Transcript of "2. Erp Innovation Implementation Model Incorporating Change Management"
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
14,2 ERP innovation implementation
model incorporating change
M.J. Kemp and G.C. Low
School of Information Systems, Technology and Management,
The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
Purpose – The purpose of this research is to develop and provide a preliminary validation of a model
for how change management during an ERP implementation affects the effectiveness of that ERP
Design/methodology/approach – This paper proposes a revised Klein et al. innovation
implementation model that explicitly considers change management. The applicability of the
revised model to describe the effect of change management on the implementation climate and
implementation effectiveness of an ERP implementation is assessed using a case study at a large
Australian multinational organisation.
Findings – Speciﬁc change management activities are identiﬁed and described. Qualitative
veriﬁcation of a proposed ERP innovation implementation model that incorporates the effect of
change management is provided.
Originality/value – Change management was seen as being an important factor in inﬂuencing the
effectiveness of the ERP project. This study is the ﬁrst step in the longer-term empirical validation of
the modiﬁed innovation implementation model.
Keywords Change management, Manufacturing resource planning
Paper type Research paper
Many large organisations have made signiﬁcant investments of both time and capital to
implement ERP systems, however not all implementations go as well as intended (Bingi
et al., 1999; Kumar and van Hillegersberg, 2000). Owing to the complex nature of ERP
systems, many implementations have been difﬁcult, lengthy and over budget,
terminated before completion, and/or failed to achieve their business objectives even a
year after implementation (Volkoff, 1999). ERP systems are organisation-wide systems
and their implementation involves multiple stakeholders, often in geographically
disperse locations. Therefore, an ERP system requires data standardisation, integration
of the system with other information systems and management of consultants and
vendors (Soh et al., 2000). Traditional project management challenges are magniﬁed in
such environments, making the implementation more difﬁcult, expensive and
failure-prone (Holland and Light, 1999). This complexity suggests that results
obtained in other simpler technology implementation environments do not
Business Process Management automatically apply to ERP environments (Markus et al., 2000). The signiﬁcance of a
Journal new ERP system and the inherent risks in implementing such a system make it essential
Vol. 14 No. 2, 2008
pp. 228-242 that organisations focus on ways to improve ERP implementations.
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited Al-Mudimigh et al. (2001) suggest that, the ﬁve key critical success factors are top
DOI 10.1108/14637150810864952 management support, business case, change management, project management
and training. Change management is a particularly important factor in the adoption, ERP innovation
adaptation and acceptance phases of ERP systems implementation (Somers and implementation
Nelson, 2004). Somers and Nelson (2004) reinforces the key role change management
has in an ERP implementation by observing that many ERP implementations fail to model
achieve the expected beneﬁts possibly because companies underestimate the effort
involved in change management.
This paper proposes an extended innovation implementation model that explicitly 229
incorporates the impact of change management. As a ﬁrst step in the longer-term
empirical validation of the modiﬁed innovation implementation model, we examine the
applicability of the model to describe how change management during an ERP
implementation affects the implementation climate and implementation effectiveness
in a major Australian Organisation.
ERP systems are an example of an innovation – a “idea, practice, or object that is perceived
as new by an individual or other unit of adoption” (Rogers, 1995). Implementation of an
innovation is described as “the process of gaining targeted employees’ appropriate and
committed use of an innovation” (Klein and Sorra, 1996). When introducing an innovation
such as an ERP system to an organisation, the implementation process needs to be
managed so that the expected beneﬁts are achieved. Users require ongoing support from
the organisation such as training, maintenance and equipment upgrades in order to achieve
implementation effectiveness. It has been suggested that many new systems fail due to
implementation failure, rather than innovation failure (Klein et al., 2001). The factors
leading to implementation effectiveness can be described using the model proposed by
Klein et al. (2001), Figure 1. Change management is not explicitly included in this model,
although its effect would be expected to inﬂuence implementation climate.
