside sources
(Fry, 2011). They also, not coincidentally, have very complex
fnancial management and reporting requirements associated
with federal aid billing. The mix of an organizations revenue
streams may substantially impact ERP project funding and
timing, software functional requirements, and implementation
complexity.
Capital Budgets - Many public sector organizations have separ-
ate capital planning and capital budgeting processes. These
budgets tend to be more project-oriented in nature, and often
involve multi-year capital expenditure outlays (Lee, Johnson, &
Joyce, 2008). Capital budgets are often based on detailed infor-
mation collected in project management and grant manage-
ment systems. There is often a desire to tie capital budgets to
operating budgets for decision-making and tracking (e.g. link
newly funded positions to a newly constructed building). Such
requirements may call for unique and complex integration
between ERP components and third-party systems. At the same
time, capital budgets often provide insight into underlying
ERP functional requirements including cost accounting, debt
management, and infrastructure management.
Budget Control - In public sector organizations, budgeting
does not end with the adoption of the budget. Public sector
organizations often use budget availability checking to manage
their budgets after adoption (McGee D. Q., 2007), (Lee, Johnson,
& Joyce, 2008). Such controls check for available funding prior
to processing a budget-consuming fnancial or procurement
posting.
Financial postings are mapped at the ERP master data level to
these funding buckets and once funds are exhausted, a hard
stop is placed on the transaction (e.g. a purchase order). When
deploying ERP in the public sector, it is important to understand
the organizations budget control requirements (Gossling, 2009).
The types of budget control (e.g. operating, grants, capital) and
the levels of budget control (e.g. department, division, section)
may all materially afect functional requirements and associated
confguration, as well as overall ERP project complexity.
ORGANIZATIONAL SILOS
The most cited factor contributing to public sector ERP
success or failure is organizational change management
(Claps & Anderson, Trends in Statewide ERP Implementations,
2009). Many public sector organizations are comprised of a
complex mix of decision-makers and infuencers (Marini, 1992).
Organization charts only tell part of the story when it comes to
understanding where power and infuence are concentrated
within these organizations, as many other factors may play into
this. Successfully deploying large-scale enterprise applications
can be aided by understanding and navigating the organiza-
tions formal and de facto organization charts (Blake, 2010).
In open forms of government, power is often intentionally
shared across the enterprise. Beyond formal divisions of power
between executive, legislative, and judicial branches, there are
often statutory or less formal concentrations of power which are
as just as important to understand (Wildavsky & Caiden, 2004).
For instance, Indiana county governments divide executive
power between three elected commissioners, an elected Sherif,
and other elected ofcials (Indiana Chamber of Commerce,
2007). These elected ofcials may be from diferent political
parties, have competing agendas, or simply dislike each other. A
less formal concentration of power can be found at the federal
or state level where large externally funded agencies, such as
transportation and human services agencies, often have great-
er infuence and potential impact on an ERP deployment than
smaller agencies (Blake, 2010).
Because of the sharing of power in the public sector, it is often
difcult to obtain client signof on important confguration
and project decisions (Blake, 2010), (Jamison, 2011). This can
lead to project delays and cost overruns. At the same time, it is
common to see elected ofcials or agencies exercise their statu-
tory authority or political power to refrain from participating in
an ERP project, or even publically distance themselves from, or
politically capitalize on, a troubled a project.
M
D
6
1
C
r
e
a
t
e
f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
4
0
1
M
E
5
9
N
C
o
n
v
e
r
t

t
o
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

o
r
d
e
r
M
I
G
O
P
o
s
t

g
o
o
d
s
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
s
4
0
5
M
I
R
O
P
o
s
t

i
n
v
o
i
c
e
4
0
6
F
-
5
3
P
o
s
t

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
4
0
7
C
O
4
1
M
a
s
s

r
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
1
0
C
O
1
5
C
o
n
f
r
m
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
4
1
1
V
L
0
1
N
C
r
e
a
t
e

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
4
1
3
V
F
0
1
C
r
e
a
t
e

b
i
l
l
i
n
g
4
1
4
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
o
r
d
e
r
G
o
o
d
s

r
e
c
e
i
p
t
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
C
a
s
h











A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.






R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y











F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d


c
h
a
n
g
e














p
r
o
d
u
c
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
C
o
n
s
.




















R
a
w

r
a
w



















m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
R
a
w

m
a
t









G
R
/
I
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R


G
R
/
I
R











A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.










C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d

















P
r
o
d
.
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s














o
u
t
p
u
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
s
a
l
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
R
a
w
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y

c
h
a
n
g
e
s
o
l
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
y

o
u
t
p
u
t
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s






C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
M
D
0
7
R
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
0
9
3
0
5
M
D
0
1
E
x
e
c
u
t
e

M
R
P
M
D
6
1
C
r
e
a
t
e
f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
4
0
1
M
E
5
9
N
C
o
n
v
e
r
t

t
o
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

o
r
d
e
r
M
I
G
O
P
o
s
t

g
o
o
d
s
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
s
4
0
5
M
I
R
O
P
o
s
t

i
n
v
o
i
c
e
4
0
6
F
-
5
3
P
o
s
t

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
4
0
7
C
O
4
1
M
a
s
s

r
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
1
0
C
O
1
5
C
o
n
f
r
m
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
4
1
1
V
L
0
1
N
C
r
e
a
t
e

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
4
1
3
V
F
0
1
C
r
e
a
t
e

b
i
l
l
i
n
g
4
1
4
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
o
r
d
e
r
G
o
o
d
s

r
e
c
e
i
p
t
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
C
a
s
h











A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.






R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y











F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d


c
h
a
n
g
e














p
r
o
d
u
c
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
C
o
n
s
.




















R
a
w

r
a
w



















m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
R
a
w

m
a
t









G
R
/
I
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R


G
R
/
I
R











A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.










C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d

















P
r
o
d
.
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s














o
u
t
p
u
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
s
a
l
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
R
a
w
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y

c
h
a
n
g
e
s
o
l
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
y

o
u
t
p
u
t
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s






C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
M
D
0
7
R
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
0
9
3
0
5
M
D
0
1
E
x
e
c
u
t
e

M
R
P
Beal & Prabhakar - Public Sector ERP
CHAPTER 20
Readings on Enterprise Resource Planning
Preliminary Version - send comments to pml@hec.ca 300
Such silos complicate ERP implementation, often creating the
need for complex system interfaces or duplicative processes
and, ultimately, limiting the realized value of ERP. Because of
organizational silos and their history of exercising independ-
ence, even ERP confguration foundations such as agreement on
a unifed chart of accounts or other master data may be difcult
to realize (Blake, 2010).
TRANSPARENCY AND PUBLIC INTEREST
Few things diferentiate public and private sector organizational
governance more than the level and type of public transpar-
ency. Public sector organizations by their very nature are open
to a very broad range of public scrutiny compared to organiza-
tions in the private sector (Claassens, 2005), (Bowman & Kearney,
2003) . Beyond the openness of public sector organizations,
there are public demands for greater public sector account-
ability (Bowman & Kearney, 2003). It typically takes litigation
for a troubled private sector ERP deployment to generate such
headlines. The threshold for media coverage in the public
sector is much lower. The media is often more inclined to cover
the dramatic aspects of a story (Good, 2003), and generating
positive earned media coverage, as it is often termed, is dif-
cult. There are substantially more articles about troubled public
sector ERP projects than successful projects (Byrne, 2011). Thus,
public interest and the media attention that comes with it can
add signifcant risk to a public sector ERP deployment (Hickey,
2010).
ELECTIONS
Leadership changes like those that occur following elections
may materially infuence priorities and balances of power within
an organization (Abney & Lauth, 1986), and impact planned or
ongoing ERP deployments in the public sector. In election years,
public sector organizations with elected ofcials often shift
focus to constituent-facing services, leaving planned or ongoing
projects such as an ERP deployment, on the back burner. Once
the election is complete, administration changes or changes in
the legislative bodys makeup may provide a catalyst for ERP
investment or, as is often the case, cause a change in prior-
ities which impacts an ERP project or plans for an ERP project
(Kirkland, 2011). Elections may also lead to staf turnover,
particularly political appointees, and changes in the overall
power dynamics of the public sector organization. Given that
most large public sector ERP projects are multi-year endeavours,
it is likely that one or more election cycles will transpire during
the project (Kirkland, 2011).
EXTERNAL MANDATES
Many public sector organizations either receive substantial
categorical funding or are subject to unfunded legal mandates.
Such mandates may be derived from other levels of government,
voter referendums, or judicial decisions. External mandates may
materially impact the public sector organizations operations
(Bowman & Kearney, 2003), fnancial management, human
resource management, and procurement business practices,
and in turn can impact ERP functional requirements. Reporting
requirements imposed by the external funding sources may
necessitate core ERP confguration changes such as adding
master data (e.g. chart of accounts), additional dimensions to
fnancial transactions, new cost allocation rules, or changes to
organizational budget priorities (Weber, 2011). At the same time,
these legally binding mandates may lead to business practices
in confict with delivered ERP best practices. Complying with
external legal mandates may prove challenging for ERP software
packages, and present added implementation risk in the form of
potential litigation for vendors and public sector organizations.
SOCIAL GOALS
Public sector organizations typically have business practi-
ces refecting a broader set of goals than cost reduction and
efciency. Examples of such social goals include small, minority-
owned, women-owned, or veteran-owned business contract
participation targets (Capstack, 2010). Related practices may
include preferential procurement rules or other practices
designed to level the playing feld for these businesses (Luby,
Gansler, & Kornberg, 2004). Business practices driven by social
goals may impact the ERP consultant project team makeup,
and may create unique ERP functional requirements afecting
confguration and reporting, particularly in the procurement or
employee recruitment areas.
PROCESS ORIENTATION
Private sector organizations often defne success by revenue
growth, improved proftability, and stock price. In contrast,
defning success for public sector organizations often proves
elusive (Miller & Robbins, 2009). Most people would deem cost
savings and efciency improvements from implementing ERP as
successes (Gossling, 2009). When those cost savings are gener-
ated from laying of government employees in the middle of a
recession, fewer people would embrace this view (Hill, 2010).
Such political considerations often lead public sector organiza-
tions to focus on process and compliance improvements, which
are embraced by a broader constituency.
M
D
6
1
C
r
e
a
t
e
f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
4
0
1
M
E
5
9
N
C
o
n
v
e
r
t

t
o
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

o
r
d
e
r
M
I
G
O
P
o
s
t

g
o
o
d
s
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
s
4
0
5
M
I
R
O
P
o
s
t

i
n
v
o
i
c
e
4
0
6
F
-
5
3
P
o
s
t

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
4
0
7
C
O
4
1
M
a
s
s

r
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
1
0
C
O
1
5
C
o
n
f
r
m
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
4
1
1
V
L
0
1
N
C
r
e
a
t
e

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
4
1
3
V
F
0
1
C
r
e
a
t
e

b
i
l
l
i
n
g
4
1
4
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
o
r
d
e
r
G
o
o
d
s

r
e
c
e
i
p
t
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
C
a
s
h











A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.






R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y











F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d


c
h
a
n
g
e














p
r
o
d
u
c
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
C
o
n
s
.




















R
a
w

r
a
w



















m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
R
a
w

m
a
t









G
R
/
I
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R


G
R
/
I
R











A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.










C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d

















P
r
o
d
.
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s














o
u
t
p
u
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
s
a
l
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
R
a
w
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y

c
h
a
n
g
e
s
o
l
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
y

o
u
t
p
u
t
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s






C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
M
D
0
7
R
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
0
9
3
0
5
M
D
0
1
E
x
e
c
u
t
e

M
R
P
M
D
6
1
C
r
e
a
t
e
f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
4
0
1
M
E
5
9
N
C
o
n
v
e
r
t

t
o
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

o
r
d
e
r
M
I
G
O
P
o
s
t

g
o
o
d
s
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
s
4
0
5
M
I
R
O
P
o
s
t

i
n
v
o
i
c
e
4
0
6
F
-
5
3
P
o
s
t

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
4
0
7
C
O
4
1
M
a
s
s

r
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
1
0
C
O
1
5
C
o
n
f
r
m
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
4
1
1
V
L
0
1
N
C
r
e
a
t
e

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
4
1
3
V
F
0
1
C
r
e
a
t
e

b
i
l
l
i
n
g
4
1
4
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
o
r
d
e
r
G
o
o
d
s

r
e
c
e
i
p
t
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
C
a
s
h











A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.






R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y











F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d


c
h
a
n
g
e














p
r
o
d
u
c
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
C
o
n
s
.




















R
a
w

r
a
w



















m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
R
a
w

m
a
t









G
R
/
I
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R


G
R
/
I
R











A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.










C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d

















P
r
o
d
.
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s














o
u
t
p
u
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
s
a
l
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
R
a
w
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y

c
h
a
n
g
e
s
o
l
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
y

o
u
t
p
u
t
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s






C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
M
D
0
7
R
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
0
9
3
0
5
M
D
0
1
E
x
e
c
u
t
e

M
R
P
Beal & Prabhakar - Public Sector ERP
CHAPTER 20
Readings on Enterprise Resource Planning
Preliminary Version - send comments to pml@hec.ca 301
This focus often makes it difcult to realize the efciency gains
and cost cutting often used to justify investments in ERP, or
to show tangible return on investment for a public sector ERP
project.
Diferentiated Public Sector ERP
Functionality
ERP vendors traditionally focused on support for broad, horizon-
tal processes, such as hire to retire, end-to-end processes
supporting human capital management, and procure to pay
processes. Public sector ERP implementations typically identify
several processes that may be specifc to the agency or public
sector, which may not be refected in these broad processes
(Claps & Anderson, 2009),. Figure 1 highlights many of these
common challenges faced by the ERP functional area.
Government Accounting Standards - A key diferentiator
between public sector and private sector fnancial management
is the diference in accounting rules. Despite a broad movement
around the world to better align public sector and private sector
accounting rules in many countries, diferences persist (Hughes,
2009). Unique public sector accounting practices often drive
ERP confguration requirements.
Fund Accounting and Budget Control - Fund accounting is
an accounting approach pervasively found in the public sector.
Funds, which in the public sector have a diferent meaning than
in private sector fnancial management, are used to segregate
and control funding from various sources (Granof, 2007). Each
fund has its own set of balancing accounts for fnancial reporting.
There are often legal or other restrictions for a given fund. Funds
are often used, at least in part, as a basis for budget availability
checking. Under such a system, funds are encumbered (commit-
ted), once it is verifed that sufcient funding exists, such as
upon creation of a purchase order for goods or services. Fund
accounting and budget availability checking drive many confg-
uration considerations during ERP deployment in the public
sector (Jamison, 2011).
Grant Management and Accounting - Beyond diferences in
accounting standards and the use of fund accounting, public
sector organizations have complex fnancial management and
reporting requirements associated with the administration of
grants. Public sector organizations may serve as a grantee or
grantor. Some are both grantee and grantor (Capstack, 2010).
Grant management requirements can prove challenging for ERP
systems, as diferences between the grantor and grantees fscal
years, chart of accounts, budget control, and reporting require-
ments must often be reconciled within the system.
Over time, most public sector-focused ERP vendors have incor-
porated functionality to support these, and other common
public sector fnancial functional requirements. However, the
deployment of this public sector functionality often proves
challenging to implementation teams due to a lack of extensive
public sector fnancial management expertise (Capstack, 2010).
PUBLIC SECTOR HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
(HCM)
Public sector organizations are often subject to complex recruit-
ment, compensation and benefts, and personnel administra-
tion rules. Designed to ensure integrity and accountability, these
rules often drive business practices which are not frequently
encountered in the private sector.
Figure 1 - Unique Public Sector ERP Functionality
Public Sector Financial Managment Challenges
Governmental accounting standards
Fund accounting and budget availability checking
Grant management and accounting
Public Sector Human Capital Management Challenges
Employee recruitment
Concurrent employment
Time and attendance tracking
Public Sector Procurement and Logistics Challenges
Extended formal procurement process
Disadvantaged business participation
Defense procurement and logistics
Public Sector Budget Preparation Challenges
Employee-level personnel expenditure forecasting
Text handling and automated budget publishing
Budget decision packages
PUBLIC SECTOR FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Public sector fnancial management and accounting difers
substantially from the private sector. These diferences often
have a far-reaching impact on the confguration and deploy-
ment of ERP software applications. The following are some of
these diferences.
M
D
6
1
C
r
e
a
t
e
f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
4
0
1
M
E
5
9
N
C
o
n
v
e
r
t

t
o
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

o
r
d
e
r
M
I
G
O
P
o
s
t

g
o
o
d
s
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
s
4
0
5
M
I
R
O
P
o
s
t

i
n
v
o
i
c
e
4
0
6
F
-
5
3
P
o
s
t

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
4
0
7
C
O
4
1
M
a
s
s

r
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
1
0
C
O
1
5
C
o
n
f
r
m
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
4
1
1
V
L
0
1
N
C
r
e
a
t
e

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
4
1
3
V
F
0
1
C
r
e
a
t
e

b
i
l
l
i
n
g
4
1
4
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
o
r
d
e
r
G
o
o
d
s

r
e
c
e
i
p
t
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
C
a
s
h











A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.






R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y











F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d


c
h
a
n
g
e














p
r
o
d
u
c
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
C
o
n
s
.




















R
a
w

r
a
w



















m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
R
a
w

m
a
t









G
R
/
I
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R


G
R
/
I
R











A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.










C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d

















P
r
o
d
.
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s














o
u
t
p
u
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
s
a
l
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
R
a
w
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y

c
h
a
n
g
e
s
o
l
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
y

o
u
t
p
u
t
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s






C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
M
D
0
7
R
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
0
9
3
0
5
M
D
0
1
E
x
e
c
u
t
e

M
R
P
M
D
6
1
C
r
e
a
t
e
f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
4
0
1
M
E
5
9
N
C
o
n
v
e
r
t

t
o
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

o
r
d
e
r
M
I
G
O
P
o
s
t

g
o
o
d
s
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
s
4
0
5
M
I
R
O
P
o
s
t

i
n
v
o
i
c
e
4
0
6
F
-
5
3
P
o
s
t

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
4
0
7
C
O
4
1
M
a
s
s

r
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
1
0
C
O
1
5
C
o
n
f
r
m
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
4
1
1
V
L
0
1
N
C
r
e
a
t
e

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
4
1
3
V
F
0
1
C
r
e
a
t
e

b
i
l
l
i
n
g
4
1
4
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
o
r
d
e
r
G
o
o
d
s

r
e
c
e
i
p
t
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
C
a
s
h











A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.






R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y











F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d


c
h
a
n
g
e














p
r
o
d
u
c
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
C
o
n
s
.




















R
a
w

r
a
w



















m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
R
a
w

m
a
t









G
R
/
I
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R


G
R
/
I
R











A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.










C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d

















P
r
o
d
.
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s














o
u
t
p
u
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
s
a
l
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
R
a
w
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y

c
h
a
n
g
e
s
o
l
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
y

o
u
t
p
u
t
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s






C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
M
D
0
7
R
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
0
9
3
0
5
M
D
0
1
E
x
e
c
u
t
e

M
R
P
Beal & Prabhakar - Public Sector ERP
CHAPTER 20
Readings on Enterprise Resource Planning
Preliminary Version - send comments to pml@hec.ca 302
This situation is exacerbated by the prevalence of employee
collective bargaining units, civil service or merit employees,
tenured staf, and political or executive appointees. Such
employee groups often have distinct recruitment, compen-
sation and beneft, and even termination rules. In spite of the
maturation of ERP in the public sector, many of these complex
business requirements pose ERP implementation challenges
(Jamison, 2011) such as the ones examined in the following
paragraphs.
Employee Recruitment - Employee recruitment in the public
sector often brings to life functional gaps in ERP software. This
is particularly true in the case of merit hiring. Under merit hiring
systems, applicants are often required to take competitive
examinations or are scored based on measureable criteria such
as educational attainment, veteran status, or other factors (Blake,
2010). Such systems often require the maintenance of publically
auditable records for test results and other evaluation metrics.
Few, if any, commercially available ERP systems fully support
these requirements. Therefore, core ERP employee recruitment
functionality is often customized to support these requirements
or, as is more often the case, niche third-party public sector
recruiting software packages, such as NEOGOV, are used.
Concurrent Employment or Dual Appointments - It is
common in public sector organizations for employees to hold
more than one position concurrently. For instance, a faculty
member at a University may simultaneously serve as dean
and as a professor. Such an arrangement often means total
employee benefts, taxes, or statutory payments are based
on the combined compensation for the two positions (Blake,
2010). Many ERP systems were not designed to support such
employment situations, and this often necessitates complex
workarounds or software customization.
Time and Attendance - Even basic processes such as time and
attendance tracking often pose challenges for ERP systems
when deployed in the public sector. This area is one root cause of
many implementation problems if data validation is not forced
at the point of entry, and can cause downstream issues with
payroll (Claps & Anderson, 2009). In some instances, computer-
based time and attendance tracking systems are not practical
(Blake, 2010). This is often the case for municipal public works
employees or corrections ofcers who lack ready access to
computers. Accordingly, traditional time clocks, mobile devices,
and telephone solutions are often required for a segment of
public sector employees (Phillips, 2011). Best of breed software
and hardware tools to address this need from vendors, such
as Kronos, are often implemented in advance of ERP projects
(Phillips, 2011) and provide real-time rules validation of related
data improving time and attendance management efciency
and compliance (Claps & Anderson, 2009), Such systems often
need to be interfaced, and this may add substantial implemen-
tation efort to an ERP project.
Faculty Contract Pay University professors and public school
teachers can often elect to work on and/or are paid on contracts
spanning 9, 10, or 12 month periods. Managing these contracts
presents many challenges for ERP systems in terms of compen-
sation and benefts administration (Blake, 2010). Accordingly,
public school and university ERP human resources manage-
ment module implementations are often more complex from a
functional confguration perspective.
Defense Compensation, Allowances, and Benefts Defense
agencies, in contrast to civilian agencies, present unique
challenges for ERP HCM components including the volume and
diversity of federal job classifcations, managing global cost of
living adjustments, and tracking and diferentiating numerous
allowances versus pay types (Weber, 2011).
PUBLIC SECTOR PROCUREMENT AND LOGISTICS
The mission of the procurement function, whether in the public
or private sector, is to manage the delivery of goods and services
through the supply chain in a cost-efective manner (Johnson,
Leenders, & McCue, 2003). However, at the operational level, the
procurement and logistics functions are signifcantly diferent
between these organization types. Public sector procurement
can best be described as process-oriented. These processes
refect the legal and ethical restrictions designed to ensure open
and competitive public sector procurements that safeguard
public funds (Weber, 2011).
Given the great deal of money involved, the challenge for
public sector procurement ofcials is to create and promote
an environment of procurement process transparency to limit
the opportunity for, or the perception of, improper purchasing
transactions (Randall, 2005). For example, governments that
have been dominated by a single political party for a signif-
cant duration may appear to be at risk for favouring vendors
who have political connections, or those who contribute to
the campaigns of state and local politicians (Capstack, 2010).
Similarly, public spending should not be used to enrich public
ofcials or employees, or to confer favours to preferred constitu-
ents. Public sector procurement and logistics processes are
examined in the following paragraphs.
M
D
6
1
C
r
e
a
t
e
f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
4
0
1
M
E
5
9
N
C
o
n
v
e
r
t

t
o
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

o
r
d
e
r
M
I
G
O
P
o
s
t

g
o
o
d
s
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
s
4
0
5
M
I
R
O
P
o
s
t

i
n
v
o
i
c
e
4
0
6
F
-
5
3
P
o
s
t

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
4
0
7
C
O
4
1
M
a
s
s

r
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
1
0
C
O
1
5
C
o
n
f
r
m
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
4
1
1
V
L
0
1
N
C
r
e
a
t
e

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
4
1
3
V
F
0
1
C
r
e
a
t
e

b
i
l
l
i
n
g
4
1
4
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
o
r
d
e
r
G
o
o
d
s

r
e
c
e
i
p
t
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
C
a
s
h











A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.






R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y











F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d


c
h
a
n
g
e














p
r
o
d
u
c
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
C
o
n
s
.




















R
a
w

r
a
w



















m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
R
a
w

m
a
t









G
R
/
I
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R


G
R
/
I
R











A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.










C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d

















P
r
o
d
.
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s














o
u
t
p
u
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
s
a
l
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
R
a
w
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y

c
h
a
n
g
e
s
o
l
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
y

o
u
t
p
u
t
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s






C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
M
D
0
7
R
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
0
9
3
0
5
M
D
0
1
E
x
e
c
u
t
e

M
R
P
M
D
6
1
C
r
e
a
t
e
f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
4
0
1
M
E
5
9
N
C
o
n
v
e
r
t

t
o
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

o
r
d
e
r
M
I
G
O
P
o
s
t

g
o
o
d
s
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
s
4
0
5
M
I
R
O
P
o
s
t

i
n
v
o
i
c
e
4
0
6
F
-
5
3
P
o
s
t

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
4
0
7
C
O
4
1
M
a
s
s

r
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
1
0
C
O
1
5
C
o
n
f
r
m
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
4
1
1
V
L
0
1
N
C
r
e
a
t
e

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
4
1
3
V
F
0
1
C
r
e
a
t
e

b
i
l
l
i
n
g
4
1
4
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
o
r
d
e
r
G
o
o
d
s

r
e
c
e
i
p
t
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
C
a
s
h











A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.






R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y











F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d


c
h
a
n
g
e














p
r
o
d
u
c
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
C
o
n
s
.




















R
a
w

r
a
w



















m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
R
a
w

m
a
t









G
R
/
I
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R


G
R
/
I
R











A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.










C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d

















P
r
o
d
.
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s














o
u
t
p
u
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
s
a
l
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
R
a
w
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y

c
h
a
n
g
e
s
o
l
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
y

o
u
t
p
u
t
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s






C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
M
D
0
7
R
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
0
9
3
0
5
M
D
0
1
E
x
e
c
u
t
e

M
R
P
Beal & Prabhakar - Public Sector ERP
CHAPTER 20
Readings on Enterprise Resource Planning
Preliminary Version - send comments to pml@hec.ca 303
Extended Formal Procurement Processes - In contrast to
procurement practices in the private sector, public sector
procurement is often more formal with additional steps
designed to ensure transparency, integrity, and public account-
ability for contract awards and purchases (Jamison, 2011). Such
procurement process steps, including formal advertising and
public protest periods, often necessitate functionality not readi-
ly found in commercially available ERP or supplier relationship
management systems (Capstack, 2010). Hence, ERP frms have
added public sector-specifc procurement solutions to their
public sector ERP product portfolios. Deploying these solutions
requires diferentiated skills and expertise from standard ERP
supply-chain management capabilities.
Disadvantaged Vendor Participation - Public sector organiza-
tions strive to provide equitable access and contracting oppor-
tunities to all vendors. In support of that commitment, they often
provide weighted scoring or set target participation targets
for traditionally disadvantaged businesses (Weber, 2011). This
is done in order to ensure public contracts are proportionally
awarded to minority-owned, woman-owned, or veteran-owned
businesses, in some instances even where vendor bids do not
make the lowest responsive bid (Blake, 2010). Such practices and
the related compliance tracking often prove challenging for ERP
procurement or supplier-relationship management modules,
which are typically designed around such goals as reducing the
cost of goods and services and leverage.
Defense Procurement and Logistics Defense agencies come
with their own set of functional challenges when contrasted
with civilian agencies. Complex supply chains, extensive
contracting requirements, multiple inventory control points,
global contracting needs (e.g. requirements to procure locally
around the globe), and large maintenance projects (overhaul
of ships, aircraft, etc.) all contribute to unique ERP functional
requirements (Weber, 2011). Additionally, defense agencies
must also plan for execution of their core operational mission
beyond this ERP functionality. Tracking of organizational
units, personnel, equipment, and budgets is really the largest
challenge for defense agency systems. SAP Defense Forces &
Public Security (DFPS) provides extended ERP functionality
specifcally designed to address such defense agency challen-
ges (Weber, 2011).
PUBLIC SECTOR BUDGET PREPARATION
Historically, leading cross-industry ERP vendors have been slow
to respond to the unique budget preparation requirements
of the public sector. However, with the recent introduction of
public sector-specifc budgeting oferings from the leading ERP
vendors, there appears to be an emerging focus on meeting the
unique budget requirements of the public sector. Until these
solutions mature, ERP budget preparation implementation
challenges will likely remain.
The mechanics of public sector budgeting are diferentiated
from private sector budgeting in many respects. Such diferen-
tiated public sector budget preparation requirements include :
Employee-Level Personnel Expenditure Forecasting - Public
sector organizations often develop personnel budgets at the
employee and position level, since a major proportion of public
sector budgets are made up of personnel costs. Supporting this
requirement for large public organizations necessitates tight
integration with human resources management modules, and
robust compensation and benefts parameter-driven personnel
expenditure forecasting tools. Such functionality is not deliv-
ered, nor easily confgured, in budgeting software designed
primarily for private sector organizations (Wiggins, 2011).
Text Handling and Automated Budget Publishing - Because
of the transparent nature of public sector budgeting, public
sector budget reports and budget books include extensive
amounts of justifying and descriptive text. Producing these
budget books, which may be hundreds of pages, is too often
a labour-intensive process involving tedious data manipulation
and reconciliation (Gossling, 2009). Many ERP budget prepara-
tion modules or third party planning software packages limit
text-storing capabilities, or leverage document management
systems for storing budget-related text. Such approaches
signifcantly impair the ability to automate the publication of
text-intensive budget books (Wiggins, 2011).
Budget Decision Packages - Public sector organizations often
require the ability to develop budget increases or reduction
packages which are segregated from the base budget until
approved. Such packages may include expenditure and related
stafng changes, revenue, performance information, descrip-
tive information about the budget package, and long, detailed
text justifcations (Wiggins, 2011). This functional requirement is
often unsupported by ERP budget preparation modules, neces-
sitating cumbersome system workarounds or ofine tracking.
M
D
6
1
C
r
e
a
t
e
f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
4
0
1
M
E
5
9
N
C
o
n
v
e
r
t

t
o
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

o
r
d
e
r
M
I
G
O
P
o
s
t

g
o
o
d
s
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
s
4
0
5
M
I
R
O
P
o
s
t

i
n
v
o
i
c
e
4
0
6
F
-
5
3
P
o
s
t

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
4
0
7
C
O
4
1
M
a
s
s

r
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
1
0
C
O
1
5
C
o
n
f
r
m
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
4
1
1
V
L
0
1
N
C
r
e
a
t
e

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
4
1
3
V
F
0
1
C
r
e
a
t
e

b
i
l
l
i
n
g
4
1
4
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
o
r
d
e
r
G
o
o
d
s

r
e
c
e
i
p
t
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
C
a
s
h











A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.






R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y











F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d


c
h
a
n
g
e














p
r
o
d
u
c
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
C
o
n
s
.




















R
a
w

r
a
w



















m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
R
a
w

m
a
t









G
R
/
I
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R


G
R
/
I
R











A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.










C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d

















P
r
o
d
.
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s














o
u
t
p
u
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
s
a
l
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
R
a
w
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y

c
h
a
n
g
e
s
o
l
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
y

o
u
t
p
u
t
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s






C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
M
D
0
7
R
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
0
9
3
0
5
M
D
0
1
E
x
e
c
u
t
e

M
R
P
M
D
6
1
C
r
e
a
t
e
f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
4
0
1
M
E
5
9
N
C
o
n
v
e
r
t

t
o
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

o
r
d
e
r
M
I
G
O
P
o
s
t

g
o
o
d
s
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
s
4
0
5
M
I
R
O
P
o
s
t

i
n
v
o
i
c
e
4
0
6
F
-
5
3
P
o
s
t

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
4
0
7
C
O
4
1
M
a
s
s

r
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
1
0
C
O
1
5
C
o
n
f
r
m
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
4
1
1
V
L
0
1
N
C
r
e
a
t
e

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
4
1
3
V
F
0
1
C
r
e
a
t
e

b
i
l
l
i
n
g
4
1
4
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
o
r
d
e
r
G
o
o
d
s

r
e
c
e
i
p
t
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
C
a
s
h











A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.






R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y











F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d


c
h
a
n
g
e














p
r
o
d
u
c
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
C
o
n
s
.




















R
a
w

r
a
w



















m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
R
a
w

m
a
t









G
R
/
I
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R


G
R
/
I
R











A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.










C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d

















P
r
o
d
.
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s














o
u
t
p
u
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
s
a
l
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
R
a
w
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y

c
h
a
n
g
e
s
o
l
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
y

o
u
t
p
u
t
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s






C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
M
D
0
7
R
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
0
9
3
0
5
M
D
0
1
E
x
e
c
u
t
e

M
R
P
Beal & Prabhakar - Public Sector ERP
CHAPTER 20
Readings on Enterprise Resource Planning
Preliminary Version - send comments to pml@hec.ca 304
Preparing for Public Sector ERP
Deployment
Public sector ERP deployment often comes with added project
risks when contrasted with the private sector ERP projects identi-
fed throughout this chapter. Most ERP project management and
risk management best practices employed in the private sector
have applicability to public sector ERP deployments. Table 2
includes public sector ERP implementation expert recommen-
dations for risk management abatement practices which may
prove valuable for public sector ERP deployment.
Table 2 : Public Sector ERP Expert Guidance
Public Sector ERP Expert Implementation Planning
Guidance
Secure strong executive sponsorship with control over
functional and technical support organizations such as
information technology, fnancial management, human
resources, payroll, purchasing and budget (Jamison,
2011). This may prove vexing in the public sector, where
formal or statutory and de facto organization silos make
such executive alignment difcult.
Staf the project with experienced public sector ERP
deployment project management who can efectively
navigate the organizational dynamics of public organiza-
tions (Byrne, 2011).
Include public sector functional experts, with deep
understanding of public sector governance and business
practices, for each ERP functional module (e.g. Budget
Preparation, Procurement, Logistics, etc.) on the consult-
ing and client project teams (Kirkland, 2011).
Plan for common gaps in public sector ERP functionality,
and proactively develop strategies for addressing them
(Byrne, 2011).
Plan for client, staf, skill and availability limitations,
particularly information technology staf (Jamison, 2011).
Frequently, public sector organizations have difculty
attracting and retaining strong information technology
professionals.
Understand the organization structure, where power and
infuence are concentrated, identify silo organizations,
and develop strategies for building consensus across
silos on key implementation decisions (Blake, 2010).
Be prepared for media scrutiny of the project, and proac-
tively manage project communications internally and
externally (Byrne, 2011).
Conclusion
There are many diferences between ERP deployment in the
public and private sectors. Such diferences can be tied to the
unique dynamics of public sector governance, and how they
commonly impact ERP functional requirements, confguration,
and implementation projects. This chapter has highlighted
some of these unique public sector dynamics and their poten-
tial impact on ERP projects. It is intended to augment a broader
understanding of ERP applications and their deployment practi-
ces and is therefore not intended to be a comprehensive refer-
ence for public sector ERP deployment.
M
D
6
1
C
r
e
a
t
e
f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
4
0
1
M
E
5
9
N
C
o
n
v
e
r
t

t
o
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

o
r
d
e
r
M
I
G
O
P
o
s
t

g
o
o
d
s
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
s
4
0
5
M
I
R
O
P
o
s
t

i
n
v
o
i
c
e
4
0
6
F
-
5
3
P
o
s
t

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
4
0
7
C
O
4
1
M
a
s
s

r
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
1
0
C
O
1
5
C
o
n
f
r
m
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
4
1
1
V
L
0
1
N
C
r
e
a
t
e

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
4
1
3
V
F
0
1
C
r
e
a
t
e

b
i
l
l
i
n
g
4
1
4
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
o
r
d
e
r
G
o
o
d
s

r
e
c
e
i
p
t
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
C
a
s
h











A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.






R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y











F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d


c
h
a
n
g
e














p
r
o
d
u
c
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
C
o
n
s
.




















R
a
w

r
a
w



















m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
R
a
w

m
a
t









G
R
/
I
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R


G
R
/
I
R











A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.










C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d

















P
r
o
d
.
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s














o
u
t
p
u
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
s
a
l
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
R
a
w
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y

c
h
a
n
g
e
s
o
l
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
y

o
u
t
p
u
t
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s






C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
M
D
0
7
R
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
0
9
3
0
5
M
D
0
1
E
x
e
c
u
t
e

M
R
P
M
D
6
1
C
r
e
a
t
e
f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
4
0
1
M
E
5
9
N
C
o
n
v
e
r
t

t
o
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

o
r
d
e
r
M
I
G
O
P
o
s
t

g
o
o
d
s
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
s
4
0
5
M
I
R
O
P
o
s
t

i
n
v
o
i
c
e
4
0
6
F
-
5
3
P
o
s
t

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
4
0
7
C
O
4
1
M
a
s
s

r
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
1
0
C
O
1
5
C
o
n
f
r
m
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
4
1
1
V
L
0
1
N
C
r
e
a
t
e

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
4
1
3
V
F
0
1
C
r
e
a
t
e

b
i
l
l
i
n
g
4
1
4
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
o
r
d
e
r
G
o
o
d
s

r
e
c
e
i
p
t
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
C
a
s
h











A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.






R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y











F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d


c
h
a
n
g
e














p
r
o
d
u
c
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
C
o
n
s
.




















R
a
w

r
a
w



















m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
R
a
w

m
a
t









G
R
/
I
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R


G
R
/
I
R











A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.










C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d

















P
r
o
d
.
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s














o
u
t
p
u
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
s
a
l
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
R
a
w
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y

c
h
a
n
g
e
s
o
l
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
y

o
u
t
p
u
t
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s






C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
M
D
0
7
R
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
0
9
3
0
5
M
D
0
1
E
x
e
c
u
t
e

M
R
P
Beal & Prabhakar - Public Sector ERP
CHAPTER 20
Readings on Enterprise Resource Planning
Preliminary Version - send comments to pml@hec.ca 305
References
Abney, G. and Lauth, T. P. (1986). The Politics of State and City Administration. Albany, New York : State University of New York Press.
Abuelafa, E., Berensztein, S., Braun, M., and di Gresia, L. (2009). Who Decides on Public Expenditures? The importance of the
Informal Budget Process in Argentina. In M. Hallerberg, C. Scartascini, & E. Stein, Who Decides the Budget? A Political Economy Analysis
of the Budget Process in Latin America. Cambridge, MA : Inter-American Development Bank.
Blake, T. (2010, October 11). Principal, Deloitte Consulting. (J. Beal, Interviewer)
Bowman, A. O., and Kearney, R. C. (2003). State and Local government : The Essentials. Boston, New York : Houghton Mifin Company.
CGI. (2010, October 13). AMS Advantage ERP. Retrieved October 13, 2010, from CGI.com :
http ://www.cgi.com/en/solutions/ams-advantage-erp-state-and-local-government-fnancial-management-human-resources-
payroll-budget-reporting
Claassens, M. (2005). Introduction, Overview and Key Findings. In M. Claassens, Budget Transparency and Participation, Nine African
Case Studies (pp. 1-54). Cape Town, South Africa : IDASA.
Claps, M., and Anderson, I. I. (2009). Trends in Statewide ERP Implementations. Stamford, CT : Gartner.
Claps, M., and Sood, R. (2009). The U.S. Local Government IT Solution Vendor Landscape. Stamford, CT : Gartner.
Good, D. (2003). The Politics of Public Management : The HRDC Audit of Grants and Contributions. Toronto, Bufalo, London : University
f Toronto Press.
Gossling, J. (2009). Budgetary Politics in American Governments. New York, New York : Routledge.
Government-CRM.com. (2010, October 13). Government ERP Systems. Retrieved October 13, 2010, from Government-CRM.com :
http ://www.government-crm.com/erp.htm
Granof, M. (2007). Government and Not-For-Proft Accounting : Concepts & Practices. Hoboken, New Jersey : John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hamerman, P. (2010, April 26). Buyers Guide to ERP : the mid-tier market. Retrieved October 13, 2010, from ComputerWeekly.com :
http ://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2010/04/26/241032/Buyers-Guide-to-ERP-the-mid-tier-market.htm
Harris, J. (2004, December). The Road to ERP Optimization. Government Finance Review, 20(6), 19-22.
Hickey, K. (2010, August 25). California County Dumps SAP. Retrieved October 20, 2010, from WashingtonTechnology.com :
http ://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2010/08/25/california-county-dumps-sap.aspx
Hill, P. (2010, August 8). Ailing Public Sector Leads to Layofs. Retrieved June 14, 2011, from The Washington Times :
http ://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/8/ailing-public-sector-leads-in-layofs/
Hughes, J. (2009). International Public Sector Accounting Standards. In F. Bogui, Handbook of Governmental Accounting (pp. 491-517).
Boca Raton, Florida : CRC Press.
Indiana Chamber of Commerce. (2007). Here is Your Indiana Government. Indianapolis, Indiana : Indiana Chamber of Commerce.
Johnson, C. (2011, June 16). Global Industry Product Director Public Sector, Microsoft Dynamics. (J. Beal, Interviewer)
Johnson, P. F., Leenders, M., and McCue, C. (2003, June). A Comparison of Purchasings Organizational Roles and Responsibilities
in the Public and Private Sector. Journal of Public Procurement, 3(1), 57-74.
Kavanagh, S., and Miranda, R. (2005). ERP Industry Structure and Marketplace Dynamics. In S. Kavanagh, & R. Miranda, Technologies
for Government Transformation (pp. 35-43). Chicago, IL : Government Finance Ofcers Association.
Kavanagh, S., and Miranda, R. (2005). Realizing Value from Enterprise Systems. In S. Kavanagh, & R. Miranda, Technologies for
Government Transformation (pp. 3-18). Chicago, IL : Government Finance Ofcers Association.
M
D
6
1
C
r
e
a
t
e
f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
4
0
1
M
E
5
9
N
C
o
n
v
e
r
t

t
o
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

o
r
d
e
r
M
I
G
O
P
o
s
t

g
o
o
d
s
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
s
4
0
5
M
I
R
O
P
o
s
t

i
n
v
o
i
c
e
4
0
6
F
-
5
3
P
o
s
t

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
4
0
7
C
O
4
1
M
a
s
s

r
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
1
0
C
O
1
5
C
o
n
f
r
m
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
4
1
1
V
L
0
1
N
C
r
e
a
t
e

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
4
1
3
V
F
0
1
C
r
e
a
t
e

b
i
l
l
i
n
g
4
1
4
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
o
r
d
e
r
G
o
o
d
s

r
e
c
e
i
p
t
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
C
a
s
h











A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.






R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y











F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d


c
h
a
n
g
e














p
r
o
d
u
c
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
C
o
n
s
.




















R
a
w

r
a
w



















m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
R
a
w

m
a
t









G
R
/
I
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R


G
R
/
I
R











A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.










C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d

















P
r
o
d
.
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s














o
u
t
p
u
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
s
a
l
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
R
a
w
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y

c
h
a
n
g
e
s
o
l
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
y

o
u
t
p
u
t
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s






C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
M
D
0
7
R
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
0
9
3
0
5
M
D
0
1
E
x
e
c
u
t
e

M
R
P
M
D
6
1
C
r
e
a
t
e
f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
4
0
1
M
E
5
9
N
C
o
n
v
e
r
t

t
o
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

o
r
d
e
r
M
I
G
O
P
o
s
t

g
o
o
d
s
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
s
4
0
5
M
I
R
O
P
o
s
t

i
n
v
o
i
c
e
4
0
6
F
-
5
3
P
o
s
t

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
4
0
7
C
O
4
1
M
a
s
s

r
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
1
0
C
O
1
5
C
o
n
f
r
m
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
4
1
1
V
L
0
1
N
C
r
e
a
t
e

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
4
1
3
V
F
0
1
C
r
e
a
t
e

b
i
l
l
i
n
g
4
1
4
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
o
r
d
e
r
G
o
o
d
s

r
e
c
e
i
p
t
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
C
a
s
h











A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.






R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y











F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d


c
h
a
n
g
e














p
r
o
d
u
c
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
C
o
n
s
.




















R
a
w

r
a
w



















m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
R
a
w

m
a
t









G
R
/
I
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R


G
R
/
I
R











A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.










C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d

















P
r
o
d
.
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s














o
u
t
p
u
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
s
a
l
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
R
a
w
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y

c
h
a
n
g
e
s
o
l
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
y

o
u
t
p
u
t
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s






C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
M
D
0
7
R
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
0
9
3
0
5
M
D
0
1
E
x
e
c
u
t
e

M
R
P
Beal & Prabhakar - Public Sector ERP
CHAPTER 20
Readings on Enterprise Resource Planning
Preliminary Version - send comments to pml@hec.ca 306
Kirkland, D. (2011, June 14). Director, SAP Public Services, Inc. (J. Beal, Interviewer)
Lawson Software, Inc. (2010, October 13). Implementation. Retrieved October 10, 2010, from Lawson.com :
http ://www.lawson.com/wcw.nsf/pub/Impl
Lee, J. R., Johnson, R. W., and Joyce, P. G. (2008). Pubilc Budgeting Systems. Sudbury, Massachusetts : Jones and Bartlett Pubishers.
Luby, R. E., Gansler, J. S., and Kornberg, B. (2004). The Road to Transforming Supply Chain Management in Government. In R. E.
Luby, & J. S. Gansler, Transforming Government Supply Chanin Management (pp. 77-98). Lanham, Maryland : Rowman and Littelfeld
Publishers.
Marini, J. (1992). The Politics of Budget Control. Washington, DC : Hemisphere Publishing Corporation .
McGee, D. Q. (2007). The Budget Process, A Parliamentary Imperative. London; Ann Arbor, MI : Plute Press.
McGee, R. W. (2004). The Philosophy of Taxation and Public Finance. Boston/Dordrecht/London : Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Miller, G., and Robbins, D. (2009). Progressive Government Budgeting. In F. Bogui, & F. Bogui (Ed.), Handbook of Governmental
Accounting (pp. 71-127). Boca Raton, Florida, United States : CRC Press.
Oracle. (2010, October 13). Oracle.com. Retrieved October 2010, 2010, from Oracle Hyperion Public Sector Planning and Budgeting :
http ://www.oracle.com/us/solutions/ent-performance-bi/public-sector-planning-budgetting-065895.html
Randall, R. (2005). Procurement Lobbying Within State Government : An Emerging Trend. Chicago, IL : National Association of State
Procurement Ofcials.
Robinson, M. (2007). Results Information. In M. Robinson, Performance Budgeting, Linking Funding and Results (pp. 26-45). New
York, New York : PALGRAVE MACMILLAN.
Rubin, I. S. (2008). Public Budgeting Policy, Process, and Politics. Armonk, New York : M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
SAP. (2010, October 13). SAP for Public Sector - Maximizing Public Value. Retrieved October 13, 2010, from SAP United States :
http ://www.sap.com/industries/publicsector/public/index.epx
Songini, M. L. (2005, September 5). King County ready to restart ERP efort. Retrieved October 22, 2010, from Computerworld.com :
http ://www.computerworld.com/s/article/104370/King_County_ready_to_restart_ERP_efort
Strauss, H. (2006). Why IT Projects Fail in Government. Stamford, CT : Gartner.
Wagner, W., and Antonucci, Y. L. (2009, July). The ImaginePA Project : The First Large-Scale, Public Sector ERP Implementation.
Information Systems Management, 26(3), 275-284.
Wildavsky, A., and Caiden, N. (2004). The new Politics of the Budgetary Process. New York : Pearson/Longman.
M
D
6
1
C
r
e
a
t
e
f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
4
0
1
M
E
5
9
N
C
o
n
v
e
r
t

t
o
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

o
r
d
e
r
M
I
G
O
P
o
s
t

g
o
o
d
s
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
s
4
0
5
M
I
R
O
P
o
s
t

i
n
v
o
i
c
e
4
0
6
F
-
5
3
P
o
s
t

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
4
0
7
C
O
4
1
M
a
s
s

r
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
1
0
C
O
1
5
C
o
n
f
r
m
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
4
1
1
V
L
0
1
N
C
r
e
a
t
e

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
4
1
3
V
F
0
1
C
r
e
a
t
e

b
i
l
l
i
n
g
4
1
4
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
o
r
d
e
r
G
o
o
d
s

r
e
c
e
i
p
t
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
C
a
s
h











A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.






R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y











F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d


c
h
a
n
g
e














p
r
o
d
u
c
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
C
o
n
s
.




















R
a
w

r
a
w



















m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
R
a
w

m
a
t









G
R
/
I
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R


G
R
/
I
R











A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.










C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d

















P
r
o
d
.
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s














o
u
t
p
u
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
s
a
l
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
R
a
w
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y

c
h
a
n
g
e
s
o
l
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
y

o
u
t
p
u
t
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s






C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
M
D
0
7
R
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
0
9
3
0
5
M
D
0
1
E
x
e
c
u
t
e

M
R
P
M
D
6
1
C
r
e
a
t
e
f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
4
0
1
M
E
5
9
N
C
o
n
v
e
r
t

t
o
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

o
r
d
e
r
M
I
G
O
P
o
s
t

g
o
o
d
s
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
s
4
0
5
M
I
R
O
P
o
s
t

i
n
v
o
i
c
e
4
0
6
F
-
5
3
P
o
s
t

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
4
0
7
C
O
4
1
M
a
s
s

r
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
1
0
C
O
1
5
C
o
n
f
r
m
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
4
1
1
V
L
0
1
N
C
r
e
a
t
e

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
4
1
3
V
F
0
1
C
r
e
a
t
e

b
i
l
l
i
n
g
4
1
4
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
o
r
d
e
r
G
o
o
d
s

r
e
c
e
i
p
t
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
C
a
s
h











A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.






R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y











F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d


c
h
a
n
g
e














p
r
o
d
u
c
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
C
o
n
s
.




















R
a
w

r
a
w



















m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
R
a
w

m
a
t









G
R
/
I
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R


G
R
/
I
R











A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.










C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d

















P
r
o
d
.
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s














o
u
t
p
u
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
s
a
l
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
R
a
w
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y

c
h
a
n
g
e
s
o
l
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
y

o
u
t
p
u
t
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s






C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
M
D
0
7
R
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
0
9
3
0
5
M
D
0
1
E
x
e
c
u
t
e

M
R
P
Beal & Prabhakar - Public Sector ERP
CHAPTER 20
Readings on Enterprise Resource Planning
Preliminary Version - send comments to pml@hec.ca 307
Interviews with Industry Experts cited in the Chapter
Blake, T. (2010, October 11). Principal, Deloitte Consulting. (J. Beal, Interviewer)
Capstack, S. (2010, October 21). Director- CGI. (J. Beal, Interviewer)
Fry, J. T. (2011, June 15). Consultant to Colorado Department of Transportation. (J. Beal, Interviewer)
Jamison, A. (2011, June 15). Director of Consulting, CGI State and Local Government ERP. (J. Beal, Interviewer)
Kirkland, D. (2011, June 14). Director, SAP Public Services, Inc. (J. Beal, Interviewer)
Phillips, T. (2011, June 15). Senior Executive, Kronos for Pubic Sector. (J. Beal, Interviewer)
Wiggins, D. (2011, June 14). Solution Principal for Public Sector Budgeting Solutions, SAP Public Services, Inc. (J. Beal, Interviewer)
Weber, P. (2011, June 14). Solutions Director, SAP Public Services, Inc. (J. Beal, Interviewer)
Further Readings
Akba, A. (2008) Public Finance and Budgeting : Issues, Imperatives, and Challenges from Nigerian Perspective. Ibadan, Nigeria;
Spectrum
Bergman, A. (2009) Public Sector Financial Management. Harlow, England :Prentice Hall Financial Times
Diamond, J. (2002) Performance Budgeting Is Accrual Accounting Required?, Washington, DC, International Monetary Fund, Fiscal
Afairs Department
Garson, G. David (2006) Public Information Technology and E-Governance. Sudbury, MA : Jones and Bartlett Publishers
Garrett, E., Graddy, E. A. and Jackson, H. E. (2008) Fiscal Challenges : An Interdisciplinary Approach to Budget Policy, New York, NY :
Cambridge University Press
Goldsmith, S. (2009) Unlocking the Power of Networks : Keys to High-Performance Government, Washington, DC : Brooking Institution
Press
McCafery, J. and Jones, L.R. (2001) Budgeting and Financial Management in the Federal Government, Greenwich, Connecticut :
Information Age
McCreedy, J. and Gemmell, N. (2006) Modelling Tax Revenue Growth, Northhampton, MA : Edward Elgar Publishing Limited
Musell, R. M. (2009) Understanding Government Budgets : A practical Guide, New York, NY : Routledge
Shah, A. (2007) Budgeting and Budgetary Institutions, Washington, DC : The World Bank
Sommer, R. A. (2006) Public Sector Enterprise Resource Planning, Northampton, MA : Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.
Schick, A. (2007) The Federal budget : Politics, Policy, Process, Washington, DC : Brookings Institution Press
Soest, C. von (2009) The African State and Its Revenues : How Politics Infuences Tax Collection in Zambia and Botswana, Baden-Baden :
Nomos
Yondorf, B. and Puls, B. (1987) Capital Budgeting and Finance : The Legislative Role, Washington, DC : National Conference of State
Legislatures
M
D
6
1
C
r
e
a
t
e
f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
4
0
1
M
E
5
9
N
C
o
n
v
e
r
t

t
o
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

o
r
d
e
r
M
I
G
O
P
o
s
t

g
o
o
d
s
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
s
4
0
5
M
I
R
O
P
o
s
t

i
n
v
o
i
c
e
4
0
6
F
-
5
3
P
o
s
t

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
4
0
7
C
O
4
1
M
a
s
s

r
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
1
0
C
O
1
5
C
o
n
f
r
m
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
4
1
1
V
L
0
1
N
C
r
e
a
t
e

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
4
1
3
V
F
0
1
C
r
e
a
t
e

b
i
l
l
i
n
g
4
1
4
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
o
r
d
e
r
G
o
o
d
s

r
e
c
e
i
p
t
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
C
a
s
h











A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.






R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y











F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d


c
h
a
n
g
e














p
r
o
d
u
c
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
C
o
n
s
.




















R
a
w

r
a
w



















m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
R
a
w

m
a
t









G
R
/
I
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R


G
R
/
I
R











A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.










C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d

















P
r
o
d
.
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s














o
u
t
p
u
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
s
a
l
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
R
a
w
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y

c
h
a
n
g
e
s
o
l
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
y

o
u
t
p
u
t
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s






C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
M
D
0
7
R
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
0
9
3
0
5
M
D
0
1
E
x
e
c
u
t
e

M
R
P
M
D
6
1
C
r
e
a
t
e
f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
4
0
1
M
E
5
9
N
C
o
n
v
e
r
t

t
o
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e

o
r
d
e
r
M
I
G
O
P
o
s
t

g
o
o
d
s
r
e
c
e
i
p
t
s
4
0
5
M
I
R
O
P
o
s
t

i
n
v
o
i
c
e
4
0
6
F
-
5
3
P
o
s
t

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
4
0
7
C
O
4
1
M
a
s
s

r
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
1
0
C
O
1
5
C
o
n
f
r
m
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
4
1
1
V
L
0
1
N
C
r
e
a
t
e

d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
4
1
3
V
F
0
1
C
r
e
a
t
e

b
i
l
l
i
n
g
4
1
4
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
o
r
d
e
r
G
o
o
d
s

r
e
c
e
i
p
t
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
r
d
e
r
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
C
a
s
h











A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

R
e
c
.






R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y











F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d


c
h
a
n
g
e














p
r
o
d
u
c
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
C
o
n
s
.




















R
a
w

r
a
w



















m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
R
a
w

m
a
t









G
R
/
I
R
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R


G
R
/
I
R











A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
A
c
c
.

P
a
y
.










C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
F
i
n
i
s
h
e
d

















P
r
o
d
.
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s














o
u
t
p
u
t
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
s
a
l
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
R
a
w
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y

c
h
a
n
g
e
s
o
l
d

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
y

o
u
t
p
u
t
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s






C
a
s
h
D
B
C
R
D
B
C
R
M
D
0
7
R
e
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r
d
e
r
4
0
9
3
0
5
M
D
0
1
E
x
e
c
u
t
e

M
R
P
Questions
1. How might the unique public sector requirements discussed in this chapter impact ERP confguration ?
2. How might organizational silos be addressed in the planning phase of a public sector ERP deployment ?
3. How is public sector organizational governance unique from the private sector ?
4. What common factors diferentiate the leading public sector ERP software vendors ?
5. How might the budget process impact a public sector ERP implementation ?
Beal & Prabhakar - Public Sector ERP
CHAPTER 20
Readings on Enterprise Resource Planning
Preliminary Version - send comments to pml@hec.ca 308