Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems are enterprise wide systems that, because of their integration, automate all of a company's business processes. They have rapidly become the de facto industry standard for replacement of legacy systems. In this paper I analyze using an information theory approach the temporal aspects of key players and activities specific to Romanian SME's ERP implementations with focus on both generic and unique aspectsERP life cycle, CSF, romanian business systems implementation

Iuliana DOROBAT (SCORTA)

English

Research Papers in Economics

Revista Informatica Economică, nr. 4 (44)/2007  126 
Key players and activities across the ERP life cycle: A temporal perspective 
 
Iuliana SCORŢA, Bucharest, Romania 
 
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems are enterprise wide systems that, because of 
their integration, automate all of a company's business processes. They have rapidly become 
the de facto industry standard for replacement of legacy systems. In this paper I analyze using 
an information theory approach the temporal aspects of key players and activities specific to 
Romanian SME’s ERP implementations with focus on both generic and unique aspects. 
Keywords: ERP life cycle, CSF,  romanian business systems implementation. 
 
ntroduction  
ER
softw
P systems are comprehensive packaged 
are solutions that aim for total integra-
tion of all business processes and functions. 
Shanks and Parr (2000) defined ERP imple-
mentation as "the process of developing the 
initial business case and planning the project, 
configuring and implementing the packaged 
software, and subsequent improvements to 
business processes". Despite the fact that 
“the business world’s embrace of enterprise 
systems may in fact be the most important 
development in the corporate use of informa-
tion technology”, broad-based empirical re-
search in the ERP implementation in Roma-
nia are still very limited. Because an ERP 
implementation involves significant risks it is 
essential to focus on ways to improve the 
implementation process. Somers and Nelson 
(2003) elaborated a comprehensive frame-
work by combining the factors view of im-
plementation with the process perspective, 
and examined the issues that should domi-
nate each implementation stage. In this paper 
I analyze using an information theory ap-
proach the temporal aspects of key players 
and activities specific to Romanian SME’s 
ERP implementations with focus on both ge-
neric and unique aspects. 
Theoretical background 
Critical Success Factors in SME’s ERP im-
plementation - By studying literature, scien-
tific papers and case examples I compiled a 
list of 22 relevant CSF - critical success fac-
tors - (21 relevant CSF applying the coding 
procedures from grounded theory [4]) associ-
ated with project/system implementations de-
rived through a process that involved identi-
fication and synthesis of those critical re-
quirements for implementation that have 
been recommended by practitioners and aca-
demicians through an extensive review of the 
literature [5]. Success factors identified in the 
academic and  nonacademic literature sug-
gests important factors, such as Top man-
agement support - Project champion - User 
training and education - Management of ex-
pectations - The partnerships between ven-
dors and customers - Use of vendors’ devel-
opment tools - Careful selection of the ap-
propriate package - Project management - 
Steering committee - Use of consultants - 
Minimal customization - Data analysis and 
conversion - Business process reengineering 
- Defining the architecture - Dedicated re-
sources - Project team competence - Change 
management - Clear goals and objectives - 
Education on new business processes - Inter-
departmental communication - Corporate 
culture - Ongoing vendor support [8]. 
SME’s ERP implementation stages - The 
process approach of an ERP implementation 
is about a sequence of stages and seeks to 
explain how outcomes develop over time [1]. 
Researchers have described ERP transition 
with models having three to six stages: 
Deloitte Consulting’s [2] three-stage model 
(first wave  - ERP implementation, go live, 
second wave  - stabilize, synthesize, syner-
gize), Ross and Vitale’s [3] five-stage model 
( approach, the dive, resurfacing, swimming, 
jet-skiing).  Rajagopal [4] frames ERP im-
plementations in terms of the six-stage model 
of IT implementation consisting of initiation, 
adoption, adaptation, acceptance, routiniza-
tion and infusion. The strength of this model 
is in the last two phases, which represent 
post-adoption behavior. 
I 
 Revista Informatica Economică, nr. 4 (44)/2007  127
Integration of the ERP’s implementation 
CSFs  within the ERP implementation stages 
- It is important to analyze the information 
discrepancy between the hypothesized litera-
ture-based importance of each player and ac-
tivity across stages and their actual impor-
tance derived from a research conducted 
among project team members at a Romanian 
ERP vendor specialized in targeting small- 
and medium sized enterprises, because the 
importance of the CSFs manifests different 
levels according to the stage of the ERP pro-
ject life cycle – the CSFs are temporal. 
Research method 
Data collection - Data collection for this re-
search was conducted by interviews. In order 
to establish each player and activity level of 
importance specific to Romanian SME’s 
ERP implementations, I and conducted a se-
ries of interviews among project team mem-
bers at a Romanian ERP vendor specialized 
in targeting small- and medium sized enter-
prises. Team individuals were pre-identified 
for study participation. To qualify for study 
participation, they were required to possess 
substantial involvement at high level, in any 
phase of the life cycle, with any of the mod-
ules implemented. The initial interviews 
showed that top management and project 
managers tended to have the most complete 
knowledge about the subject, thereby mini-
mizing some of the problems of the key-
informant technique used in my study. Re-
spondents were provided with a list of rele-
vant players and activities and they were 
asked to identify the degree of importance of 
each one througout the ERP life cycle stages 
(that were briefly described in order to avoid 
confusions), using a Likert scale, ranging 
from low to critical.  
The theoretic background for data analysis - 
According to the information theory, the in-
formation and indetermination are propor-
tional measures and because of this fact in 
order to measure the quantity of information 
we use the same measure as for indetermina-
tion. The quantification of indetermination 
was established by Shannon who referred to 
entropy as ‘‘a measure of the uncertainty of 
agreement’’ between the message sent and 
the message received. Information theory 
bridges research and practice, the difference 
between the current knowledge (expected 
importance of players and activities) and the 
actual outcome (observed importance of 
players and activities) constitutes the infor-
mation content of the event, which is termed 
the entropy of the system and which provides 
a feedback mechanism for updating prior 
knowledge [6]. In order to establish the in-
formation inaccuracy or degree of divergence 
between the prior expectations and later ob-
served importance of players and activities I 
utilize the Somers and Nelson model (2003) 
who developed their analysis based on a 
bivariate classification probability matrix us-
ing ERP life cycle stages (Y’s) and play-
ers/activities (X’s). 
Results 
According to the majority of the respondents 
the adoption stage is the most solicitating 
from all ERP life cycle stages in terms of 
players and activities. As the project pro-
gresses from initiation to infusion the most 
important activities (factors) tend to diminish 
in level of importance. According to the So-
mers and Nelson model I measure the overall 
bivariate information innacuracy I(X,Y) and 
the conditional innacuracies for each row and 
column that I present in Table 1 and Table 2 
(the values of information innaccuracy pre-
sented in the mentioned tables are measured 
in 10
-4 nits, according to the information the-
ory). 
Variables 
Xi
Players 
and ac-
tivities 
]
i. /p ij p
i. /q ij q
ln[
n
1 j i. q
ij q
) i X | I(Y ∑
=
=
n 1, i
n
1 i
1 i p 0, i p
n
1 i i p 2 log i p ) n ...p 2 p , 1 H(p
= ∀
∑
=
= ≥
∑
=
− =
 
Average conditional inaccuracies for rows 
X1 Top management support  252.87 
X2 The project champion   71.16 
X3 The steering committee   152.9 
 Revista Informatica Economică, nr. 4 (44)/2007  128 
X4 Implementation consultants   1836.61 
X5 The project team (competencies)  1413.36 
X6 Partnership between vendor and customer  556.12 
X7 Use of vendor's development tools   75.97 
X8 Ongoing vendor support   1361.26 
X9 User training and education   760.13 
X10 Management of expectations   321.76 
X11 Careful package selection   544.08 
X12 Project management   286.29 
X13 Minimal Customization   436.8 
X14 Data analysis and conversion   130.86 
X15 Business process reengineering   34 
X16 Defining the architecture    459.46 
X17 Dedicating resources   379.13 
X18 Change management   861.25 
X19 Establishing clear goals and objectives   352.58 
X20 Education on new business processes   537.93 
X21 Interdepartmental communication and coopera-
tion 
242.15 
X22 Corporate culture  4550.66 
Table 1 Information innaccuracies in players and activities 
The values of information innaccuracies pre-
sented in Table 2 suggest that major con-
tributors to ERP implementations innaccura-
cies are the initiation and infusion stages and 
that the adoption stage is a minor contributor 
confirming that the role of players and activi-
ties are very well understood at this level of 
the ERP implementation. These differencies 
between empiric and hypothezed data sug-
gest that initiation, routinization and infusion 
stages of implementation are less understood 
by interviewees. 
Variables Yj
ERP life cycle 
stages 
]
.j /p ij p
.j /q ij q
ln[
m
1 i .j q
ij q
) j Y | I(X ∑
=
=  
Average conditional inaccuracies for col-
umns 
Y1 Initiation 831.73 
Y2 Adoption 40.96 
Y3 Adaptation 75.06 
Y4 Acceptance 110.66 
Y5 Routinization 563.58 
Y6 Infusion 1890.56 
Table 2 Information innaccuracies in ERP life cycle stage
In order to examin the importance of  all 
stages combined simultaneosly with all the 
players and activities of ERP implementation 
I analyze the entropy values I(X,Y) (overal 
innacuracies equals 1669,75*10
-4nits) and the 
total average conditional innacurencies for 
ERP life cycle stages I(X/Yi) in comparison 
with the total average conditional innacuren-
cies for players and activities presented 
I(Y/Xi) in Table 1 and Table 2. The analysis 
reveals that players and activities information 
innacurancies are higher than ERP imple-
mentation stage information innacurancies. 
The existing innacurancies show that are sur-
prinsingly big diferencies between the hy-
pothezied data and the empirical data espe-
cially in concerning the players and activities 
involved in ERP implementation sugesting 
that the temporal nature of key players and 
activities is less understood than their overall 
importance. 
In the initiation phase the importance of es-
 Revista Informatica Economică, nr. 4 (44)/2007  129
tablishing goals and objectives is major un-
derestimated while the use of implementation 
consultants and project management are ma-
jor overestimated. The empirical data also 
stems that project champion during adoption 
phase, user training and education during 
routinization phase are considerably underes-
timated. The infusion stage shows the highest 
degree of overall innacurencies due to high-
est values in underestimating the importance 
of corporate culture, dedicating resources, 
user training and education and ongoing ven-
dor support. The next highest register entropy 
value is dedicated to the initiation stage ac-
cording to the underestimated values of the 
next players and activities: establishing clear 
goals and objectives, the project champion, 
project management, business process reen-
gineering, defining the architecture.  The ac-
ceptance stage of implementation registers 
the minimum overall information inaccuracy 
due to minimum differences in underestimat-
ing and overestimating the role of players 
and activities across this stage. 
The results of the research also reveal that: 
1.  The initiation, routinization and the 
infusion stage of an SME’s ERP implementa-
tion are not well understood by the people 
involved in it. 
2.  The majority of the respondents con-
sidered that project management was under-
estimated at all the ERP life cycle stages al-
lowing me to conclude that respondents may 
have misinterpreted this question as asking 
for project management; if this is the case the 
firm experiences problems concerning meth-
ods and tools utilized to assure proper project 
management and in consequence there may 
be the case of improper use of implementa-
tion methodology. 
3.  The majority of the respondents con-
sidered that (in order of importance) the sub-
sequent players and activities: partnership be-
tween vendor and customer, minimal cus-
tomization, use of vendor tools were overes-
timated at all the ERP life cycle stages. 
4.  Contrary to my expectation the user 
training and education not only appear to be 
important at routinization stage but it also 
registers the highest overall information in-
accuracy (72.77*10
-4 nits). This phenomenon 
is due to the fact that in post implementation 
stages for maximizing the utility of the sys-
tem, end users skills improvements are nec-
cessary. 
5.  The use of implementation consult-
ants at infusion stages was overestimated and 
this fact raises questions about the under-
standing of the player’s involvement during 
systems upgrades 
6.  The differences between empiric and 
hypothesized data reveals that corporate cul-
ture is underestimated in almost all stages 
which shows that the value of sharing com-
mon goals over individual pursuits and the 
value of trust between partners, employees, 
managers and corporations is highly regarded 
in ERP implementations. 
7.  Despite the fact that in literature in-
terdepartamental communication and coop-
eration is considered  critical  especially in 
ERP implementations that involve significant 
business process reeingineering this activity 
is overestimated at adaption, adaptation and 
routinization stages of the ERP life cycle. 
This fact raises questions about the methods 
and tools utilized to assure proper project 
communication management. 
Conclusions 
The differencies between empiric and hy-
pothezed data suggest that initiation, routini-
zation and infusion stages of implementation 
and the temporal nature of key players and 
activities are less understood by interviewees 
than their overall importance. This study 
brings contributions concerning the temporal 
aspects of the CFS’s involved in an romanian 
SME’s ERP implementation beyond the 
adoption and routinization phase and raises 
questions about the lack of comprehension of 
implementation team members about the in-
volvement of a particular player and a par-
ticular activity at a certain stage of ERP life 
cycle. 
Bibliography 
[1] M.C. Boudreau, D. Robey, Organiza-
tional transition to enterprise resource plan-
ning systems: theoretical choices for process 
research, in: P. De, J.I. De Gross (Eds.), 
1999. 
 Revista Informatica Economică, nr. 4 (44)/2007  130 
[2] Deloitte Consulting, ERP’s second wave: 
maximizing the value of ERP-enabled proc-
esses, 1998. 
[6]    T. M. Somers,  K. Nelson,” A taxon-
omy of players and activities across the ERP 
project life cycle”,  Information & Manage-
ment 41 (2004)   [3] J.W. Ross, M.R. Vitale, The ERP revolu-
tion: surviving vs. thriving, Information Sys-
tem Frontiers 2 (2), 2000. 
[7]    B. Fitzgerald, T. O’Kane, A longitudi-
nal study of software process improvement, 
IEEE Software (1999)   [4]    Esteves, J. and Pastor, J., "Towards the 
Unification of Critical Success Factors for 
ERP Implementations", 2000. 
[8]       Scorta Iuliana, „Critical Success Fac-
tors in Romanian SME’s ERP implementa-
tion”, 2006.  [5]       T. M. Somers, K. Nelson, and A. 
Ragowsky, “Enterprise Resource Planning 
(ERP) for the Next Millennium: Develop-
ment of an Integrative Framework and Impli-
cations for Research”, 2000. 
 

A longitudinal study of software process improvement,

Critical Success Factors in Romanian SME’s ERP implementation”,

ERP’s second wave: maximizing the value of ERP-enabled processes,

Nelson,” A taxonomy of players and activities across the ERP project life cycle”,

Organizational transition to enterprise resource planning systems: theoretical choices for process research, in:

Key players and activities across the ERP life cycle: A temporal perspective

http://www.revistaie.ase.ro/content/44/27%20scorta.pdf

Key players and activities across the ERP life cycle: A temporal perspective

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics