Enterprise Resource Planning: A Form of Planned Organizational Change

Casey G. Cegielski*

Area of MIS/POM

School of Business Administration

University of Mississippi

University, MS 38766

ccegiels@olemiss.edu

(662)-281-3108

Carl Rebman

Area of MIS/POM

School of Business Administration

University of Mississippi

University, MS 38766

crebman@olemiss.edu

(662) 281-0669

Brian J. Reithel

Associate Professor of MIS

Area of MIS/POM

School of Business Administration

University of Mississippi

University, MS 38766

reithel@business.olemiss.edu

(662) 915-5469

*Contact author
Abstract

The current study asserts that Enterprise Resource Planning is a form of Planned Organizational Change. A model integrating business environment and the Planned Organizational Change Process is proposed and examined. Executives from 29 organizations participated in the current study. Based on selected company and industry financial data, each participating organization as well as the industry in which it operates was classified as a “stable” or “unstable” business environment. Additionally, quantitative and qualitative evidence was used to classify each ERP implementation as a “success” or a “failure.” The results of the interviews indicate that organizations that operate in a stable business environment and utilize the Planned Organizational Change Process are more likely to report successful ERP implementations.

Introduction

During the past decade, a host economic factors, technological factors, political factors, and social factors have combined to produce, within many corporations, an environment conducive to change. Downsizing, rightsizing, reengineering, quality efforts, and cultural renewal are among some of the most popular monikers given to the process of corporate change. Today, Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) initiatives represent the one of the most popular forms of organizational change. Capital investments in ERP initiatives are staggering. In 1997, organizations poured an estimated $15 billion dollars into ERP projects [8]. Predictions for annual ERP investment during the next five years range between $50 and $70 billion dollars [3].

Organizations have eagerly embraced costly enterprise resource planning initiatives because ERP offers what many people consider the “holy grail” of information technology. Simply stated, commercial ERP applications promise seamless integration of all information flowing through an organization [6]. The promise of ERP is realized through the elimination of legacy computing systems, the implementation of “best business practices,” and the consolidation of information technology infrastructure through a single software application. Those who sing the praises of ERP are numerous. Their song often includes a chorus of benefits such as improved operating margins, enhanced supplier relationships, and slashed customer lead times. Recently, many corporations have found the promise of ERP to be elusive. A rash of costly, highly publicized, initiative failures have caused many industry analysts to question ERP.

Given the recent string of enterprise resource planning failures, academics and industry practitioners have taken an interest in the ERP movement. Most ERP research has focused on the “micro” factors associated with the implementation of ERP. The foundation of ERP is the implementation of information technology. ERP utilizes information technology to a greater extent than any other form of organizational change. As such, researchers have characterized the process of ERP implementation as unique. Studies of ERP initiatives have resulted in collections of “critical success factors” and short lists of “dos” and “don’ts” that do not address the larger nature of ERP. ERP, on a “macro” level is another form of planned organizational change. As such, the concepts embodied in the Planned Organizational Change (POC) Process should be addressed before beginning any ERP initiative. Thus, this paper will explore the phenomena of enterprise resource planning through the Planned Organizational Change Process.

Previous Research

Enterprise resource planning is a relatively new business phenomenon. ERP, as a technology, did not mature into a marketable business solution until the mid 1990’s. Most organizations engaged in ERP began initiatives during the past three to four years. As a research domain, the majority of ERP studies are explorative. Primarily, researchers have focused on identifying critical success factors of the ERP implementation process. Among ERP researchers, case study narratives are the preferred methodology for identifying critical success factors. Holland and Light, described the process of ERP within an organization through the strategic and tactical approaches to software implementation (Figure 1). Bingi, Sharma, and Godia, Appleton, and Davenport define several critical implantation success factors including: commitment from top management, consultants, vendors, time, cost, and employee training.

Benjamin and Levinson assert that the process of information technology enabled change, such as ERP, differs from the general change process. Citing Zuboff, Benjamin and Levinson state that IT-enabled change involves new skills, new jobs and new control processes that differentiate it from traditional change. Certainly, the micro or tactical issues involved in IT-enabled change differ from organizational change that is non-IT driven. However, the forces producing change and the macro issues involved in the management of change remain constant without respect to the utilization of technology in the change process. For this reason, change through ERP is no different from any other from of organizational change. Kotter detailed an eight-stage process (Figure 2) for designing a strategy to implement organizational change. Kotter’s approach to change management, called Planned Organizational Change, incorporates many macro issues - attitudinal, facilitative, informational, and political - nested in the process of change management. Additionally, many of the ERP critical success factors identified in previous research can be framed within Kotter’s Planned Organizational Change Process (Figure 3)

Change Management

Organizational change is the product of a destabilizing force [4]. The force may originate inside an organization, for example the hiring of a new CEO with a new vision for the company. Similarly, the force may originate outside of an organization, such as the evolution in information technology that has enabled e-commerce. Regardless of the point of origin of a destabilizing force, the result is the same – a disruption in the equilibrium of the firm. In order to address the change in status quo, an organizational adjustment must occur. The adjustment will take form in one or more of four possible ways [4]. Without leadership from management, the organizational adjustments will assume form dictated by convenience. Involving management in the organization change process creates the prospect of affecting the organization adjustments [4]. Whatever forms the adjustments may assume and without regard for the existence of leadership from management, the result is the same - a changed organization.

Without a doubt, the management of a firm can affect the process of change within the organization. The first, and often most difficult step in the change-management process is the identification of the forces responsible for necessitating the change [4]. Although it is a simple matter of asking, “What are the destabilizing forces?” the answer is often very complex. Once asked, the question requires that management not only identify the source of the destabilizing forces but also explain the forces’ nature and origin. The diagnosis and understanding of the forces are critical if management is to address the needs of the organization.

Assuming management’s knowledge of the forces responsible for disrupting the firm’s equilibrium, the next logical question that management should ask is, “What requires adjusting?” As mentioned, the form of the adjustment can take one or more of four possible forms [4]:

Tasks performed by individuals: The way an individual performs a job needs to be modified. Thus, management can work to alter individual behavior.
Organizational processes: For example, the methods of control, information channels, and decision processes of an organization.
Overall strategic direction: The firm’s product mix, clients and markets may need to be adjusted.
Organizational culture: A change in firm values, customs and ideals may be in order.

On occasion, the necessary organizational changes may be apparent to management. More often than not, determining what adjustments are necessary for the organization is an inexact science. As a result, the challenges associated with the third step of the change-management process, asking, “How do we change?” are compound by the two proceeding steps. Again, there are four broad categories of how an organization can change [4]:

Technological: Modify the way in which materials, intellectual resources, and production operations are utilized. For example, management of a production facility could choose to implement control equipment with greater precision to improve product quality.
Structural: Alter the internal or external relationships of the organization. For example, eliminate a marginal quality supplier.
Managerial: Restructure administrative activities. To illustrate, management could institute a reward system for employees to encourage compliance with safety OSHA guidelines.
Personnel: Change the organization’s human resource mix. Workers can be hired, fired, or transferred as need.

Thus far, three broad steps of the change-management process have been identified. The fourth step of the process involves developing a strategy to accomplish the planned change.

The term strategy refers to a general course of action. Many general courses of action exist to implement change. Lewin, a pioneer in the attitudinal strategy of change management, proposed the “field theory of motivation” to explain the forces that work to facilitate change as well as the forces that act to restrain change. Later, Greiner, proposed the “shared” approach to managing change. Building upon the work of Greiner, Zaltman and Duncan defined the facilitative strategy of change management. Cummings and Worley have developed the informational approach to change management. Still, other change management researchers propose that organizational change is an infinitely more political process. Lately, change management experts, principally Kotter have described the strategy of change management as a combinatorial approach. Figure 4 illustrates the process of organizational change using Kotter’s Planned Organizational Change Process.

Conceptual Model

Figure 5 illustrates the proposed relationship between the constructs of business environment, Planned Organizational Change, and enterprise resource planning implementation success.

Planned Organizational Change

Theory holds that organizational change is the result of destabilizing forces. Regardless of the origin of the forces, organizational adjustment must follow. The current study operationalizes organizational adjustment through the Planned Organizational Change Process. Questions 1(Q1), (Q2), and (Q3) through 8(Q1), (Q2), (Q3) of Section 2 of the survey instrument are designed to ascertain the degree to which the Planned Organization Change Process was utilized within an organization.

Business Environment

The business environment is the combination of the internal and external factors that affect the operations of a business. Business environments can be stable, relatively small variances from year to year, or unstable, widely variable from year to year. The current study operationalizes stable and unstable through financial performance. Company financial performance and industry financial performance were characterized as stable if 1) the corporate and industry annual sales revenue growth rates for the years 1995 through 1999 was less than 15% and 2) the corporate and industry year-to-year sales revenue variances for the years 1995 through 1999 was less than 15%.

Implementation Success

Success can refer to one or more of the levels, technical, semantic, or effectiveness, as defined by Shannon and Weaver [11]. Moreover, the levels defined by Shannon and Weaver can be categorized as: System Quality, Information Quality, Use, User Satisfaction, Individual Impact, and Organizational Impact [7]. The sum of the six categories has been loosely defined as I/S success. The current study accepts the Delone and McLean characterization of I/S success as an inclusive construct for implementation success.

Implementation success is operationalized through the dichotomous variable in question number 10 of the survey instrument.

Proposition

The current study proposes that two factors: stability of business environment and utilization of the Planned Organizational Change Process are positively correlated with reported enterprise resource planning implementation success. The current study advances the following propositions:

P1: Firms using the Planned Organizational Change Process will report a higher degree of enterprise resource planning implementation success than those firms not using the planned organizational change process will.

P2: Firms operating in stable business environments will report a higher degree of enterprise resource planning implementation success than those firms operating in an unstable business environment will.

Methodology

A review of recent information systems trade literature produced 67 organizations that have undergone an enterprise resource planning implementation within the past three years. Twenty-nine (Table 1) of the 67 organizations participated in the current study. Twenty-seven of the 29 organizations in the study represented 7 different industries - Computers (3), Diversified (4), Electronics (2), Financial Services (4), Healthcare (4), Manufacturing (8), and Retail (2). Two participating organizations were non-profit entities. The 29 participating organizations and the seven respective industries were classified into one of two categories: stable or unstable. An organization was classified as unstable if and only if the firm exhibited both an unstable company financial performance and the firm operated in an industry that was classified as unstable. For the purposes of the study Computers, Healthcare, and Manufacturing industries were characterized as unstable. Sixteen firms were classified as stable and 13 firms were characterized as unstable. Both non-profit entities were classified as unstable due to considerable uncertainties with respect to funding.

From each of the 29 organizations involved in the current study, a senior management information systems executive participated in a structured interview. The structured interview instrument (Appendix I) was design to 1) collect quantitative data about the organization’s ERP (start date, completion date, cost of project, timing of project) 2) determine the participant’s perception of the organization’s ERP implementation (success or failure) and 3) determine whether the organization followed the Planned Organizational Change Model.

Of the 29 organizations that participated in the current study, 10 entities were classified as large enterprises (1999 sales revenue greater than $750 million) 17 organizations were classified as medium size enterprises (1999 sales revenue greater than $250 million but less than $750 million) and two firms were classified as small enterprises (1999 sales revenue less than $250 million dollars). Additionally, most companies in the study chose to implement a version of SAP (16). Other participants selected Oracle applications (6), PeopleSoft products (3), JD Edwards (2) or Bann systems (2). The majority (62.02%) of implementations were not completed with in the prescribed time budgets. The average implementation took 12.63 months to complete. The longest implementation took over 57 months. The shortest implementation was abandoned after 3 months. Most respondents (65.51%) in the current study reported that the project exceeded fiscal budget parameters. The most expensive implementation in the study cost $130 million dollars. The least expensive implementation in the sample set cost $2.5 million dollars. The average cost of an implementation was $50.8 million dollars. This figure should not be considered as an accurate indicator of cost as very few organizations in the study divulged actual dollar estimates. Finally, 17 executives reported successful and 12 executives reported unsuccessful implementations. Table 2 lists the most frequently cited reasons to support implementation success and implementation failure.

Data Analysis

Exploratory statistical testing was conducted to determine the existence of relationships between factors represented in the proposed model. Question 10 from Section 1 of the survey instrument was the results of the exploratory t-tests are presented in Table 3. At a = .05 level of significance, Proposition 1 is supported by the findings while Proposition 2 is not supported by the findings.

Table 4 and Table 5 present the results for individual survey questions from Section 2. All nQ1 questions were scored as one for “Yes” responses and zero for “No” responses. Additionally, nQ2 questions were scored on a seven-point scale. “Strongly Agree” responses were scored one and “Strongly Disagree” responses were scored as seven.

Discussion of Results

The data indicates that a relationship exists between the use of POC Process and reported implementation success. All though the data do indicate a definitive relationship between business environment and reported implementation success, further exploration of this construct is need. A larger sample set may confirm the existence of a relation between environment and implementation success.

Because of the size of the data set, no statistical testing was conducted on the individual questions in Section 2 of the survey. However, the disparity between scores on several questions is interesting. Between firms reporting a successful implementation and those reporting an unsuccessful implementation, 4Q2 and 7Q2 may give some indication of larger problems within those organizations reporting unsuccessful.

Conclusion

The exploratory research presented in this paper is intended to encourage researchers to study enterprise resource planning as a “macro” level strategic initiative as opposed to an ad hoc collection of critical success factors. The previously identified critical success factors are valuable points of consideration; most are only part of a larger framework. As such, the critical success factors should be used to support the change management process.

Planned Organization Change is the process selected in this paper as the vehicle through which the notion of a “macro” framework can be express. POC is not the only method of change management acceptable for use to study ERP. Additionally, there are other aspects of POC, not considered in the current study that could be added to the model proposed herein. For example, organizational culture is not considered.

Figure 1. A critical success factor model with strategic and tactical factors

(Source: C. Holland and B. Light, A Critical Success Factors Model for ERP Implementation. IEEE Software, May/June 1999.)

Figure 2: Eight-Stage Process for Planned Organizational Change.

1. Establish a Sense of Urgency

Examine the Market and competitive realities
Identify and discuss crises, potential crises, or major opportunity

2. Create the Guiding Coalition

Putting together a group with enough power to lead change
Getting the group to work together like a team

3. Developing a Vision

Creating a vision to help direct the change effort
Develop plans for achieving the vision

4. Communicating the Change Vision

Using every vehicle possible to constantly communicate the new vision
Having the guiding coalition role model behavior expected of employees

5. Empowering Broad-Based Action

Getting rid of obstacles
Changing systems or structures that undermine the change vision
Encourage risk taking and nontraditional ideas

6. Generate Short-Term Wins

Plan for visible improvements in performance, or “wins”
Creating those wins
Visibly reward and recognize people who made the wins possible

7. Consolidate Gains and Producing More Change

Using increased credibility to change all systems, structures, and policies that do not fit together and do not fit the transformation vision.
Hiring, promoting, and developing people that can implement the change vision
Reinvigorating the process with new projects, themes, and change agents

8. Anchoring New Approaches in the Culture

Creating better performance through customer- and productivity-oriented behavior, more and better leadership, more effective management
Articulating the connections between new behaviors and organizational success
Developing the means to ensure leadership development and succession

Figure 3: Previously identified ERP implementation critical success factors as components of Planned Organizational Change

Text Box: Planned Organizational Change Process

1. Establish a Sense of Urgency

2. Create the Guiding Coalition

3. Developing a Vision

4. Communicating the Change Vision

5. Empowering Broad-Based Action

6. Generate Short-Term Wins

7. Consolidate Gains and Producing More Change

8. Anchoring New Approaches in the Culture Text Box: Strategic

Legacy systems

Business vision

ERP strategy

Top management support

Project schedule and plans Text Box: Tactical

Client consultation

Personnel

BPC and software configuration

Client acceptance

Communication

Monitoring and feedback

Troubleshooting

Figure 4: A Model of Organizational Change implemented using Kotter’s Planned Organizational Change Process.

What are the Destabilizing Forces?

Destabilizing Forces

Figure 5: Factors affecting reported success of Enterprise Resource Planning Implementations

Table 1: Descriptive Information

		Total	Successful	Unsuccessful
Number of Participants:		29	16	13

By Industry:
	Computers	3	2	1
	Diversified	4	2	2
	Electronics	2	1	1
	Financial	4	3	1
	Healthcare	4	3	1
	Manufacturing	8	3	5
	Non-Profit	2	1	1
	Retail	2	1	1

By Business Environment:
	Stable	16	12	4
	Unstable	13	4	9

By POC Process:
	POC	16	15	1
	Non POC	13	1	12

By Manufacturer:
	SAP	16	7	9
	Oracle	6	5	1
	PeopleSoft	3	2	1
	JD Edwards	2	1	1
	Baan	2	1	1

By Organizational Size:
	Large Firms	10	5	5
	Medium Firms	17	10	7
	Small Firms	2	1	1

Summary Statistics:
Average Implementation Time:		12.63 months	14.61 months	7.83 months*
Average Reported Cost:		$50.8 million**	$17.8 million**	$67.5 million**
Number of On-Time Projects:		11	8	3
Number of Projects in Budget:		10	10	0
% Projects On-time:		37.9%	47.0%	25.0%
% Projects in Budget:		34.5%	59.0%	0.0%

* - Two Implementations were abandoned after 3 months
** - Not all participating organizations reported figures

Table 2: Frequently stated reasons why an ERP implementation is reported as Successful/Unsuccessful

Most Frequently Given Reasons for characterizing implementation as “Successful”

Reason	# citing reason/total respondents
1. Y2K Fix	11/16
2. Increased Production Process	10/16
3. Reduced Product Cycle Times	10/16
4. Reduced financial Cycle Time	9/16
5. Increased Access to Information	9/16

Most Frequently Given Reasons for characterizing implementation as “Unsuccessful”

Reason	# citing reason/total respondents
1. Exceed Budget	12/13
2. Time Delays	8/13
3. Software Problems (Bugs)	7/13
4. Learning Curve Problem/Employee Training	6/13
5. Reduced Operational Efficiency	4/13

Table 3: Exploratory t-tests for Business Environment and POC Process.

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means for All Firms in a Stable Business Environment
	success	unsuccessful
Mean	0.6875	0.3125
Variance	0.229166667	0.229166667
Observations	16	16
Hypothesized Mean Difference	0
df	15
t Stat	1.566698904
P(T<=t) one-tail	0.069017422
t Critical one-tail	1.753051038

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means for All Firms in an Unstable Business Environment
	success	unsuccessful
Mean	0.461538462	0.538462
Variance	0.269230769	0.269231
Observations	13	13
Hypothesized Mean Difference	0
df	12
t Stat	-0.267261242
P(T<=t) one-tail	0.396902944
t Critical one-tail	1.782286745

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means for All Firms Using POC Process
	Successful	Unsuccessful
Mean	0.9375	0.0625
Variance	0.0625	0.0625
Observations	16	16
Hypothesized Mean Difference	0
df	15
t Stat	7
P(T<=t) one-tail	0.00000214006
t Critical one-tail	1.75305103767

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means for all Firms Not Using POC Process
	Success	unsuccessful
Mean	0.076923077	0.923077
Variance	0.076923077	0.076923
Observations	13	13
Hypothesized Mean Difference	0
df	12
t Stat	-5.5
P(T<=t) one-tail	0.000068128
t Critical one-tail	1.782286745

Table 4: Comparative Results for Section 2 nQ1 & nQ2: All Firms by Success/Unsuccessful and All Firms by Stable/Unstable Business Environment

Questions	All Firms	All Successful	All Unsuccessful
1Q1 Do you feel that within your organization there was an urgent need to implement the chosen ERP system.	0.90	1.00	0.75
1Q2 The ERP System implementation was given a strong sense of urgency	2.24	1.80	3.00
2Q1 Within your organization was a guiding coalition established for the ERP implementation.	0.83	0.93	0.67
2Q2 Senior management played an extensive role in your organization's ERP implementation.	3.03	2.20	4.42
3Q1 Before the ERP implementation, was a new vision of the future of the organization created?	0.83	0.93	0.67
3Q2 ERP was an important part of the company's new vision.	2.69	2.07	3.75
4Q1 Was the new vision communicated to everyone in the organization?	0.66	0.87	0.33
4Q2 The new vision was communicated frequently to all members of the organization.	3.79	2.60	5.58
5Q1 Were employees encouraged to problem solve creatively in the new ERP vision?	0.48	0.73	0.08
5Q2 Employees were rewarded for trying new problem solving approaches with ERP.	4.28	3.47	5.75
6Q1 Within the ERP implementation, were short term goals created?	0.93	1.00	0.83
6Q2 Short-term goals were recognized when they were achieved.	2.72	1.80	4.08
7Q1 Has your organization realized any benefits from the ERP implementation?	0.72	1.00	0.33
7Q2 ERP has enabled my organization to produce additional positive changes.	3.17	1.67	5.25
8Q1 Employees have been shown how ERP has helped to improve the organization?	0.66	0.87	0.33
8Q2 ERP has become part of our organization's corporate culture.	3.14	2.13	4.67

Questions	All Firms	All Stable	All Unstable
1Q1 Do you feel that within your organization there was an urgent need to implement the chosen ERP system.	0.90	0.94	0.85
1Q2 The ERP System implementation was given a strong sense of urgency	2.24	2.00	2.54
2Q1 Within your organization was a guiding coalition established for the ERP implementation.	0.83	0.88	0.77
2Q2 Senior management played an extensive role in your organization's ERP implementation.	3.03	2.56	3.62
3Q1 Before the ERP implementation, was a new vision of the future of the organization created?	0.83	0.88	0.77
3Q2 ERP was an important part of the company's new vision.	2.69	2.44	3.00
4Q1 Was the new vision communicated to everyone in the organization?	0.66	0.81	0.46
4Q2 The new vision was communicated frequently to all members of the organization.	3.79	3.25	4.46
5Q1 Were employees encouraged to problem solve creatively in the new ERP vision?	0.48	0.56	0.38
5Q2 Employees were rewarded for trying new problem solving approaches with ERP.	4.28	3.88	4.77
6Q1 Within the ERP implementation, were short term goals created?	0.93	1.00	0.85
6Q2 Short-term goals were recognized when they were achieved.	2.72	2.19	3.38
7Q1 Has your organization realized any benefits from the ERP implementation?	0.72	0.94	0.46
7Q2 ERP has enabled my organization to produce additional positive changes.	3.17	2.44	4.08
8Q1 Employees have been shown how ERP has helped to improve the organization?	0.66	0.88	0.38
8Q2 ERP has become part of our organization's corporate culture.	3.14	2.50	3.92

Table 5: Comparative Results for Section 2 nQ1 & nQ2: All Firms by Stable/Unstable Business Environment/Successful/Unsuccessful

Questions	All Stable	Stable Successful	Stable Unsuccessful
1Q1 Do you feel that within your organization there was an urgent need to implement the chosen ERP system.	0.94	1.00	0.80
1Q2 The ERP System implementation was given a strong sense of urgency	2.00	1.58	2.80
2Q1 Within your organization was a guiding coalition established for the ERP implementation.	0.88	0.92	0.80
2Q2 Senior management played an extensive role in your organization's ERP implementation.	2.56	2.17	3.20
3Q1 Before the ERP implementation, was a new vision of the future of the organization created?	0.88	1.00	0.60
3Q2 ERP was an important part of the company's new vision.	2.44	1.75	3.80
4Q1 Was the new vision communicated to everyone in the organization?	0.81	0.92	0.60
4Q2 The new vision was communicated frequently to all members of the organization.	3.25	2.33	5.00
5Q1 Were employees encouraged to problem solve creatively in the new ERP vision?	0.56	0.75	0.20
5Q2 Employees were rewarded for trying new problem solving approaches with ERP.	3.88	3.00	5.40
6Q1 Within the ERP implementation, were short term goals created?	1.00	1.00	1.00
6Q2 Short-term goals were recognized when they were achieved.	2.19	1.75	3.00
7Q1 Has your organization realized any benefits from the ERP implementation?	0.94	1.00	0.80
7Q2 ERP has enabled my organization to produce additional positive changes.	2.44	1.67	4.20
8Q1 Employees have been shown how ERP has helped to improve the organization?	0.88	0.92	0.80
8Q2 ERP has become part of our organization's corporate culture.	2.50	2.00	3.40

Questions	All Unstable	Unstable Successful	Unstable Unsuccessful
1Q1 Do you feel that within your organization there was an urgent need to implement the chosen ERP system.	0.85	1.00	0.80
1Q2 The ERP System implementation was given a strong sense of urgency	2.54	1.75	2.80
2Q1 Within your organization was a guiding coalition established for the ERP implementation.	0.77	1.00	0.80
2Q2 Senior management played an extensive role in your organization's ERP implementation.	3.62	1.75	3.20
3Q1 Before the ERP implementation, was a new vision of the future of the organization created?	0.77	1.00	0.60
3Q2 ERP was an important part of the company's new vision.	3.00	1.75	3.80
4Q1 Was the new vision communicated to everyone in the organization?	0.46	1.00	0.60
4Q2 The new vision was communicated frequently to all members of the organization.	4.46	2.25	5.00
5Q1 Were employees encouraged to problem solve creatively in the new ERP vision?	0.38	0.75	0.20
5Q2 Employees were rewarded for trying new problem solving approaches with ERP.	4.77	3.25	5.40
6Q1 Within the ERP implementation, were short term goals created?	0.85	1.00	1.00
6Q2 Short-term goals were recognized when they were achieved.	3.38	2.00	3.00
7Q1 Has your organization realized any benefits from the ERP implementation?	0.46	1.00	0.80
7Q2 ERP has enabled my organization to produce additional positive changes.	4.08	2.00	4.20
8Q1 Employees have been shown how ERP has helped to improve the organization?	0.38	1.00	0.80
8Q2 ERP has become part of our organization's corporate culture.	3.92	2.00	3.40

Appendix I

Section 1

Corporation: ________________________________ Date:___________________

Contact:____________________________________ Time: __________________

Position/Title:_______________________________ Interviewer Initials:_______

1. What ERP software package was selected by your organization?

SAP PeopleSoft Baan JD Edwards Other_____________

2. What modules were selected for implementation?

Financials Human Resources Operations/Logistics Sales/Marketing

3. What order were the modules implemented in?

4. What was the approximate date the ERP implementation was initiated? ____________

5. Was the ERP implementation completed? YES NO

6. When (approx) was the ERP project completed? ____________

7. Was the ERP project completed on time? YES NO

8. What was the approximate cost of the ERP implementation? _________

9. Was the ERP project completed within prescribed budget limitations? YES NO

10. Would you characterize the ERP implementation as [successful] or [unsuccessful] and why?

Section 2

Q1. Do you feel that within your organization there was an urgent need to implement the chosen ERP system?

YES NO

Q2. The ERP System implementation was given a strong sense of urgency.