See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257718182

Enterprise Systems Implementation Framework: An Organisational

Perspective

Article  in  Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences · December 2012

DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.151

CITATIONS READS

6 298

1 author:

Rajesri Govindaraju
Bandung Institute of Technology
90 PUBLICATIONS   222 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

E-commerce Adoption by Indonesian SMEs View project

disertation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rajesri Govindaraju on 14 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 65 (2012) 473 – 478

International Congress on Interdisciplinary Business and Social Sciences 2012

(ICIBSoS 2012)

Enterprise Systems Implementation Framework:

an organisational perspective
Rajesri Govindaraju*
Faculty of Industrial Technology, Bandung Institute of Technology, Bandung, Indonesia

Abstract

Although many companies have spent large investments on ES implementation, there is extensive evidence that only
a limited number of them have been successful with the implementation. Realising the potential benefits offered by
ES implementation and the high failure rate found in practice, the study reported here aims at developing a
framework that can help to provide a better understanding of how the process can be managed to bring the benefits
for the implementing organisations. Implementation is defined as a process started with decision to adopt ES systems
and finished when organisation already used the systems as an integral part of the organisation. To develop the
conceptual framework, results of previous research had been studied. Based on the results of previous studies,
utilising relevant theories in the field of information system implementation and organisational change, a conceptual
framework was developed. The framework addresses the project as well as the post-project stage of ES
implementation, and a number of essential issues within the stages. System alignment, knowledge development,
change mobilisation are the essential issues highlighted in the project stage while institutionalisation and system
optimisation are essential isuues in the post-project stage.
© 2012
© 2012The
Published
Authors.by ElsevierbyLtd.
Published Selection
Elsevier Ltd. and/or peer review under responsibility of JIBES University,
Jakarta and peer-review under responsibility of JIBES University, Jakarta
Selection
Keywords: enterprise systems, ES, ERP, project, post-project, implementation, institutionalisation, post-implementation

1. Introduction

Being aware of the strategic impacts of information and processes, many organisations have
focused on improving their business processes by implementing standard integrated information systems

*
Corresponding author (*). Tel.: +6-222-2504189; Fax: +6-222-2509164
E-mail address: rajesri_g@ti.itb.ac.id

1877-0428 © 2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Selection and peer-review under responsibility of JIBES University, Jakarta
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.151
474 Rajesri Govindaraju / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 65 (2012) 473 – 478

(IS) applications that are more commonly referred to as “enterprise systems” (ES) or enterprise resource
planning (ERP). ES are software applications that support the organisations to manage their resources
across the enterprise and enable integration of many different business functions (Davenport, 1998).
Enterprise system is defined as “an information system application which can be configured or
customized and consists of several modules; ES integrates data, information, and business process in a
organization and between organizations”(Chandra & Govindaraju, 2012). Implementing an enterprise
system is a complex task. Many choices and changes have to be made, not only regarding the information
technology, but also concerning the way people and processes are to be arranged and aligned to the
systems (Bancroft et al., 1998; Davenport, 1998).
In practice, despite the large investments on ES implementation, there is extensive evidence
(Govindaraju and Indriany, 2007; Chandra & Govindaraju, 2012) that only some of them have been
successful with the implementation. Earlier studies confirmed that most failures were caused by
organisational issues especially people related issues, rather than technical problems (Bancroft et al.,
1998; Govindaraju, 2002). Though a lot of studies had been done on ES implementation, previous studies
inclined to neglect the post-project stage in which the new system is operational and running (Botta-
Genoulaz et al., 2005). Ignoring this stage of the IT-enabled change process is the main reason why
organisations are not able to gain the full benefits of IT projects (Levinson, 1988; Govindaraju, 2002).
Among others, researchers studying the post-project stage suggest the need for post-implementation
alignment of ERP systems with the organisation’s competitive strategy (Beard and Sumner, 2004),
explain the use of ERP as a foundation for social and intellectual capital formation (Lengnick-Hall et al.,
2004), define the taxonomy of ERP maintenance and enhancement activities (Ng et al., 2002), discuss
post-implementation review for ERP systems (Nicolaou, 2004), and propose a classification for better use
of ERP systems (Botta-Genoulaz and Millet, 2005). Considering the importance of the project and the
post-project management in implementing ES, the study reported here aims at developing a framework
incorporating the project and the post-project phases of ES implementation, to provide a better
understanding of how ES implementation can be managed to bring the benefits for the implementing
organisations.

2. Framework Development

Although project success, which means bringing the project in on time and on budget (short-term
performance) is important, companies are interested in the improvement to organisational effectiveness
and business performance (Davenport, 2000). Success is not defined as the project success, but extended
beyond the project into refinement and organisational transformation (Shanks, 2000), which sees the
project as only a part of the process. The model is aimed towards a concept of success, which considers
the contribution of ES use to the improvement of organisational effectiveness. Improved short-term
performance (project success) may or may not lead to improved long-term performance (improved
organisational effectiveness).


  

 


 

To move from an “old state” using “non-ES based” organisational practices, to a new, “desired state” the
transition process needs to include not only implementation project activities, but also essential post-
project activities. Analysing the IT implementation model by Zmud and Apple (1989), linking it to
Lewin’s change model, and the stages of transition model by Levinson (1988) the Table 1 shows the
association between the two stages used in this framework and the stages used in previously mentioned
three models.
Table 1 Comparison of stages used in Lewin’s change model, Zmud and Apple’s (1989) model,
Levinson’s (1988) transition model, and stages studied in this research
 Rajesri Govindaraju / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 65 (2012) 473 – 478 475

Change model Transition model IT Implementation ES Implementation

Stages stages model stages stages in this study
(Lewin, 1980) (Levinson, 1988) (Zmud and Apple, 1989)
Unfreezing and Planning and Initiation Project
Change implementation Adoption
Adaptation
Re-freezing Institutionalisation Acceptance Post-project
Routinisation
Infusion
In order to gain a better understanding of the transformation process, the two stages, and important issues
within the stages, will be addressed below.





The objective of the ES project is mainly to develop a new, improved IS environment. To create a better
IS environment, a new IS application is prepared while at the same time, users are prepared to adopt and
use the system. The ES project aims at integrating the ES within the organisational structure and
processes. Walton (1989) argues that effective implementation rests on the integration, and business,
organisational and technical strategies. He suggested the following three components are essential for
integrating information technology and the organisation:
a. Alignment of the three elements of the strategic triangle: business, organisation and the technology
b. Commitment of employees and support of stakeholders
c. Competence/mastery by employees
In line with Walton’s (1989) model, a more comprehensive analysis of important issues in the project
stage will be presented.

System adaptation (alignment). The mutual adaptation (alignment) of the organisation, technology and
business processes is the central issue in IT-enabled projects (Benjamin and Levinson, 1993). More
specifically for ES projects, when business process change takes place, formal structures comprising of
work tasks, work contents, work environment, and performance measures need to be rearranged
(Davenport, 1998). Pries-Heje and Dittrich (2009) looked at ERP implementation project as a “design”
process in which knowledge integration in the company is a key element for an improved IS environment.
Further, people capability and attitudes, and the social and psychological work environment of systems
users need to be adapted.

Change mobilisation. Change mobilisation is used to refer to efforts mainly aimed at gaining employees
commitment (ownership) and support of the involved stakeholders. Support and ownership of the
involved employees and other stakeholders are essential in integrating technology and the organisation
(Walton, 1989). User participation and involvement are essential because users have the detailed
knowledge and first hand experience of the strengths and weaknesses of the current processes. A decision
to implement enterprise systems is usually made by top managers of companies. However, the project
teams and individuals in the organisations have considerable influence on the decision whether and how
to carry out the implementation and the changes needed by the implementation. They may adopt the
decision enthusiastically, or they may comply with the suggestions reluctantly and without committing
themselves to the proposed implementation projects. Good communication and top management support
are often very important for mobilising a change during the project (Govindaraju, 2002).
476 Rajesri Govindaraju / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 65 (2012) 473 – 478

Knowledge development (acquisition). ES implementation can be considered as knowledge transfer from

source organisations such as ES suppliers and consultants, to destination (user) organisations. It implies
that the implementing (user) organisations need to develop in-house knowledge necessary for systems
usage, maintenance and even improvement. Training that is available through the consultants, the vendor,
or through third parties, provides a valuable resource to develop skills that are lacking in-house
(Davenport, 1998; Grabski, Leech, and Lu, 2000). Moreover, a close working relationship between
consultants and an organisation’s project team can lead to a valuable skill transfer in both directions
(Grabski, Leech, and Lu, 2000).






This phase can be associated with initiation, adoption and adaptation stages of Zmud and Apple
(1989)’s model. In this stage, organisational members are expected to commit themselves to ES
application usage. Usage of the ES application is encouraged as a normal activity. Increased
organisational effectiveness is obtained by using the ES application in a comprehensive and integrated
manner that supports higher-level aspects of organisational work. Management should encourage the
appropriate use of the new application through institutionalisation efforts. Besides having the system use
as a normal activity, for a better organisational effectiveness, in this stage organisations are supposed to
evaluate and optimise the implemented systems as well as the organisational processes.

Institutionalisation. In any organisation, tensions will arise as a consequence of the 'lack of fit' between
the institutional order and its material condition (Silva and Backhouse, 1997). The material condition is
constituted by technology, techniques, and methods of production, whereas the core institutional order
will be integrated by the values, beliefs, and norms already institutionalised in the organisation. One of
the reasons why ES implementations do not achieve their goals is the lack of fit between the expected
new way of working and the prevailing organisational rules and norms. Institutionalisation is the process
through which a social order of pattern becomes accepted as a social “fact” (Avgerou, 2000). Information
system institutionalisation can be seen as a process to stabilise an IS (Silva and backhouse, 1997).
Implemented ES becomes institutionalised when it is no longer considered as an innovation, but as
unnoticed tools that people feel comfortable to work with. To be fully institutionalised, all procedures and
activities related to ES should become habits. Institutionalisation is related to providing support for the
new culture (Levinson, 1988). Facilitating mechanisms such as formalization of work procedure (Berchet
& Habchi, 2005), changes in performance measurement systems (Davenport, 2000) and IS-business
ownership (Govindaraju, 2002) may facilitate the institutionalisation of the new way of working.

System optimisation. To realise the benefits offered by IT projects, organisations should put effort to
continuously improve the implemented systems after the systems have become operational in the
organisation (Levinson, 1988; Botta-Genoulaz et al., 2005). The role of users and management in
evaluating the use of the current systems in relation to the changes in business determines the
optimisation efforts. Botta-Genoulaz and Millet (2005) addressed some aspects of ERP systems
optimisation that is classified into three different optimisation types: software mastery, improvement and
evolution. Post implementation review (Grabski, Leech, and Lu, 2000), regular audit and workshops
(Govindaraju, 2000), the existence of executives in charge for problems and improvement ideas
(Davenport, 2000), are among others ways to facilitate system optimisation in the post-project stage.

3. Conclusion

The ultimate goal to be achieved with ES implementation is an improvement in organisational

effectiveness. ES implementation framework developed in this study is illustrated in Figure 1. ES
implementation process is comprehensively defined as a process that consists of two stages: project stage
 Rajesri Govindaraju / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 65 (2012) 473 – 478 477

and post-project. The project stage begins when an ES adoption decision is made and ends when an
implemented system is ready for usage. In this phase, alignment (adaptation) process, change
mobilisation, and knowledge development, are three important issues. The post-project stage begins when
system use takes place as a normal activity, and the implemented IS becomes an integral part of the
organisation’s operation. Institutionalisation and system optimisation are two essential issues in this stage.