For an ERP system, change management is required to prepare users for the
introduction of the new system, reduce resistance towards the system and inﬂuence
user attitudes towards that system. Approaches to managing change can be drawn
from marketing research, and from studying the implementation life cycle (Aladwani,
2001). The ERP adoption model (Aladwani, 2001) suggests that change management
and management support should positively inﬂuence system awareness, feelings
towards the system and the intention to adopt that system for users to actually adopt
Change management initiatives for a new information system should focus on
changes speciﬁcally in the areas of technology, business process and organisation,
and culture (Benjamin and Levinson, 1993). There is a strong focus in the literature
on culture and politics as signiﬁcant impediments to change (El Sawy, 1985).
(Use) (Use Time 2)
Effectiveness Figure 1.
Klein et al. (2001)
Resource Policies and
Availability Practices implementation model
BPMJ Therefore, change management should focus on creating an environment where the
14,2 change can be implemented (Motwani et al., 2002). Suggested activities include:
project championship (Beath, 1991; Martinsons, 1993);
training (Igbaria et al., 1997);
communication of system features and beneﬁts (Debrabander and Thiers, 1984;
230 Markus, 1983);
communication of new business processes and organisational structure (Grover
et al., 1995; Joshi, 1991); and
rewards and incentives (Allen and Kilmann, 2001; Joshi, 1991).
The Klein et al. (2001) innovation implementation model, Figure 1, does not explicitly
consider the impact that change management has on implementation climate. A climate
favourable to the implementation of a new system represents favourable user experiences
and attitudes towards the implementation. Therefore, by managing the change that
occurs during the implementation at an individual or departmental level, user attitudes
towards the system are more likely to be positive and the overall implementation climate is
more likely to be favourable. The construct of “change management” has been added to the
innovation implementation model to represent the effect that change management can
have on implementation climate. The modiﬁed model is shown in Figure 2.
The implementation climate for an innovation can be described as the sum of
employees’ observations and experiences regarding the innovation. The Aladwani ERP
adoption model describes the situation where users’ awareness, feelings and intention
to adopt an ERP system are affected by change management and management support.
User awareness, feelings and intention to adopt an ERP system are equivalent to the
experiences and observations of users during an ERP implementation (ie. implementation
climate), therefore the Aladwani ERP adoption model can be considered as providing
a greater level of detail regarding change management and implementation climate.
Figure 2. Financial Implementation
Modiﬁed Klein et al. (2001) Resource Policies &
model Availability Practices
Hence, it is possible to describe the “dotted portion” of the modiﬁed innovation ERP innovation
implementation model shown in Figure 2 in greater detail to reﬂect the deﬁnitions of implementation
change management activities and climate in the ERP adoption model. The list of change
management activities (from the ERP adoption model) has been updated to also include model
the additional information systems change management activities discussed previously.
Through using this model, Figure 3, the impact of change management on
implementation climate and innovation effectiveness can be investigated. Speciﬁcally, 231
the research questions are:
RQ1. Do the identiﬁed change management activities affect the implementation
RQ2. Does implementation climate (feelings awareness response, favourable
feelings response and favourable adoption intention) impact the effectiveness
of the ERP implementation?
As a ﬁrst step in the longer-term empirical validation of the revised innovation
implementation model, we examine the applicability of the revised model to describe
how the change management activities during an ERP implementation affect the
Change Management Activities Implementation
Communication of ERP benefits
Communication of ERP operations
Communicationof system features Favourable
Communication of changed Awareness
Involvement of individuals and
groups Favourable Implementation
Quality of ERP interface Feelings Response Effectiveness
Quality of training
Level of adoption costs
Opinion leader support/ project Figure 3.
champion Favourable Proposed ERP innovation
Timing/phases of ERP Adoption implementation model
implementation Intention incorporating change
Rewards & incentives managenment
BPMJ implementation climate and implementation effectiveness in a major Australian
organisation using a structured-case based approach (Carroll and Swatman, 2000).
Case study selection
The case study organisation is a major Australian Multinational Organisation. The
organisation is currently in the process of implementing an ERP system, called “ABC”
232 from one of the two major vendors. It is being implemented in conjunction with
re-engineering of the related business processes. The system will house the HR, ﬁnance,
payroll and procurement transactions that are carried out on a day-to-day basis in the
organisation. The ABC system is being implemented in a series of managed releases.
As part of its implementation process, the organisation established a change
management team as part of the project team. The team was responsible for preparing
the organisation for the changes that the ABC system would initiate. This identiﬁed
the organisation and the ABC program as being an excellent research setting for
investigating change management practices in an ERP implementation.
The ABC implementation at the organisation saw a variety of change management
activities implemented. Various departments were recipients of a range of change
management activities according to the assessed impact that the change would have and the
readiness of users in those departments. Various forms of data collection were employed:
Interviews. A range of interviewees was sought, representing a cross-section of
the users of the ABC system. Interviewees were recruited from two departments,
which were selected based on the change management activities employed in
those departments. The operations department had little focused change
management, while the human resources department was the recipient of
Five executives and three monthly paid staff were interviewed across both
departments using a snowball sampling technique. The interviews were
designed to be semi-structured with open-ended questions covering
implementation effectiveness, implementation climate (awareness response,
feelings response and adoption intention) and change management activities.
Each interview lasted approximately half-an-hour, and was held in the
interviewee’s ofﬁce or another location nominated by the interviewee.
Review of organisational documents. Surveys, reports and other documents that
were generated as part of the ABC implementation were reviewed. Documents
relating to the entire change management effort were examined, with particular
emphasis on documents relating to the two departments from which
interviewees were selected.
Surveys. Triangulation was achieved through the collection of survey data from
a small set of respondents in the two departments. The strength of the
respondents’ agreement with a range of statements (Table I) was measured on a
ﬁve-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 – strongly disagree to 5 – strongly agree.
The statements are related to the both the system itself (content, accuracy,
format, ease of use and timeliness) and the effects of change management
experienced (adoption intention, feelings response, system awareness,
management support, and change management effectiveness).
department HR department All users implementation
Median Range Median Range Median Range model
Content 4.0 2-4 3.0 3-4 4.0 3-4
Accuracy 4.0 2-4 3.0 2-4 4.0 2-4
Format 4.0 3-4 3.5 2-4 4.0 2-4 233
Ease of use 4.0 2-5 3.0 1-4 4.0 1-5
Timeliness 4.0 4 4.0 1-4 4.0 1-4
Adoption intention 4.0 3-4 4.0 1-5 4.0 1-5
System awareness 4.0 2-4 3.5 2-4 4.0 2-5
Communicators n/a n/a 3.0 2-5 3.0 2-5
Communications 4.0 3-4 3.5 2-4 4.0 2-4
Traininga 4.0 4 4.0 4 4.0 4
Feelings response 3.0 2-4 4.0 1-5 4.0 1-5
User involvement 3.0 3-4 4.0 4-5 3.5 3-5
Management support 4.0 4-5 4.0 4-5 4.0 4-5
Change management effectiveness 3.0 2-4 3.5 1-4 3.0 1-4
Note: aOnly applicable for users who attended training User survey responses
All interviews were transcribed and these transcriptions were analysed using a three
stage coding process: open coding, axial coding and selective coding (Strauss and
Corbin, 1997). The purpose of coding is two-fold: to look for patterns among the data
and to look for patterns that give meaning to the case study (Merriam, 1985).
The open coding stage involved an exploration of the data to generate initial codes.
However, the concepts in a conceptual framework can be used as initial codes in
guiding the analysis provided this does not prevent the identiﬁcation of other codes to
incorporate new themes (Carroll and Swatman, 2000; Neuman, 2003). Hence, the model
for planned change (Kolb and Frohman, 1970) was utilised to provide a framework for
identifying initial change management codes.
The second axial coding stage involved the analysis of codes developed in open
coding for recurring themes or overlapping central categories. Selective coding involved
scanning existing codes for cases that illustrate themes within the case study. Major
themes or concepts were used to guide the search. In particular, multiple instances of
empirical evidence were sought from the interviews, review of organisational
documents and the surveys in order to strengthen and validate ﬁndings from the study.
Release 1 of the ERP system, comprising payroll functionality, was rolled out in
September 2003 for monthly paid and executive staff (representing approximately 1,200
users). Release 2 went live in October 2004 and consisted of HR self-service functions for
managers and other employees. The Release 2 user base represents a much larger
number of users. Five further releases are planned covering performance management,
customer service, ﬁnance, purchasing and procurement, and portal implementation.
Prior to the implementation of the ABC system, each department was responsible
for maintaining its own payroll and HR system, leading to duplication of the types
of data stored and staff roles in each department. To alleviate these problems,
BPMJ a “shared services” approach to service provision was adopted, where a single point of
14,2 contact for all business services was established. A large number of existing HR and
payroll staff were moved to a new shared services department, where use of the ABC
system has replaced or connects to the departmental HR and payroll systems. Business
services are provided by shared services to all departments at agreed service levels and
at agreed costs. A new call centre handles questions regarding the ABC system and
234 other HR and payroll queries.
The new “shared services” approach was implemented at the same time as Release 1
of the ABC system, however there was not a great deal of system functionality
available at that time. In order to take advantage of the new structure, interim
processes using forms and direct contact with shared services were implemented.
These interim processes mirrored the processes that would exist when Release 2 was
released, but required more manual processing. When Release 2 of the system arrived,
the processes were again updated to reﬂect the availability of system functionality.
Staffs from three major organisations are responsible for implementing the ABC
system. Organisation staff with relevant experience and skills have been seconded to
the project, for varying amounts of time as required. The hardware infrastructure and
web hosting services are being provided by an outsourcing vendor while a consulting
organisation is leading the implementation activities and managing the change of
business processes. The ERP vendor is carrying out any required changes to the basic
ERP software purchased.
Change management team
The change management team was formed from key staff from the organisation and
the consulting organisation which had experience in managing change associated with
changes in processes. The team was formed shortly after the beginning of the ABC
The change management team performed a number of tasks to diagnose, plan, deliver
and evaluate the change management activities required for the ABC implementation.
Implementation climate assessment
Before implementation commenced, the change management team made an assessment
of the implementation climate. This involved assessing the impact of the system on
business processes, assessing the gap between current and required capabilities and
preparing a change management readiness assessment. The implementation climate
assessment helped to identify areas of the business that would require speciﬁc and
targeted change management activities.
Scoping and planning
The information gathered during the implementation climate assessment was used to
create a transition plan describing how to move from the current implementation
climate to the users having the required skills and knowledge to operate the ABC
system successfully. The people transition plan provided a roadmap for individuals
impacted by the change initiatives. The plan outlined the strategy, timing and ERP innovation
execution plan for the transition of staff. Change management activities were planned implementation
as a result of the people transition plan, and were detailed in separate documents
(eg. training plan). model
Planning was also required for the communications that would be necessary as a
result of the ABC program. The communication plan detailed the stakeholders, key
messages and timing of communications to user groups. Key messages included 235
system features, beneﬁts of using the system, progress of development and impact of
Change management delivery
A range of change management activities was performed during the implementation of
the ABC system. Most of the change management activities were targeted at speciﬁc
groups of users, rather than being intended for all users of the system. Strategies
Communicating information on system features, system beneﬁts and changed
processes using various options including organisation newsletters, ABC system
“open days” conference room pilots of the system, and departmental brieﬁngs.
Implementing a project championship program. The change management team,
with assistance from the organisation general managers and HR staff, selected
change agents from functional areas to be impacted by the ABC system. These
change agents, known as “Communicators” were the primary communication
channel in support of the ABC system implementation. The role and function of
communicators were detailed in the communication plan.
Training users across the organisation, focusing on the departments where
change would be greatest. A range of training was implemented, from online
courses to intensive classroom-based training days. Training was mandatory
and face-to-face for users with “high” or “medium” capability gap assessments,
and online and optional for all other users.
Involving affected users in all aspects of the change process.
Adopting a phased implementation to help minimise resistance to the changes.
During the scoping and planning phase of the ABC system, a program wide beneﬁts
baseline was prepared which included all potential business beneﬁts arising from the
ABC system. A primary tool in the realisation of business beneﬁts for each release is
the beneﬁt action plan. It deﬁnes the required states for four key project factors:
process, people, organisation and technology.
Some change management activities suggested in the revised ERP innovation
implementation model (Figure 3) were not considered by the change management team
during the ABC implementation. These were quality of ERP interface, level of adoption
cost, and rewards and incentives. In this case, a standard application was purchased
with minimal customization thus largely removing the ability to customize the
BPMJ The effectiveness of the implementation is discussed, from the perspective of the users
14,2 of the ERP system. Analysis of effects of the change management on the implementation
climate was completed through interviews with organisation staffs from two
departments. The operations department was identiﬁed as an area that required little
change management before the introduction of the ABC system, while the HR department
required intensive change management to prepare for the release of the system.
Effect of change management on implementation climate
The effect of change management on implementation climate will be assessed using
the three aspects of implementation climate (system awareness, feelings response and
adoption intention) proposed in the research model (Figure 3).
System awareness. A high level of system awareness was achieved during the ERP
implementation. When questioned, users were able to explain the features of the
system in considerable detail, and were able to recall a large number of the beneﬁts of
using the system mentioned by the change management team before the release of the
system. This ﬁnding was conﬁrmed by the survey data (Table I).
System awareness was primarily achieved through communications. The users
gave this a relatively high-median score of 4.0, Table I. This suggests that, the
communications aspect of the ABC program was well managed.
Differences were seen in the ability of users to discuss the changes that were made
to the processes as a result of the system implementation. HR staff were much more
able to describe the changes that had occurred throughout the department. For
example, HR staff were able to fully describe the role of the new shared services
department and the way in which processes relating to management of information
had changed. Operations department staff described Shared Services as “a transaction
processing centre” and “where you go when you need help”. While these descriptions
are accurate, they are certainly not a complete explanation of the role of shared
services in the ABC system implementation. This suggests that, the role of Shared
Services was not fully communicated to all users before the release of the system. Some
of the differences in the ability to explain process change may lie in the fact that HR
staff are much closer to the processes that have changed, as they use the system on a
daily basis. However, operations department staff should be able to explain the role of
shared services more comprehensively than they did, as executives within the
operations department are responsible for managing both their own and their
employees’ HR data, and the interim processes between Release 1 and 2 required direct
contact with shared services. A failure to understand the role of shared services
impacts on the ability of users to know where to get help if required, and may therefore
affect the feelings of users towards the system. This then has an effect on the feelings
response of users towards the system.
Feelings response. Feelings towards the system should be impacted by user
involvement and user training. For staff that did not have a particular role in the
development of the system, regular brieﬁngs and communications helped them feel
informed about the progress of development. The HR department was the recipient of
targeted change management activities while the operations department had little
focused change management. This difference was reﬂected in the higher median score
for user involvement for the HR group (4.0) compared with the operations department
group (3.0). It is also reﬂected in the ratings of feelings response, Table I.
Discussion with users regarding training showed that the feelings of those users ERP innovation
who believed the training was excessive or inadequate were less positive towards the
system than the feelings of the users who believed that the training was adequate.
Those who attended training scored a much higher median score for the feelings model
response questions (a median score of 4.25 for those who attended training, compared
with 3.0 for those who did not). This suggests that training assists in improving the
feelings response of users, and thus improves the adoption intention. 237
Adoption intention. Although users could easily identify problems and frustrations
with the system, general resistance to the system amongst users was low. Most
believed that the system was necessary and would not attempt to delay progress. All
users had been keen to have a look at what was actually in the system after hearing
about it for many months before its release. The high level of adoption intention
expressed in the interviews is conﬁrmed by its relatively high-median score of 4.0 in
the survey results. Adoption intention was improved through change management
activities such as project championship and phased ERP implementation.
Users in both departments supported the idea of a phased implementation.
However, the downside of a phased implementation was that if one release is delayed,
the completion dates for future releases are also delayed. Release 2 of the system was
released seven months after its intended release date. As change management needs to
occur prior to the release of the system, the change management team implemented the
change activities far earlier than required. Communications were then required to
reassure staff members that the system was still being implemented, and would be
released when it was ready. One user commented:
They kept sending messages saying that the system was still coming. But no amount of
communication is going to change the fact that the system isn’t here yet. It made the system
team seem really incompetent.
Discussion with users regarding the project showed that the late release of Release 2
was the main reason for any user resistance towards the ABC system.
Effect of management support on implementation climate
Interviewees commented that there was an attitude of overall support from the
organisation, and that their manager was in support of the system prior to its release.
This indicates that, the organisation as a whole was publicly very supportive of
the system and was able to show encouragement through the provision of resources.
Some managers spoke of showing supportiveness of the system when dealing with
their own staff, even if they were personally somewhat sceptical of the beneﬁts
claimed. The high level of management support was conﬁrmed by survey data relating
to the attitude of managers towards the project. All users surveyed responded with
“Agree” or “Strongly Agree” when asked about the level of support for the project from
both managers and the organisation as a whole, Table I.
The feelings of all interviewed users towards the system prior to its release were
positive. All interviewees indicated that, they logged into the system when it was
released just to see what was available.
All change management activities mentioned in planning documents prepared by
the change management team were implemented prior to the system being released.
BPMJ The climate prior to its release was one expectant of better results than what were
14,2 being achieved with the legacy systems. HR staff were satisﬁed on the whole with the
way the change in their department was managed. However, operations department
staff were neutral. Staff were not overly interested in the system and the beneﬁts using
the system can bring. Some users claimed that they are unaware of how to use the
system or when usage of the system is required. This suggests that, the capability gap
238 assessment for the operations department may have been incorrect and more formal
user training was required. Their necessary capabilities required were rated at a low
level and their current skills were seen as adequate, which did not necessitate a formal
change management process in this department.
This study identiﬁed the major activities used in an ERP implementation through a case
study of the ABC program in the case study organisation. It has shown that change
management is an important factor in an ERP implementation. The implementation of
the ABC system followed the research model shown in Figure 3. The change
management activities affected the implementation climate. In turn, the implementation
climate affected the effectiveness of the implementation.
The change management activities had the required effect on the climate for
implementation. The activities implemented assisted in informing users about the
system, and enabling the provision of skills required when the system was implemented.
There were noticeable differences between users who had participated in change
management activities either through optional involvement or the provision of extra
change management activities in some departments and those who did not participate.
Some aspects of the change management program could have been better managed.
Managers tended to publicly support the implementation of the ABC system, but
privately believed that the system would not be of much beneﬁt. A theme often
discussed in interviews was the fact that often users did not understand why the
organisation had undertaken the ABC implementation and did not believe that it was
necessary. Many wondered why a system that cost so much was being implemented
when it was not providing any greater functionality, and at times was less efﬁcient
than legacy systems. This suggests that managers should be informed of the
motivation for implementing the ERP system, rather than just being informed of
beneﬁts and be expected to advocate the system within their departments. It also
suggests that the change management activity, “level of adoption cost” should be
speciﬁcally addressed as part of the change management process.
There are indications that the users’ expectations for the system were different to
the actual features of the implemented system. Some users gave a very low score for
the survey question relating to whether the features of the system were as expected.
This indicates that although users were aware of the system and its beneﬁts, the actual
system did not have the features expected by users. This could be a result of the
change management team overstating the beneﬁts, or not explaining them clearly, or
the users misunderstanding what they were being told.
This suggests that communications about the system must be very clear and match
with what the system actually offers. The users were disappointed and resistance
towards the system increased when it was different to what they expected. It would
have been beneﬁcial for more users to see the system for themselves prior to its release
in order to accurately gauge the functionality offered. However, the ABC system may ERP innovation
be different to other ERP implementations in that the change management team must implementation
also provide details on modules to be released in future phases. Users may expect to see
a module in the next phase, when in reality it may not be implemented for a number of model
years. If the implementation is a phased implementation, care should be taken to
accurately inform users of when each feature will be released.
The implemented change management activities also affected different areas of 239
the organisation in different ways. Each department within the organisation
received a very different range of change management activities based on the
identiﬁed needs, and it is evident that the range and types of change management
received impact upon the effectiveness of the ERP implementation. When assessing
the need for change management in each department, the change management team
implemented activities that they believed would provide the best implementation
climate for the most realistic amount of work. At the end of the change
management process, the change management team expected that the
implementation climate across the organisation would be similar. In reality,
the implementation climate differed throughout the organisation. The general
attitude to the system by those in the department that received less change
management was less positive than for those who were the recipients of more
targeted activities. This indicates that change management is required throughout
an organisation implementing an ERP system, even if the changes in one particular
area of the organisation are not particularly great.
Despite the problems identiﬁed by users after the release of the system, the change
management activities have been successful. Users who were sceptical when hearing
about the project are now generally well equipped to use the system. This indicates
that ERP implementations similar to the ABC system would beneﬁt from similar types
of change management activities.
The effect of change management and management support on implementation
climate are supported by the case study. In addition there is support for the impact of
implementation climate on implementation effectiveness. However, there may be other
factors that determine implementation effectiveness. Although users may be able to
use the system as intended, they are not always able to use it well. Interviews with HR
staff showed that some aspects of the system such as speed of the system and quality
of interface design prevent the staff from using the system to its full potential. This
suggests that more implementation climate is not the only factor in determining
implementation effectiveness, and that features of the system itself do play a part in the
success of an ERP implementation.
This research is a ﬁrst step in the longer-term empirical validation of the revised
innovation implementation model, Figure 2. This model will be extended to incorporate
the effect of system features (technology ﬁt) on implementation effectiveness based on
the research ﬁndings.
The empirical validation of the expanded model is planned using survey data
obtained from users involved in ERP implementations in various organisations.
Structural equation modeling, using partial least squares, will be used to test the
overall ﬁt of the structural model. The research constructs will be derived from
BPMJ the Klein et al. (2001) and Aladwani (2001) models. Since most users will have little
14,2 understanding of the ﬁnancial resource availability this construct (and its associated
hypotheses) will be omitted from the analysis.
The accompanying research hypotheses are described below:
H1. Implementation climate is positively correlated with implementation
H1.1 Favourable awareness response is positively correlated with implementation
H1.2 Favourable feelings response is positively correlated with implementation
H1.3 Favourable adoption intention is positively correlated with implementation
H2. Change management is positively correlated with the implementation climate.
H2.1 Change management activities (communications issues) are positively
correlated with favourable awareness response.
H2.2 Change management activities (involvement of individuals and groups,
and quality of training) are positively correlated with favourable feelings
H2.3 Change management activities (project champion support, and timing/phases
of ERP implementation) are positively correlated with favourable adoption
H3. Management support is a moderating variable between change management
and the implementation climate.
H4. Technology ﬁt is positively correlated with implementation effectiveness.
H5. Implementation policies and practices are positively correlated with
Aladwani, A.M. (2001), “Change management strategies for successful ERP implementation”,
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 266-75.
Allen, R.S. and Kilmann, R.H. (2001), “The role of the reward system for a total
quality management based strategy”, Journal of Organizational Change, Vol. 14 No. 2,
Al-Mudimigh, A., Zairi, M. and Al-Mashari, M. (2001), “ERP software implementation:
an interactive framework”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 10,
Beath, C. (1991), “Supporting the information technology champion”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 15
No. 3, pp. 355-72.
Benjamin, R. and Levinson, E. (1993), “A strategic framework for managing IT-enabled change”,
Sloan Management Review, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 23-34.
Bingi, P., Sharma, M.K. and Godla, J. (1999), “Critical issues affecting an ERP implementation”, ERP innovation
Information Systems Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 7-14.
Carroll, J.M. and Swatman, P.A. (2000), “Structured-case: a methodological framework for
building theory in information systems research”, European Journal of Information model
Systems, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 235-42.
Debrabander, B. and Thiers, G. (1984), “Successful information system development in relation to
situational factors which affect effective communication between MIS users and EDP 241
specialists”, Management Science, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 137-55.
El Sawy, O.A. (1985), “Implementation by cultural infusion: an approach for managing the
introduction of information technologies”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 131-40.
Grover, V., Jeong, S.R., Kettinger, W. and Teng, J. (1995), “The implementation of business
process reengineering”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 12 No. 1,
Holland, C.P. and Light, B. (1999), “A critical success factors model for ERP implementation”,
IEEE Software, May/June, pp. 30-6.
Igbaria, M., Zinatelli, N., Cragg, P. and Cavaye, A.M. (1997), “Personal computing acceptance
factors in small ﬁrms: a structural equation model”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 3,
Joshi, K. (1991), “A model of users’ perspective on change: the case of information systems
technology implementation”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 229-42.
Klein, K. and Sorra, J.S. (1996), “The challenge of innovation implementation”, The Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 4, p. 1055.
Klein, K., Conn, A. and Sorra, J.S. (2001), “Implementing computerized technology:
an organizational analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 5, pp. 811-24.
Kolb, D.A. and Frohman, A.L. (1970), “An organization development approach to consulting”,
Sloan Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 51-65.
Kumar, K. and van Hillegersberg, J. (2000), “ERP experience and evolution”, Communications of
the ACM, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 23-6.
Markus, M.L. (1983), “Power, politics, and MIS implementation”, Communications of the ACM,
Vol. 26, pp. 430-44.
Markus, M.L., Axline, S., Petrie, D. and Tanis, C. (2000), “Learning from adopters’ experiences
with ERP: problems encountered and success achieved”, Journal of Information
Technology, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 245-65.
Martinsons, M.G. (1993), “Cultivating the champions for strategic information systems”,
Journal of Systems Management, Vol. 44 No. 8, pp. 31-4.
Merriam, S. (1985), “The case study in educational research: a review of selected literature”,
The Journal of Educational Thought, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 204-17.
Motwani, J., Mirchandani, D., Madan, M. and Gunasekaran, A. (2002), “Successful
implementation of ERP projects: evidence from two case studies”, International Journal
of Production Economics, Vol. 75 Nos 1/2, p. 83.
Neuman, W.L. (2003), Social Research Methods – Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches,
Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.
Rogers, E.M. (1995), Diffusion of Innovations, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Soh, C., Kien, S.S. and Tay-Yap, J. (2000), “Cultural ﬁts and misﬁts: is ERP a universal solution?”,
Communications of the ACM, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 47-51.
BPMJ Somers, T.M. and Nelson, K.G. (2004), “A taxonomy of players and activities across
the ERP project life cycle”, Information & Management, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 257-78.
14,2 Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1997), Grounded Theory in Practice, Sage, London.
Volkoff, O. (1999), “Using the structural model of technology to analyze an ERP implementation”,
AMCIS, Milwaukee, August 13-15, pp. 235-7.
242 Corresponding author
G.C. Low can be contacted at: firstname.lastname@example.org
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: email@example.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints