User perceptions, motivations and implications on ERP usage: An Indian Higher Education Context
User perceptions, motivations and implications onERP usage: An Indian Higher Education Context Jyoti M. Bhat, Bhavya Shroff & Rajendra K. Bandi Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, India CONFENIS -2012
Agenda • Study ERP implementation from user perspectives • Case study of ERP implementation in an Indian higher education institution.
Theoretical BackgroundExisting literature ERP Implementation Change Mgmt. in ERP in Developing ERP Product in HE countries HE •HE modules being •User motivation and •Challenges of IT added to products involvement •Challenges of Org. experience, firm •Maturity of the HE •Lack of shared Structure size, infrastructure functionality understanding of •Communication • lack of “computer” •Critical Success project goal mechanisms culture Factors for ERP •Semi formal business •Decision Making • “Cultural misfit” of implementation process in HE Process ERP product •Change in job •Org. Resistance characteristics and role Literature Gap • ERP studies from a user perspective • Study CSF priorities based on national and cultural issues.
Research Question & Method • Does the Indian HE context offer unique context for ERP implementation? • Explores in terms of administrative and management work practices, perceptions of the administrative and academic work-force about ERP, decision-making and change management. • Case Study using semi-structured open-ended interviews • Twelve interviewees across various roles of Administrative Officer, Admissions officer and staff at various program offices and functional departments
Case study - The HE institute • Indian Graduate Business School (GBS) – established in 70s, one of the premier institutes for management education and research • Quasi-government organization • 2000 students, 200 staff, 30 interns and consultants, 85 contract employees and 120 faculty members • Administrative staff with the Institute since the early days of Institute - much longer than the faculty • Most of the staff is due to retire • Manual Processes with spread sheets and documents • Very little process documentation, Processes have evolved over time • Many support services have been outsourced – facilities management, IT infrastructure support
GBS – Organization Structure• Management and Administrative roles handled by faculty as additional responsibilities with support from Admin staff• Types of functions • Purely administrative (facility management, estate maintenance, travel etc.), • Academic administration (library, computer centre, placement cell) and • Purely academic (the programs, faculty research) Director Dean Dean (Administration) (Academic) Chief Administrative Head , Finance Chairperson, Program 1 … Chairperson, Program n Officer Head, Head, Hostel & Chairperson ChairpersonPersonnel Mess admin Area1 …. Area n
IT at GBS• No in-house IS team, No executive role for IS• IT infrastructure and support operations outsourced• Prior to ERP • Admin processes were ‘islands of automation’ • Many manual processes – Fee payments, HR processes, Student feedback, course and resource scheduling • Processes not standard across programs • Lack of information on utilization and availability of resources • Lack of regular reporting, data in silos • Not every employee had access to desktop computers till recently
Why ERP ?• Increased scale, scope and complexity of administration due to increased student intake and new programs• Increasing expectations from stakeholders on the services, productivity and responsiveness of the Institute• Issues of aging workforce, retention of organizational process knowledge and sustenance of administrative process improvements• GBS’s vision of being a world class institution using a process-centric approach, leveraging tech for optimal utilization of resources
ERP Implementation at GBSFirst attempt at Abandoned - organizational dynamics and lack of consensus on ERP (2006) decisions Current ERP Product evaluation & Implementationimplementation (2008) selectionChampioned by • Product Selection Team -Finance •Implementation team ( Finance Head, ERPDean (Admin) head, CAO and a few faculty Chairperson, External ERP Consultant,with Director’s members Vendor Manager)support • Process scripts used for evaluation • GBS - No Implementation experience • Software and implementation by •No ERP related goals for staff and Depts. same vendor • No formal communication mechanisms from • Demo by vendor to process users Management on ERP • Phased implementation •Vendor - First ERP HE in India; no ERP experience with India team People Issues • Unable to attend training sessions • Resistance to double data-entry • Hesitance to share knowledge
Case Analysis (1/2) Motivations User Perceptions Management motivation •System does not meet their needs •Handle administration complexity by •Indian Universities are not like US Univs centralization and automation of •Can’t change our process to suit the processes across programs system •Retention of organizational process •Processes are different across programs – knowledge ERP can’t handle this •Ensure continuity in efficiency •Not involved in ERP selection improvements in administration •Requirements not taken from them • Meet the rising expectations from all •Training not provided on time stakeholders •External Consultant seen as a bottleneck • Provide shared access to data for •Change Job Characteristics decision support •Senior staff felt ERP can’t handle all User Motivation complexities, human intervention • Focus on other student activities required • Reduce data entry requirement •Junior staff feel they can do more value • Follow orders adding work •Minor power struggle visible • Learn new technology
Lessons Learnt !• Perceptions built during the course of the ERP implementation lead to user resistance• Negative perceptions can spread through peer influences• Implicit goals for ERP implementation affect user perceptions:• Organization structure affects the long-term perspective of ERP• Aging workforce issues hinder ERP implementation• ERP product ‘fit’ to the Indian HE context has to be checked• Absence of in-house IS team creates conflicts• User training needs to be customized to the level of awareness• Need for explicit data related policies during ERP implmentation
Key References• Abugabah, A., Sanzogni, L.: Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System in Higher Education: A literature Review and Implications, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, vol 71. (2010)• Gyampah, K. A.: ERP implementation factors A comparison of managerial and end-user perspectives. Business Process Management Journal, vol 10, iss 2, pp. 171-183. (2004)• Hong, K..K., Kim, Y.G.: The critical success factors for ERP implementation: an organizational fit perspective. Information & Management, vol 40, pp. 25–40. (2002)• Huang,Z.,Palvia,P.: ERP implementation issues in advanced and developing countries. Business Process Management Journal, vol. 7, iss. 3, pp. 276 – 284 (2001)• Lechtchinskaia, L.,Uffen, J.,Breitner, M.H.: "Critical Success Factors for Adoption of Integrated Information Systems in Higher Education Institutions – A Meta-Analysis” AMCIS 2011 Proceedings. (2011)• Von Hellens L., Nielsen S., Beekhuyzen J.: Qualitative case studies on implementation of enterprise wide systems. Hershey PA: Idea Group. (2005)
Thank You! Dr. Rajendra K. Bandi firstname.lastname@example.org Indian Institute of Management BangaloreBannerghatta Road, Bangalore – 560 076, INDIA www.iimb.ernet.in