ES Implementation Process

Project stage:
∞ Alignment Improved IS Post-project stage:
∞ Change ∞ Institutionalisation Improved
Environment
ES mobilisation ∞ System
Organisational
∞ Knowledge optimalisation
Adoption development Effectiveness
Decision

Figure 1 ES Implementation
Implementatio Framework

The framework shows that the outcome of processes in the project stage is “improved IS
environment”. This intermediate outcome may determine the ability of the organisations to benefit from
the use of the system in the next stage, and therefore influence the improvement of the organisational
effectiveness. Thus ES implementation effectiveness needs to be analysed at two levels: 1) short term
implementation effectiveness, which is related to the outcome of the project stage (“improved IS
environment”), and 2) the long-term implementation effectiveness (“improved organisational
effectiveness”), which is related to the outcome of the post-project stage and can be evaluated after quite
a period of time during which the systems have been operational.

Acknowledgements

This work is partly supported by the Research Grant from Institut Teknologi Bandung and the
Competitive Research Grant from Indonesian Minister for Higher Education.

References

Avgerou, C. (2000). IT and organisational change: an institutionalist perspective, Information Technology

and People, 13 (4), 234-262.

Bancroft, N. H., Seip, H., & Sprengel, A. (1998). Implementing SAP R/3: How to introduce a large
system into a large organisation. (2nd ed.). Greenich, CT: Manning.

Benjamin, R. I. & Levinson, E. (1993). A framework for managing IT-enabled change, Sloan
Management Review (summer), 23-33.

Boudreau, M.C. (2002). Learning to Use ERP Technology: a Causal Model. The 36th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). IEEE.

Botta-Genoulaz, V., Millet, P. A., & Grabot, B. (2005). A survey on the recent research literature on ERP
systems. Computers in Industry, 56(6), 510-522.
478 Rajesri Govindaraju / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 65 (2012) 473 – 478

Berchet, C., & Habchi, G. (2005). The implementation and deployment of an ERP system: An industrial
case study. Computers in Industry , 56(6), 588-605.

Chandra, D. R. & Govindaraju, R. (2012). Recommendation of ERP Post-Project Management. Paper

presented at the IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation & Technology.

Davenport, T. H (2000) Mission Critical: Realizing the Promise of Enterprise Systems, Harvard Business
School Press, Boston, Massachusetts.

Govindaraju, R. (2002). Effective Enterprise Systems Implementations. Dissertation, University of

Twente, Enschede, The Netherland.

Govindaraju, R. & Indriany, R. (2007). ERP Systems Acceptance, 2nd International Conference on
Operations and Supply Chain Management, Bangkok, Thailand, 18-20 May 2007.

Grabski, S. V., Leech, S. A., & Lu, B. (2000). Complementary relationship among critical factors and
procedures for the successful implementation of ERP systems, The Third European Conference on
Accounting Information Systems.

Jones, M. C., Cline, M., & Ryan, S. (2004). Exploring knowledge sharing in ERP implementation: an
organizational culture framework. Decision Support Systems , 41 (2), 411-434.

Levinson, E. (1988). The line manager and system-induced organizational change, in Success factors for
Change from Manufacturing Viewpoint, ed. K. Bloche, Dearborn, Michigan.

Parr, A. & Shanks, G. (2000). A model of ERP project implementation, Journal of Information
Technology, 15(4), 289-303.

Pries-Heje, L. & Dittrich, Y. (2009). ERP implementation as design: Looking at participatory design for
means to facilitate knowledge integration, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 21(2), 27-58.

Silva, L. & Backhouse, J. (1997) Becoming part of the furniture: the institutionalisation of information
systems, in Information Systems and Qualitative Research eds. Lee, Allen S., Liebenau, J. and DeGross,
J., Chapman and Hall, London 1997.

Soh, C., Sia, S. K. & Tay-Yap, J. (2000). Cultural fits and misfits: is ERP a Universal solution?,
Communications of the ACM, 43(4), 47-51.

Zmud, W. R. & Apple, L. E (1989). Measuring information technology infusion, Unpublished

manuscript.

View publication stats