A Multi-Project Model of Key Factors Affecting Organizational Benefits From Enterprise Systems Seddon MISQ 2010

Seddon et al.
/Key Factors Affecting Organizational Benefits
RESEARCH ARTICLE
A MULTI-PROJECT MODEL OF KEY FACTORS AFFECTING ORGANIZATIONAL BENEFITS FROM ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS1
By: Peter B. Seddon Department of Information Systems University of Melbourne Victoria 3010 AUSTRALIA p.seddon@unimelb.edu.au Cheryl Calvert Corporate Business Systems Monash University Victoria 3800 AUSTRALIA Cheryl.Calvert@adm.monash.edu.au Song Yang Department of Information Systems University of Melbourne Victoria 3010 AUSTRALIA yanssy1@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au
1
Abstract
This paper develops a long-term, multi-project model of factors affecting organizational benefits from enterprise systems (ES), then reports a preliminary test of the model. In the shorter-term half of the model, it is hypothesized that once a system has gone live, two factors, namely functional fit and overcoming organizational inertia, drive organizational benefits flowing from each major ES improvement project. The importance of these factors may vary from project to project. In the long-term half of the model, it is hypothesized that four additional factors, namely integration, process optimization, improved access to information, and on-going major ES business improvement projects, drive organizational benefits from ES over the long term. Preliminary tests of the model were conducted using data from 126 customer presentations from SAPs 2003 and 2005 Sapphire U.S. conferences. All six factors were found to be important in explaining variance in organizational benefits from enterprise systems from the perspective of senior management. Keywords: Enterprise system success, packaged software, functional fit, overcoming organizational inertia, change management, IS implementation, IS project management, integration, process optimization, improved access to information
Carol Saunders was the accepting senior editor for this paper.
The appendices for this paper are are located in the Online Supplements section of the MIS Quarterlys website (http://www.misq.org).
This article contains references to the products of SAP AG. SAP, R/3, SAP NetWeaver, Duet, PartnerEdge, ByDesign, Clear Enterprise, SAP Business Objects Explorer, and other SAP products and services mentioned herein as well as their respective logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of SAP AG in Germany and other countries. Business Objects and Business Objects logos, BusinessObjects, Crystal Reports, Crystal Decisions, Web Intelligence, Xcelsius, and other Business Objects products and services mentioned herein as well as their respective logos or trademarks are registered trademarks of SAP France in the United States and other countries. SAP AG is neither the author nor the publisher of this publication and is not responsible for its content. SAP Group shall not be liable for errors or omissions with respect to the materials. The only warranties for SAP Group products and services are those that are set forth in the express warranty statements accompanying such products and services, if any. Nothing herein should be construed as constituting an additional warranty.
Introduction
Enterprise systems are large-scale, real-time, integrated application-software packages that use the computational, data storage, and data transmission power of modern information technology to support processes, information flows, reporting, and business analytics within and between complex organizations. Because they impound deep knowledge of
MIS Quarterly Vol. 34 No. 2 pp. 305-328/June 2010
305
Seddon et al./Key Factors Affecting Organizational Benefits
new ways of designing and executing organizational processes, these complex software packages can cause considerable assimilation difficulties for client organizations (Robey et al. 2002). Some people equate the terms enterprise system and ERP, but in this paper the term enterprise system is used to refer to all large organization-wide packaged applications including enterprise resource planning (ERP), customer relationship management (CRM), supply chain management (SCM), data warehousing, and any application components of the software platforms on which these applications are built (e.g., SAPs NetWeaver and Oracles Fusion). Worldwide investment in enterprise systems (ES) has been extensive. According to AMR Research, such investment in ES was U.S. $36 billion in 2004 (Reilly 2005). Focusing just on ERP, Gartner (Hestermann et al. 2009) estimated that the worldwide ERP software market was U.S. $24 billion in 2008. Individual firms have also spent millions of dollars acquiring and implementing ES; for example, Disney Corporation reported at a presentation at SAPs annual user conference, Sapphire 2003,2 that it spent $400 million on its two-year SAP ES consolidation project. However, as with most large IT projects, not all ES projects go smoothly. Widely reported disasters include the FoxMeyer Drug company, a U.S. $5 billion per annum revenue pharmaceutical company that went bankrupt and sued SAP and Andersen Consulting for U.S. $500 million after its failed SAP implementation (Scott 1999), and Hersheys, a U.S. $4 billion per annum revenue confectionary maker, that spent U.S. $112 million implementing an SAP system, and which lost U.S. $150 million in revenue as a result of logistics problems in the first year after go live (Carr 2002). With such large expenditures on ES, and significant risks of failure, it is important for managers to understand what makes some ES investments more successful than others. Hence the research question posed in this paper: What key factors explain variance in organizational benefits from enterprise systems? Our answer to this question is the multi-project model of factors affecting organizational benefits from ES use shown
in Figure 1. We call this the organizational benefits from enterprise systems model, or OBES for short. The variables in OBES are defined in Table 1. In OBES, the term multiproject refers to the series of projects depicted on the righthand side of Figure 1. Although we are aware that groups of projects are often coordinated through some sort of overarching program or Program Office, the term project in this paper refers to individual ES projects. Normally such projects go live with different functionality or at different times or in different geographic locations. The OBES model consists of two variance models,3 one a long-term model of factors affecting organizational benefits from ES use (on the left), the other a shorter-term model of factors affecting organizational benefits from individual major ES business improvement projects post go live (on the right). Major business improvement projects are large projects that lead to changes in the way that work is done in the business; this is in contrast to cost-reduction projects (e.g., the merging of two systems) or so-called technical upgrades that lead to improvements in the ES infrastructure that are invisible to the business. The OBES model is split into two parts because most firms that invest in ES find themselves embarking on not just one, but a series of major business improvement projects over the course of some years (i.e., the initial implementation, followed by various upgrade, extension, and consolidation projects). The post-go-live consequences of each of these projects need to be modeled separately because some projects are likely to have better outcomes than others. Although longitudinal variation of benefits is not explored empirically in the current study, in formulating the OBES model we also sought to explain how the dependent variable, organizational benefits from ES use, from the perspective of senior management, changes over time. The benefits-versustime graph for individual projects on the right of Figure 1 is based on Ross and Vitale (2000), Gattiker and Goodhue (2005, Figure 4, p. 576), and Cotteleer and Bendoly (2006). It shows a typical dip in performance immediately following project go live, with benefits per period rising in the next few years. Not all firms experience this dip, but many do. The OBES model asserts that the drivers of increasing benefits in
The Sapphire conferences are a series of annual conferences organized by SAP, the worlds largest vendor of enterprise systems, in various locations around the world. Sapphire conferences provide a vehicle for SAP to inform their customers of new product developments and for their customers to try out new software and exchange information about implementation experiences and what they are doing with SAP software. At a typical 3-day U.S. Sapphire conference, there are over 10,000 attendees, many paying some thousands of dollars each to attend. Consistent with Ramiller et al.s (2008, p. 9) observation that practitioners interest in ES (specifically, ERP) peaked in 1999 then fell markedly by 2003, attendance at SAPs U.S. Sapphire conferences rose to 15,000 in 1998, dropped to 7,000 in 2003, then rose steadily to 15,000 in 2008 before dropping to 10,000 in 2009.
Webster and Watson (2002, p. xix) say variance theories incorporate independent variables that cause variation in dependent variables. In diagrammatic representations of variance theories, the higher the score for the independent variable at the tail of an arrow, the higher the score expected for the dependent variable at the head of the arrow. Two alternatives to variance models are process models (Mohr 1982), which identify a series of steps that if executed in the specified order lead to a predictable outcome, and configuration models (Ragin 1987), which assert that the presence or absence of certain combinations of independent variables affect an outcome.
306
MIS Quarterly Vol. 34 No. 2/June 2010
Long-Term Organizational Benefits Model

Expected long-term benefits for many major projects
Short-Term Model: Factors Driving Benefits from Each Project

On-Going ES Business-Improvement Projects
Major Project n
years
Benefits from the implementation Benefits from the previous system(s)
Integration Process Optimization Improved Access to Information

Pursuit of the three goals above guides decisions about which ES-improvement projects are to be undertaken in future.
H3 H4 H5
Organizational Benefits from System Use, from the Perspective of Senior Management
H6
Implementation Shakedown Continuous improvement project Go live 6 - 12 months Time
On-Going Major ES BusinessImprovement Projects
Functional Fit (FF) Overcoming organizational inertia (OOI)
H1
H2
Organizational Benefits from System Use, from the perspective of Senior Management for this project
(post go-live)
Figure 1. OBES Model of Factors Affecting Organizational Benefits from ES
Table 1: Definitions of Factors in the OBES Model (Figure 1)

Factor Organizational benefits from system use, from the perspective of senior management Definition The dependent variable in the OBES model, organizational benefits from system use, from the perspective of senior management, is an overall measure of senior managements perception of the benefits from the IT-based application. Such benefitswhich may be assessed either for the ES investment overall, or for individual ES projectsusually revolve around the software enabling (1) faster, more accurate process coordination and execution, including links with business partners up and down the supply chain, and (2) greater accuracy of and visibility into organizational data, resulting in more tightly controlled organizational processes, improved asset utilization, and improved decision making. In almost all cases, such benefits vary over time, as depicted in the two graphs in Figure 1. Functional fit is the extent to which the functional capabilities embedded and configured within an ES package match the functionality that the organization needs to operate effectively and efficiently. Saying that software has good functional fit is equivalent to saying that (1) the processes supported by the ES are efficient and effective for the organization, and (2) the software helps people in the organization get their jobs done. FF is conceptualized as being delivered and measured project by project. Note that FF does not consider the capacity or desire of people in the organization to use or work with the system, which is captured by OOI. Overcoming organizational inertia is the extent to which members of the organization have been motivated to learn, use, and accept the new system. During initial implementation and subsequent upgrade projects, considerable change-management effort, training, and support are needed to overcome organizational inertia. OOI is conceptualized as being measured project by project.
Short-term model: Project-focused independent variables likely to have different outcomes for each project: Functional fit (FF)
Overcoming organizational inertia (OOI)
307
Table 1. Definitions of Factors in the OBES Model (Figure 1) (Continued)

Factor Long-term independent variables: Integration Integration of information systems is the unification of processes, systems, and/or data from multiple computer-based systems, not necessarily in the one organization. According to Ross et al. (2006, pp. 2728), Integration links the efforts of organizational units through shared data. This sharing of data can be between processes to enable end-to-end transaction processing, or across processes to allow the company to present a single face to customers.The biggest challenge of integration is usually around data. Process optimization is any attempt to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of an organizations processes, ultimately in support of its strategic goals. By working with key clients to build software to help client firms standardize and optimize their processes, ES vendors offer their customers the promise of access to best practice process templates from other leading organizations. However, ES packages also contain facilities for tailoring processes to specific local needs. Improved access to information is any step taken to increase the provision of timely, accurate, relevant information (including previously hidden information) to key organizational decision makers. The term is intended to capture the same idea as Davenport et al.s (2002) informate. On-going major ES business improvement projects is a measure of the number and extent of investment in major business improvement projects that an organization has undertaken for improving and extending its enterprise system. Major business projects are those that lead to changes in the way that work is done in the business (as opposed to infrastructure changes that are invisible to the business). Examples include implementation of a CRM system after an ERP system, an upgrade to an existing ERP system that leads to changed processes, or a new data warehousing project. These projects are represented in the OBES model by the series of major business projects depicted on the right of Figure 1. Definition
Process optimization
Improved access to information On-going major ES business improvement projects
this project-oriented view of ES benefits are increased functional fit (e.g., as the result of minor projects) and success in overcoming organizational inertia. Wagner and Newell (2007) identify similar mechanisms. The long-term benefits graph on the left of Figure 1 is based on Davenport et al.s (2002) empirical findings (Figure 15, p. 26), where benefits per period are shown rising more than four years after the initial implementation. We argue that the two primary drivers of increasing benefits in this long-term model are the firms on-going investments in ES projects and increased benefits from each project as depicted in the graph on the right of Figure 1. With respect to new projects, choices of which projects to undertake are guided, in the main, by the pursuit of the three factors on the left-hand side of the long-term model (i.e., greater integration, process optimization, and improved access to information). The goal for this paper is to present, justify, and conduct a preliminary test of the OBES model. In the remainder of this paper, the OBES model is synthesized from the literature, then assessed using data from 126 customer presentations at two leading industry conferences, namely SAPs 2003 and 2005 Sapphire USA conferences. The contribution of this paper is this multi-project model of factors affecting organizational benefits from enterprise systems, combined with the evidence that the model seems to fit the data very well.
Is a New ES Benefits Model Needed?

This section uses a literature review, summarized in Table 2, to argue that an integrated model of factors affecting benefits from ES would be a valuable contribution to the IS literature. The papers cited in Table 2 were identified in a systematic analysis conducted in September 2007 using Google Scholar and Harzings Publish or Perish search tool. Since Google Scholars goal is to index close to the full population of academic publications, high average citations per year provide a reasonably objective indicator of the important publications in any topic area. Using the search terms, enterprise system and software, enterprise resource planning and software, and ERP and software, Google Scholar returned 2,370 distinct publications,4 with a total of 28,500 citations. After sorting this list into descending order by average citations per year since publication, the top 200 of those publications, accounting for 13,600 citations, were analyzed in depth. Of those 200 publications, the six primary focal areas considered relevant to the current study are shown in the middle column
As an indication of the extent of data quality problems in Google Scholarwhich are very realthere was no year of publication for 290 of the 2,370 publications.
308
Table 2. Example Studies of Enterprise System Projects and Benefits

Broad Theme Projects Primary Focus 1. Implementation projects overall Example Publications (see Notes below) Markus and Tanis (2000) 33, Hong and Kim (2002) 30, Bancroft et al. (1998) 19, Markus et al. (2000) 18, Ross and Vitale (2000) 16, Motwani et al. (2002) 12, Scott and Vessey (2002) 12, Sumner (2000) 11, Parr and Shanks (2000) 11, Rajagopal (2002) 10, Mabert et al. (2003a, b) 9, 9 (resp.), Somers and Nelson (2004) 9, Strong and Volkoff (2004) Bingi et al. (1999) 35, Umble et al. (2003) 28, Holland and Light (1999) 25, Robey et al. (2002) 23, Nah et al. (2001) 20, Al-Mashari et al. (2003) 18, Akkermans and van Helden (2002) 16, Sarker and Lee (2003) 14, Somers and Nelson (2001) 12, Parr et al. (1999) 8, Finney and Corbett (2007) Hong and Kim (2002) 30, Soh et al. (2000) 28, Scheer and Haberman (2000) 15, Keller and Teufel (1998) 14, Dalal et al. (2004) 9, Soffer et al. (2003) 9, Somers and Nelson (2003) 6, Sia and Soh (2002), Luo and Strong (2004), Rosemann et al. (2004), Wei et al. (2005), Soh and Sia (2005), Light (2005), Financial Executives International & CSC (2006), Keil and Tiwana (2006)
2. Project critical success factors (CSFs)
3. Functional fit
4. Overcoming organizational inertia: a. Resistance/user acceptance/ change management b. Learning/knowledge transfer Impacts 5. Organizational benefits from enterprise systems
Markus and Tanis (2000) 33, Markus (2004) 11, Aladwani (2001) 9, McAffee (2002) 9, Abdinnour-Helm et al. (2003) 8, Boudreau and Robey (1999) 5, Lapointe and Rivard (2005), Staehr et al. (2006), Calvert (2006), Liang et al. (2007) Robey et al. (2002) 23, Ko et al. (2005) 16, Boudreau and Robey (2005) 9, Boudreau (2003), Volkoff et al. (2004), Staehr et al. (2006) Markus and Tanis (2000) 33, Shang and Seddon (2002) 9, Skok and Legge (2002) 8, Wu and Wang (2007) 8, Deloitte Consulting (1998), Davenport et al. (2002), Gable et al. (2003), Sedera and Gable (2004), Gefen and Ragowsky (2005), Cotteleer and Bendoly (2006), Harris and Davenport (2006), Staehr (2007) Hong and Kim (2002) 30, Al-Mashari et al. (2003) 18, Davenport et al. (2004) 9, Bradford and Florin (2003) 9, Somers and Nelson (2003) 6, Gattiker and Goodhue (2005) 4, Shang (2001), Staehr et al. (2006)
6. Factors affecting variance in organizational benefits
Notes: 1. The average citation count per year since publication, from Google Scholar in September, 2007, is shown after most citations. 2. Citations are listed in descending order by this average annual citation count. 3. Additional author-selected studies that influenced the formulation of the OBES model are shown in italics.
of Table 2. Forty percent of the 200 publications were classified into these six primary focal areas.5 The studies cited in the right-hand column of Table 2 are arranged in descending order by average citations per year. Some publications, e.g., Markus and Tanis (2000) and Hong
and Kim (2002), appear in more than one band because they address more than one issue. Toward the end of each list of citations, we have added in italics a number of additional studies (with no average citation count) that were also influential in formulating the model in Figure 1. The OBES model was synthesized from a combination of the publications in both Table 2 and the broader IS literature on factors affecting benefits from organization-wide applications of IT. The studies in row 6 of Table 2 (i.e., those on factors affecting variance in organizational benefits from ES) define the benchmark against which the contribution of this study should
Focal areas considered not relevant include ES in general (12%, including Davenport (1998) with over 1,000 citations), supply chain (11.5%), ES technology (9%), eBusiness (7%), and technical integration (5%). Working independently, Moon (2007, Table 3) classified the ERP literature under similar headings to those in Table 2.
309
(a) Hong and Kim (2002), Figure 2, p. 28. N = 105 respondents from 34 firms. H4 was not significant. Organizational Fit of ERP
Data Fit Process Fit User Fit
Contingency Variables
ERP Adaptation Level (H2) Process Adaptation Level (H3) Organizational Resistance (H4)
ERP Implementation Success

H1 cost time performance benefits
(b) Davenport et al. (2004), Figure 2, p. 18. N = 163 firms globally.

Spend Time with the ES 0.23 0.18 Invest in the ES 0.16 Implement Extensively 0.2
Integrate
0.19
0.18 Optimize 0.15
Benefits Realized R2 = 0.13
0.22 Informate
(c) Gattiker and Goodhue (2005), Figure 3, p. 575. N = 111 manufacturing plants.
.81*** Interdependence -.09* Differentiation Customization Time elapsed since impementation -.19* Coordination Improvements .19*** Data Quality .14** .57*** .30*** Task Efficiency .52*** .15** .36*** Local (Plant) Level Overall Benefits *p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001
(a) Copyright 2002, Elsevier; used by permission. (b) Copyright 2004, Emerald; used by permission. (c) Copyright 2005, Regents of the University of Minnesota; used by permission.
Figure 2. Three Very Different Models of Factors Affecting Organizational Benefits from ES
be judged. Models from three key studies of factors affecting organizational benefitsHong and Kim (2002), Davenport et al. (2004), and Gattiker and Goodhue (2005)are shown in Figure 2. These studies were singled out because they present three very different explanations of the same dependent variable, organizational benefits from ES use. Hong and Kims model (see Figure 2a) focuses on project-oriented, not long-term, drivers of ES project success. It assumes that the project has been successful in going live, and includes project cost and time as indicators of project success. Hong and Kims H1, H2, and H3 all address the positive association
between functional fit and project success, and how to achieve functional fit (through either software or organizational adaptation). Empirically, based on their sample of 105 responses from project-team members in 34 firms, Hong and Kim report strong support for their H1 (p = 0.002, Adjusted R = 0.24). In their H4, Hong and Kim posit that organizational resistance moderates the relationship between fit and implementation success. Empirically, they found that this hypothesized H4 interaction term was not significant, but that there was a strong negative correlation between organizational resistance and success (r = -0.48, p < 0.01). Summa-
310
rizing, Hong and Kims model paints a very project-oriented view of factors affecting organizational benefits from ES. As a general model of factors affecting organizational benefits from ES, its major limitation is that it does not recognize explicitly the multi-project nature of ES ownership, nor does it seek to identify the long-term drivers of organizational benefits from ES. Davenport et al.s (2004) model (see Figure 2b) takes a longer-term, non-project-oriented view of factors affecting organizational benefits from ES that identifies three quite different benefit drivers compared to Hong and Kim. Its three variables, integrate, optimize, and informate6 were confirmed as important in Harris and Davenports (2006) recent global survey of 371 executives. Empirically, based on multipleregression analysis using data from a global sample of 163 organizations, Davenport et al. (2004) report significant path coefficients of 0.19, 0.18, and 0.15, respectively, between their three variables and organizational benefits (R = 0.13). As a general model, the limitation of Davenport et al.s model is that it does not recognize explicitly7 that projects are the mechanism through which organizations achieve their longerterm integration, process optimization, and improved access to information goals. As a consequence, it does not consider explicitly any project-related factors such as functional fit and change management that affect organizational benefits from ES. The third model in Figure 2Figure 2c, from Gattiker and Goodhue (2005)presents yet another very different explanation of key drivers of organizational benefits from ES. Its three antecedents of benefits are data quality, task efficiency, and coordination improvements. Task efficiency and coordination improvements are indicators of the extent to which an ES helps people in the organization get their jobs done, a key concept in our definition of functional fit. Data quality is also essential if management is to rely on reports derived from the ES. In addition, Davenport et al.s long-term benefit drivers (integration, process improvement, and informating) are implicit in Gattiker and Goodhues model: its interdependencecoordinationimprovement link attributes benefits to integration, its task efficiency implies that there are benefits to be had from process optimization, and its data quality variable implies benefits from improved access to information. Empirically, using data from 111 U.S. manufacturing
plants, Gattiker and Goodhue found that their three antecedents explained 71 percent of the variance in plant-level benefits from ES (Table 11, p. 574). The highly significant paths (coefficients of 0.52 and 0.36, both p < 0.001) for task efficiency and data quality, respectively, show that these attributes of what we have termed functional fit are important drivers of benefits from ES. As a general model, the limitation of Gattiker and Goodhues model is that it does not consider explicitly the multi-project nature of ES ownership shown in Figure 1, the possibility that different ES projects at the one plant or at different plants might have very different outcomes, or the difficulties of overcoming organizational inertia in each project. Summarizing, the purpose of this section has been to demonstrate that the current ES research literature contains a number of partial explanations of factors affecting organizational benefits from ES. What is missing is an integrated view. It would therefore seem valuable, we suggest, to try to integrate insights from the various explanations in the ES literatureas well as the prior IS literature on factors affecting benefits from other types of information systemsinto a coherent whole. The OBES model in this paper provides one such integrated view.
Hypothesis Development: Synthesizing the OBES Model from the Literature

This section describes how we used the extensive literature on organization-wide investments in IT, including investments in ES, to derive the six hypotheses in the OBES model. We also explain why the various factors in the model contribute to organizational benefits from ES. We commence by explaining our choice of dependent variable.
Organizational Benefits from ES Use

Building on the work of Cameron and Whetten (1983), Grover et al. (1996) argue that success measurement does not make sense unless the evaluator clearly defines the stakeholder from whose perspective success is to be evaluated. In the OBES model, the success perspective adopted is that of senior management (i.e., the top-management team). The benefits of interest in OBES are similar to those reported by Tallon et al. (2000), Davenport et al. (2002), Shang and Seddon (2002), Staehr et al. (2002), and Harris and Davenport (2006). For example, based on their most recent and largest global survey (371 executive respondents), Harris and Davenport (p. 4) report that the most frequent ES benefits sought by
Informatea term they borrow from Zuboff (1988)is defined as transforming enterprise solutions data into context-rich information and knowledge (Davenport et al. 2002, p. 6).
7
Harris and Davenport (2006) do discuss project-related factors, including the importance of change management (p. 9) and project management (p. 14), but these factors are not included in their model, in Figure 2b.
311
management were (in descending order of frequency of identification by respondents) better management decision making; improved financial management; faster, more accurate transactions; cost reduction; improved inventory and asset management; ease of expansion/growth and increased flexibility; and cycle-time reduction. Note that the benefits construct in OBES is conceptualized as before subtracting the costs of implementing and running the organizations ES. Of course, the ultimate dependent variable of interest to senior management is net benefit (DeLone and McLean 2003)that is, benefits less costs, but because costs are usually driven by factors different from those that drive benefits, in this paper we focus only on benefits and the factors that affect them. Finally, the single benefits construct on the left of Figure 1 represents benefits from all ES projects that have gone live in the organization to date, whereas the benefits constructs on the right are for benefits from each different project, post go live. Shang and Seddon suggest that a good way to assess organizational benefits from ES is to ask business-unit managers about benefits in their part of the organization. For the long-term model, an appropriate question might be: How satisfied is your business unit with benefits from the organizations overall investment in ES? For the project side of OBES, an appropriate question might be: How satisfied is your business unit with the benefits from this ES project? It is hypothesized in OBES that variance in organizational benefits from ES usewith benefits assessed from the perspective of senior managementis driven by variance in each of the six independent variables discussed below.
systems (possibly implemented over many projects) for the business, in OBES it is argued that functional fit should be assessed project by project. Functional fit was selected as the first hypothesized key benefit driver in OBES because organizations invest in ES for their functionality. Authors such as Dalal et al. (2004), Hong and Kim (2002), Rosemann et al. (2004), Soh et al. (2000, 2003), Soh and Sia (2005), Scheer and Haberman (2000), and Somers and Nelson (2003)see Table 2, row 3have argued repeatedly that functional fit is a key goal in ES implementation and, conversely, that misfit causes problems. Greater functional fit helps a multitude of people across the enterprise to play their part in the collective organizational endeavor. For example, an accounting clerk may use the ES to record a purchase invoice, an inventory clerk may use the ES to record receipt of raw materials, a marketing manager may use the ES to access details of last months sales to customer X, and a business-unit head may rely on monthly reporting to identify profit trends. Each of these peopleand for many organizations there are thousands of such peoplerelies on entering data into, or retrieving data from, the system to do his or her job. The greater the functional fit, the more efficient and effective the organizational processes supported by the system and the more the system helps users across the organization get their jobs done. The last 40 years of IS research and practice have shown repeatedly the importance of achieving functional fit in organization-wide applications of IT such as ES. Because functional fit is so important, tools such as data-flow diagrams (DeMarco 1978; Gane and Sarson 1979), event-driven process chains (Scheer 1994), UML (Object Management Group 2007), and business process execution language (BPEL; OASIS 2007) have been developed as increasingly sophisticated ways of representing the functional capabilities of a computer-based system. In practice, the importance to organizations of achieving greater functional fit with packaged software is evident in the range of techniques that ES vendors have developed for trying to help their customers achieve greater functional fit. These include configuration (changing parameters in various predefined tables); changing program code in various ways (Brehm et al. 2001); development of industry-specific solutions that extend base systems such as ERP by adding industry-specific functionality (e.g., for the mining, retail, apparel and footwear, and banking industries); use of portal programs to share access to multiple systems; use of todays emerging visual process-composition tools (Bnnen et al. 2008); and use of data warehouses and reporting front ends (e.g., dashboards) to simplify information retrieval and reporting (Volitich 2008). The fact that so many methods
Functional Fit
As defined in Table 1, functional fit is the extent to which the functional capabilities embedded and configured within an ES package match the functionality that an organization needs to operate effectively and efficiently. Although an ES supports (and sometimes frustrates) the work of many individuals in many parts of the organization, the unit of analysis chosen for assessing functional fit is the organization, not the individual.8 New functionality is delivered in each new major business ES implementation project, so although it is meaningful to talk of the overall fit of ES-based software
Functional fit might be assessed by asking senior business-unit managers about the efficiency and effectiveness of the overall processes supported by the system, and by asking a random sample of individuals from within the business unit how useful they find the ES to be in helping them do their jobs. When aggregating the second assessment, greater weight might be assigned to opinions of heavy users and those whose ES use has a greater impact on the organization.
312
have been developed to try to meet various organizations needs from their ES is clear evidence that functional fit is highly valued by ES customers. Empirically, as shown in row 3 of Table 2, studies such as that of the Financial Executives International and CSC (2006), Hong and Kim (2002), Keil and Tiwana (2006), Sia and Soh (2002, 2007), Soh and her colleagues (Soh et al. 2000, 2003; Soh and Sia 2005), and Somers and Nelson (2003) have provided evidence that functional fit is a key driver of organizational benefits from ES. In short, logical argument, evidence from practice, and findings from many researchers over the past 40 years all point to the same conclusion: achieving functional fit between software capabilities and organizational needs is probably the primary determinant of benefits from organization-wide applications of IT such as ES. Further, since new functionality is delivered through major business ES implementation projects, we hypothesize that H1: The greater the functional fit (FF) resulting from each ES implementation project, the greater the organizational benefits from ES use.
years after go live because organizational change is so difficult (Armenakis and Bedeian 1999; Kotter 1996) and no matter how good the technical system, unless people in the organization are motivated to use the system, and have sufficient knowledge of how to use the system effectively (Purvis et al. 2001), the organization is unlikely to gain the benefits it might from the system. Liang et al. (2007) appear to have chosen assimilation as the dependent variable in their study for similar reasons. Just as the past 40 years of IS research and practice discussed above testify to the importance of achieving functional fit with organization-wide applications of IT, so the same 40 years of research also demonstrate the importance of overcoming organizational inertia in ES implementation projects. As early as 1978, DeMarco was saying The lesson of the 60s is that no system is going to succeed without the active and willing participation of users. Users have to be made aware of how the system will work and how they will make use of it. They have to be sold on the system. Their expertise in the business area must be made a key ingredient to system development. They must be kept aware of progress, and channels must be kept open for them to correct and tune system goals during development (DeMarco 1978, p. 6). Similar evidence of the difficulty of effecting organizational change when new organization-wide applications of IT are introduced has been echoed in the work of Keen (1981; social inertia), Davis and Olson (1985; human and organizational factors), Joshi (1991, 1992; equity theory), Markus and Benjamin (1996; change agentry), Purvis et al. (2001; assimilation, Markus (2004; technochange), Boudreau and Robey (2005; improvised learning), and Lapointe and Rivard (2005; resistance to change). In the context of enterprise systems, authors such as Aladwani (2001), Lapointe and Rivard (2005), Markus and Tanis (2000), and McAfee (2002) (see row 4(a) of Table 2), and Ko et al. (2005), Robey et al. (2002), Volkoff et al. (2004), and Staehr et al. (2006) (see row 4(b) of Table 2) have similarly argued that no matter how good the software, and no matter how well it has been configured and tested, unless people in the organization are motivated to use the system, and in addition have sufficient knowledge of how to use the system effectively, the organization is unlikely to gain its desired benefits from the system. Summarizing, if organizations are to achieve benefits from organization-wide applications of IT such as ES, the people the ES is intended to support must have sufficient knowledge of the system to be able to use it effectively and be motivated
Overcoming Organizational Inertia

Overcoming organizational inertia (OOI) is defined in Table 1 as the extent to which members of the organization have been motivated to learn, use, and accept the new system. As for functional fit, the unit of analysis chosen for assessing OOI is the organization, not the individual. Further, since different change-management, training, and usability issues arrive with each new major ES implementation project, it also makes sense to assess OOI project by project. The positive outcome of OOI is assimilation, defined by Purvis et al. (2001) and Liang et al. (2007) as the extent to which the use of technology diffuses across the organizational work processes and becomes routinized in the execution of those processes. Failure to overcome organizational inertia often manifests as resistance to the system (Lapointe and Rivard 2005).9 Overcoming organizational inertia was selected as our second hypothesized key benefit driver for ES projects in the first few
It seems likely that OOI and assimilation will be easier to achieve if there is good functional fit (due to greater benefits to individual users, which motivates them to use the system more), and that greater assimilation leads to greater benefits. However, there is not space in this study to explore these additional propositions.
313
to use it. Further, the evidence from the past 40 years of research shows that overcoming organizational inertia has been a major obstacle in achieving benefit from many types of organization-wide applications of IT. All this suggests that OOI is so important that is should be selected as the second key driver, after functional fit, of benefits from ES. This argument is formalized in the following hypothesis: H2: The greater the success in overcoming organizational inertia (OOI) in each ES implementation project, the greater the organizational benefits from ES use.
Integration
As defined in Table 1, integration of information systems is the unification of processes, systems, and/or data from multiple computer-based systems, not necessarily in the one organization. A good example of a move to a more integrated system is the implementation of a single instance of SAP R/3 4.6c by Kraft Foods Inc. across 21 countries in Europe during the period 20022004. According to Ziskasen (2008), the resulting single instance of SAP ERP supports harmonization of business processes across Europe for 11,000 users processing three million sales orders for U.S. $7 billion in revenue per year. ES provide two distinct types of integration: back-end and front-end integration. Back-end integration shares data across applications through use of four mechanisms: a common database; real-time inter-system messaging, for example, through use of enterprise application integration (EAI) middleware (Linthicum 2000, Lee et al. 2003); systems that extract, transform, and load data from various sources into one or more data warehouses; and old-fashioned batch updates. Front-end integration provides a common user interface that simplifies user learning and use of a system through three mechanisms: standards that define how applications should look and feel (e.g., the standard menus and icons used in the Microsoft Office suite); portal programs that enable user organizations to build their own user interfaces; and integrated reporting engines that use standard reportspecification languages to support powerful data analytics (often called business intelligence), search, and dashboards by drawing data seamlessly from many different systems. These methods are often combined. Historically, for instance, ERP systems have used a single database and a standardized user interface for both transaction entry and reporting. Integration was selected as our third hypothesized key benefit driver in OBES because it is a frequently identified distin-
guishing feature of ES (Davenport 1998; Deloitte 1998; Markus and Tanis 2000) that often enables process optimization and/or improved access to information. Integration can lead to benefits via four distinct pathways. First, organizations usually find it simpler to work with one accurate version of the truth than with data from many distinct computer systems. In an integrated system, less human effort is wasted resolving uncertainty about the accuracy and comparability of information sourced from various systems10 and updating multiple systems. Second, as discussed in relation to H4 below, the end-to-end visibility enabled by real-time integration often provides the foundation needed for process optimization (Barki and Pinnsoneault 2005; Kohli 2007). Third, as discussed in relation to H5 below, greater information visibility enabled through all forms of integration (not just real-time integration) can help improve decision-making by reducing the time and effort required to discover and access valuable information (e.g., that might previously have been hidden in different systems). Fourth, systems with a common user interface are easier to learn and use than systems that require users to learn different interfaces for different systems. Such front-end integration should make it easier to overcome organizational inertia (H2). The following two studies provide empirical evidence of benefits flowing from ES-enabled integration. First, Davenport et al. (2004)in their previously mentioned 20012002 survey of 163 large mainly U.S. and European organizations (see Figure 2b)report a small but significant path coefficient of 0.19 between integration and organizational benefits. Second, in their event study of stock-market reactions to 116 announcements of ERP implementations in the United States during the period 19972001, Ranganathan and Brown (2006) found that firms that announced ERP projects with two or more value-chain modules or spanning multiple sites (i.e., more integrated systems) had significantly positive cumulative abnormal returns during the announcement window. Although it is not possible to explore empirically the following proposition in this paper, evidence is beginning to emerge that integrated computer-based systems are most beneficial when they link interdependent parts of an organi-
It is easy to underestimate the effort required to reconcile data from different systems (e.g., accounting reports from two companies that use different charts of accounts) or lists of customers in two separate billing systems (e.g., fixed line and mobile) run by one telecommunications provider. In an integrated system, this reconciliation effort has been done and processes are in place so that future reconciliation effort is not required. The entropy of the integrated system is therefore lower. This appears to be an important reason why managers prefer integrated over non-integrated computer-based systems. (Thanks to Prithvi Bhattacharya for discussion of this point.)
10
314
zation (i.e., parts of an organization that need to share information). Gattiker and Goodhue (2005), for instance (see Figure 2c), argued that manufacturing plants that were more interdependent would benefit more from ERP-enabled integration than plants that were less interdependent. Empirically, using data from 111 U.S.-based manufacturing plants using ERP systems, they found a very high association (path coefficient of 0.81) between level of interdependence between plants and improvements in coordination achieved through use of a shared ERP system. Likewise, Ross et al.s (2006) key 2 2 classification of operating models (p. 39) suggests that only organizations with so-called coordination and unification models will benefit strongly from ES-enabled integration. Modeling and testing the conditional propositions discussed in this paragraph is an interesting topic for future research, although beyond the scope of this paper. Summarizing, the above arguments suggest that integration is a key enabler of benefits from organization-wide applications of IT such as ES. It is, therefore, hypothesized that H3: The greater the level of ES-enabled integration, the greater the organizational benefits from ES use. The primary mechanism for increasing integration is through major ES improvement projects (not just ES business improvement projects).
to all of SAPs logistics-solution customers. Third, ESenabled increased visibility into an organizations processes allows better coordination of processes, leading, for example, to reduction of buffer stocks of inventory that were previously necessary due to difficulties in coordinating various parts of a business. Inventory reduction is a frequently reported benefit of ERP systems (Davenport et al. 2002). Fourth, because of their integration and cross-checking, ES often impose greater control on process execution than was possible with earlier systems. In most organizations, senior management regards such control as a good thing (Harley et al. 2006). Process optimization was selected as our fourth hypothesized key benefit driver in OBES because ES can be used to support process improvement, and process improvement has been shown to be a major driver of organizational benefits. The extensive literature on total quality management (TQM) (Garvin 1988; Samson and Terziovski 1999; Walton 1986), business process reengineering (Davenport 1993; Hammer 1996, 2007; Hammer and Champy 1993), and todays SixSigma projects (Breyfogle 2003), all argue that process improvement is an important way to achieve greater organizational benefits. Process optimization is regarded by the IT industry as so important that it has been the top-ranked business priority in Gartners (2008) global surveys of over 1000 CIOs for the past four years. Empirically, the literature on TQM and BPR summarized above shows that process optimization can be an important driver of organizational benefits. With respect to ES, Davenport et al. (2002, 2004), Gattiker and Goodhue (2005), and Staehr et al. (2006)three of the ES papers highlighted in row 6 of Table 2all report that process optimization was an important driver of benefits from ES. In short, since process optimization has been shown to be an important benefit driver in so many studies, and ES are known to be particularly helpful for process optimization, it is hypothesized that H4: The more steps taken to improve ES process optimization, the greater the organizational benefits from ES use. The primary mechanism for improving process optimization is through major ES business improvement projects, discussed in H6 below.
Process Optimization
Process optimization is defined in Table 1 as any attempt to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of an organizations processes. ES can be used to improve processes in four ways. First, ES are highly configurable business-process platforms (Keller and Teufel 1998; SAP 2008; Scheer 1994). This means that user organizations can improve processes by configuring, reconfiguring, and extending ES-supported processes with relative ease.11 Second, by working with key clients to build software to help integrate, optimize, and standardize their processes, ES vendors offer both their key and non-key customers the promise of access to best practice process templates from other leading organizations. For example, SAP recently worked with Ford and Caterpillar Logistics to develop what they claim is a best practice logistics system to manage spare parts distribution for the automobile and earth-moving machinery industries (SAP 2006). Importantly, these process options are now available
Improved Access to Information

11
Visual process composition tools based on services-oriented architecture promise to make this even easier in the future (Bnnen et al. 2008).
Improved access to information, a synonym for Davenport et al.s (2002) informate, is defined in Table 1 as any step taken
315
to increase the provision of timely, accurate, relevant information (including previously hidden information) to key organizational decision makers. Improved access to relevant, accurate information leads to increased organizational benefits because it enables decision makers to make better decisions (Kohli 2007; Kohli and Grover 2008), possibly even contributing to competitive advantage (Davenport and Harris 2007). Improved access to information was selected as our fifth hypothesized key benefit driver in OBES because ES-enabled improved decision making appears to be one of the most frequently reported and highly valued outcomes of ES use. For example, in their 20012002 global survey of 163 ESusing organizations, Davenport et al. (2002) reported that improved decision making was much valued: Organizations in our Accenture survey desired improved decision making more than any other benefit of enterprise solutions. Driven by the desire for accurate, consistent, complete, real-time information, executives are seeking the same type of efficient, transparent and frictionless real-time decision making capability that many manufacturers achieved with just-in-time manufacturing (p. 21). Harris and Davenport (2006) reported this same finding in their 2005 global survey of 371 ES-using organizations. Further, the link between ES use and better decision making appears to be causal. Harris and Davenport, for instance, report that 59 percent of organizations identified analytics for decision making as a distinctive and useful capability delivered by their ES (p. 14). Moreover, and consistent with Gartners 2008 report that the most frequently identified technical priority for CIOs in the past three years has been business intelligence applications, the recent spate of takeovers of vendors of business intelligence software12 by the worlds major ES vendors suggests that the ES vendors believe that adding greater capacity to access relevant information will further enhance their product suites. Based on the knowledge that provision of accurate, relevant information has been a primary focus of much IS research
(Davis 1974; Keen and Scott-Morton 1978; Wixom and Watson 2001) and success measurement (DeLone and McLean 1992; Ives et al. 1983) for over 30 years, plus the above empirical evidence that ES enable much-valued improved decision making, it is hypothesized in OBES that H5: The higher the level of ES-enabled improved access to information, the greater the organizational benefits from ES use. As with H4, the primary mechanism for improved access to information is through major ES business improvement projects, discussed in the next section.
On-Going Major ES Business Improvement Projects

The final construct in the OBES model, on-going major ES business improvement projects, is defined in Table 1 as a measure of the number and extent of investment in major business improvement projects that an organization has undertaken for improving and extending its enterprise system. There are four key attributes of this construct. First, in formulating OBES, we limited the on-going projects construct to major business improvement projects only. This excludes infrastructure projects and technical upgrades that may lead to reduced cost, but dont deliver new functionality to the business. Our interest is in on-going major business improvement projects because these are the projects that deliver significant new functionality to users (and typically involve the need for additional training, change management, and support). Second, investments in these major business projects seem to be the key driver of increased value from ES over the long term (as depicted in the rising long-term benefits graph in Figure 1). Assuming management invests in projects that promise positive net present value, the greater the investment in these projects, the greater the expected organizational benefits from ES. For example, if a firm invests a total of $30 million in major ES projects in one year (in one large or a number of smaller projects), it might expect to receive, say, $10 million in benefits each year for the next four years, possibly more. As additional investment continues year after year, benefits per year would be expected to rise. Third, increased organizational maturity in running ES projects and in using ES should also lead to increased benefits from later compared to earlier projects. Although the learning-curve effect is unlikely to be as pronounced as, say, in manufacturing (Argote and Epple 1990), learning by both the ES project team and the organization overall about how to implement softwarewhich is not the same as the learning
In April 2006, Microsoft purchased ProClarity for an undisclosed sum. In February 2007, Oracle purchased Hyperion for U.S. $3.3 billion. In October 2007, SAP announced the purchase Business Objects for U.S. $6.7 billion, saying SAP and Business Objects believe that customers will gain significant business benefits through the combination of new, innovative offerings of enterprise-wide business intelligence solutions along with embedded analytics in transactional applications. In November 2007, IBM announced the purchase of Cognos for U.S. $5 billion. Finally, in July 2009, IBM announced its intention to purchase SPSS for $1.2B.
12
316
how to use the software (H2)means that an organization that has completed, say, five projects is likely to do a better job with its sixth project than an organization that is about to commence its first. Thus it is expected that organizational benefits from ES will be correlated with both the number and scope of completed projects. Finally, because integrating, optimizing, and improved access to information (IO&I) discussed in H3, H4, and H5 are actually implemented through projects, one would expect considerable correlation between measures of IO&I and ongoing major ES business improvement projects. However the relationship between these variables is not simple because integration may be an enabler of optimization and improved access to information in some projects but not others, and some projects may be in pursuit of goals other than IO&I (e.g., compliance with changes in government regulations). Summarizing, on-going major ES business improvement projects was selected as our sixth and final key benefit driver in OBES because the benefits achievable from integration, optimization, improved access to information, and other goals (e.g., compliance with government regulations) are actually realized through on-going improvement projects that deliver new functionality to users. Further, as discussed earlier, if management invests wisely, the greater the investment in such ES improvement projects, the greater the benefit the organization should expect from ES. Therefore, and consistent with the views expressed in Davenport et al. (2002, 2004) and Staehr et al. (2006), it is hypothesized that H6: The greater the investment in on-going major ES business improvement projects, the greater the organizational benefits from ES use.
overcoming organizational inertia means that people in the organization are motivated and able to use the new system once it has gone live, good scores on these two factors appear to be all that is necessary for producing strong organizational benefits from an ES. We therefore expect these two factors to be the primary determinants of benefits from all ES implementation projects. In addition, the left-hand side of the OBES model attempts to convey the idea that on-going efforts to integrate, optimize, and provide improved access to information (the factors from Davenport et al. (2002, 2004)) lead an organization to undertake various major ES improvement projects. As each project goes live, the high-level goals of integrating, optimizing, and providing improved access to information are translated into real functionality supporting real processes that help or hinder possibly thousands of individuals in doing their (possibly new) jobs. Note that in formulating OBES we chose not to include the many so-called critical success factors (CSFs) that affect an ES project teams success in delivering a full-scope, thoroughly tested working system, on time, and within budget. Most of these CSFs (e.g., the 55 identified in Finney and Corbett 2007), appear to be antecedents of the variables on the project side of the OBES model. For example, based on analysis of 133 customer presentations from Sapphire USA 2007, Liu and Seddon (2009) report that having a balanced team of knowledgeable business users and IT staff was a key factor in achieving functional fit, and having a good communication plan was a key factor in overcoming organizational inertia. Also, in formulating OBES we chose not to explore relationships between the six independent variables. For example, the discussion above suggests that integration is often a key enabler of both process optimization and improved access to information, greater functional fit reduces difficulties in overcoming organizational inertia, and it is the combination of FF and OOI (subject to successful go live) that matters for achieving benefits from ES implementation projects. Exploration of these and other extensions to OBES has been left for future research. Obviously, since the OBES model is concerned with very complex organizational phenomena, it is not suggested that the six factors in the model explain all the variance in organizational benefits from ES use. Nor is it suggested that the factors in the OBES model are new; they are not. The reason for citing so much of the early IS literature in arguing the importance of the OBES factors was to make the point that IS researchers have known about the importance of these success drivers for organization-wide applications of IT for many
The OBES Model in a Nutshell

The OBES model in Figure 1 is a synthesis of many ideas from the literature, particularly those from the ES literature cited in Table 2. It is an attempt to identify the most important factors that drive benefits from ES over many years of ES ownership, and to place them as logically as possible in a nomological model. In particular, its structure reflects the multi-project nature that seems to be a key characteristic of ES ownership today. Focusing on the right-hand (projects) side of the model, there are strong logical grounds, and strong support in the IS literature, for the view that both functional fit and overcoming organizational inertia are key drivers of benefits from an ES in the first few years after go live. Further, since functional fit means the system has the required functionality, and
317
decades. It is argued, however, that OBES is a significant contribution to the ES literature because no prior study (e.g., those in row 6 in Table 2) has proposed a model with as much explanatory power as OBES. Although many of the studies in Table 2 have explored aspects of issues related to obtaining benefits from ES in more depth than in this paper, the contribution of this paper is to have assembled in one place a model that has more descriptive power than any prior paper. Finally, note that unlike studies such as Taylor and Todd (1996) and Rai et al. (2002), which rely on the extent of variance explained to choose between competing models, our claim that OBES explains more than the studies in Table 2 is based on logic. Our claim is that since it is possible to point to important phenomena associated with deriving benefits from ES that the prior models in row 6 of Table 2 do not address, yet which OBES does, the OBES model has more explanatory power than any of them. Of course it remains to be seen whether empirical support for the OBES model is as strong as the literature review and theoretical considerations above suggest it should be. The remainder of this paper, therefore, presents details and findings from a preliminary test of the OBES model in Figure 1. The purpose of this test is to provide a reality check on the meaningfulness of the hypotheses, the overall model structure, and to make a preliminary assessment of the strength of support for the model.
Texaco, Disney, Hershey Foods, Lockheed Martin, Shell, Sony, and Texas Instruments. Streaming video of each 45minute presentation, together with PowerPoint slides and full transcripts of each presentation, were available from the SAP community website13 for some months after the conference. From the above-mentioned 100-plus customer presentations, we selected all 60 presentations that discussed either or both of benefits realized from the enterprise system, and project success factors.14 The organizations are quite large. Of the 30 organizations that reported revenues in their presentations, 27 had 2002 revenues above U.S. $1 billion per annum. Combined, the presentations are a very rich source of information about the goals, issues, and outcomes of ES projects in large organizations. Sapphire 2005 was similar: there were lots of presentations from many large customers, each with detailed and interesting stories of their experiences with their SAP software. Sapphire presentations relate to all of SAPs product lines, including enterprise resource planning (ERP), customer relationship management (CRM), supply chain management (SCM), and data warehousing (BW). The presentations themselvesthe data for this studyinvolve 1,630 PowerPoint slides and 434 single-spaced pages of transcribed presentations from Sapphire 2003, and 2,056 PowerPoint slides and 600 single-spaced pages of transcribed presentations from Sapphire 2005. Although the weighting of topics in each presentation varies enormously, the typical presentation describes the business, the reasons for selecting and implementing the software, the organizations application architecture, time lines and staffing for the project, details of some aspect of the functionality of the software, benefits from the project, and lessons learned. Appendix A lists the organizations and presenter roles in all 130 presentations initially selected for analysis. Business managers comprised 34 percent of presenters, with CIOs representing 22 percent and senior ES managers or project managers representing 45 percent. As shown in Appendix A, speakers in four Sapphire 2005 presentations discussed essentially the same topic as in 2003, although at later stages of development. To avoid double counting, these four presentations were ultimately dropped; that is, the percentages in the Table 5 for 2005 are based on a sample of 66, not 70, presentations.
13
Research Methodology
The method chosen for conducting our preliminary test of the OBES model in Figure 1 was qualitative (content) analysis by two pairs of coders of a total of 130 customer presentations from two of SAPs Sapphire conferences: 60 from Sapphire USA 2003, and 70 from Sapphire USA 2005. As explained in the Introduction, Sapphire conferences are organized annually by SAP, the worlds largest vendor of enterprise systems, both to inform their customers of new product developments and for their customers to exchange information about their experiences with SAP software. The detailed discussion that follows focuses on our analysis of data from Sapphire 2003, but an equally rigorousthough less finegrainedanalysis was also conducted of presentations from Sapphire 2005. Results from both analyses are presented shortly. At Sapphire 2003 there were over 100 presentations from senior business and IS managers from customer organizations such as Adidas, Audi, Barclays Bank, Bosch, Chevron
Http://www.sap.com/community.
Presentations excluded did not discuss topics relevant to the model. Examples of excluded presentations were where customers discussed projects that had not yet gone live or technical issues such as their experiences using various SAP tools such as Solution Manager.
14
318
The 60 sets of Sapphire 2003 PowerPoint presentations and transcripts were content analyzed independently by coders 1 and 3 using the definitions in Table 1 and the strength-ofevidence (SoE) criteria defined in Table 4. Examples of SoE judgments assessing SoE as 1, 2, and 3 for H3 (Integration) are presented in Table 3. Examples of SoE judgments for the other five hypotheses are included in Appendix B. Using one row per presentation, and one pair of columns for each of the six OBES factors (H1-H6), slide numbers and transcript page numbers were recorded in a spreadsheet when evidence of links to benefits was identified. Strength-of-evidence judgments from the two coders were then compared and differences reconciled through discussion until no difference in SoE scores exceeded 1.15 The lower half of the analysis spreadsheet showing details for cases 25 through 60 and column totals (rows 6365) from coder 1 after discussion and reconciliation is shown in Figure 3. Scores were identical 85 percent of the time. Eight percent of the time, coder 1s scores were higher than coder 3s; eight percent of the time, coder 3s scores were higher than coder 1s. In other words, the disagreements were not systematically biased one way or the other. A similar process to that described above was used for analyzing the Sapphire 2005 presentations. First, coders 1 and 2 independently coded all 70 customer presentations (including the four later dropped) using a binary evidence/no evidence classification.16 Their initial level of agreement was about 70 percent of 70 7 = 490 judgments.17 Second, after about ten hours of discussion, the two coders achieved 100 percent agreement in their identification of presentations where there was at least some support (i.e., where SoE was at least 1) for each hypothesis. This analysis of the 2005 data
was actually done before the analysis of the 2003 data. Further, since it takes about two weeks of intense work from two people to analyze a set of Sapphire presentations, and the overall results from the two conferences both provide considerable support for all six hypotheses (see columns (f) and (g) in Table 5), it was decided that there was little benefit to be gained by reanalyzing the Sapphire 2005 results using the finer-grained SoE = 1, 2, or 3 classification used for Sapphire 2003. Therefore, Table 5 presents results using two different granularities of analysis.
Results
Results from the analyses of customer presentations from both Sapphire 2003 and 2005 are presented in Table 5. Rows 1 through 6 are for H1 through H6. Row 7 reports frequency of discussion of efforts to achieve successful go live.18 Columns (b) through (f) summarize the 60 7 = 420 pairs of SoE judgments made by coders 1 and 3 during the analysis of Sapphire 2003. Column (b) shows the Gamma statistic (Siegel and Castellan 1988) measuring inter-rater correlation for SoE coding for each hypothesis after reconciling opinions; agreement is high. The percentages in columns (c) through (f) are the averages of percentages from coders 1 and 3. Column (f) shows total percentages (SoE scores of 1, 2, or 3) where there was any support for the six hypotheses (rows 16) or evidence of interest in achieving successful go live (row 7). Column (g) shows results from coder 1s and coder 2s analysis of the 66 Sapphire 2005 presentations. These percentages are directly comparable to those from Sapphire 2003 in column (f). Finally, we use the fact that no firm would embark on an ES implementation project without expecting to successfully go live, yet only 78 percent of 2003 presentations and 53 percent of 2005 presentations discussed implementation project issues (see row 7 of Table 5), to support our claim that the percentages in Table 5 probably also understate the importance of each of the six OBES factors (H1H6) in the various organizations. Since the percentages in columns (f) and (g) of Table 5 are so high, it may be concluded that the evidence from these 126 Sapphire 2003 and 2005 presentations provides support for all six hypotheses depicted in Figure 1. To be more precise,
As explained in Appendix B, coding strength-of-evidence scores for the presentations requires much judgment (e.g., is the evidence in this presentation strong or just moderate?). For this reason, there was initially only 40% agreement between coders 1 and 3. Coder 1 was lower than coder 3 in 38% of judgments, and higher in 22%. After discussion, 47% of coder 1s SoE scores were revised up and 27% were revised down, and 8% of coder 3s scores were revised down and 15% were revised up. In 15% of cases, after considering each others argumentsand provided the difference in SoE scores was no more than onethe two coders agreed to disagree. Robey et al. (2002, Table 2, p. 26) use a similar dual-rater, binary, frequency-of-mention technique for assessing the importance of various motivations for implementing ERP. Seven, not six, judgments were made for each of the 70 cases because in addition to looking for evidence of support for each hypothesis, coders 1 and 2 also recorded evidence of interest in achieving successful project go live. These data are used in the Results section to support our claim that that the statistics in Table 5 probably understate the importance of the six key factors for driving benefits in the study organizations.
17 16
15
18
Examples of strength of evidence judgments of project management interest in delivering a working system at project go live (necessary for realizing organizational benefits from ES) are shown in Appendix C.
319
Table 3. Example of Strength-of-Evidence Judgments for H3*

Factor 3. Integration SoE 1 Example Our transportation analysts and customer service reps are more effective because theyre not involved nearly as much in trying to resolve issues around freight rating. Our process integration with R/3 allows for much better visibility into the rating process. We no longer have this black box interface between two systems where we really dont totally understand what transpired. We now understand the process and can see it. And we have built common transportation processes and systems in North America and we have applied this capability to one of our businesses in Europe. (case 6, transcript p. 5) We did also an application integration with online ordering. This is not an SAP-system, by the way, because it is not implemented yet. We integrated this because of two specific functions which is team-ware and employee sales. Customer service department also does employee sales. This online ordering system is also, of course, integrated or connected to AFS R/3. (case 3, transcript p. 2) (Note: AFS is SAPs Apparel and Footwear Industry Solution.) Explanation of Strength-of-Evidence Classification In this quotation, the vice president of Logistics and IT from Armstrong World, a global manufacturer and marketer of interior furnishings employing 14,000 people, explains that messaging-based integration of SAP R/3 with Rand McNallys Milemaker has reduced the level of manual intervention required to determine freight charges. On the scale from 1 to 3, the strength of this evidence that integration leads to organizational benefits from ES use was judged to be limited ( i.e., 1). In this quotation, the CIO from Adidas, a U.S. $6.5 billion sporting goods firm, explains why Adidas integrated their CRM solution with an online ordering and SAPs R/3 AFS, using messaging. Since this integration with AFS was of course desirable, the strength of this evidence that Integration leads to organizational benefits from ES use was judged to be moderate (i.e., 2). In discussing this slide, the speaker from Coca Cola Enterprises, explained that her firm used SAPs data warehouse (the server at the top of the diagram) to integrate information from multiple different systems (the four servers at the bottom of the diagram) to reduce purchasing expenditure. Since this was obviously a major integration effort, which would not have been conducted unless Coca Cola Enterprises believed it would lead to benefits, the strength of this evidence that integration (in this case using a data warehouse, not real-time messaging between systems as in the above two examples) leads to organizational benefits was judged to be strong (i.e., 3). (Aside: Since the data warehouse provides access to much richer information for many people, e.g., slide 33 says Never had access to this sort of information before, this slide was also one of nine in the Coca Cola Enterprises presentation that led to an SoE rating of 3 for H5, the hypothesis that improved access to information is a driver of organizational benefits from ES use.)
CCEs Current Implementation - Continued

Tax Cube Tax Cube Indirect Purchase Cube Indirect Purchase Cube Direct Purchase Cube Direct Purchase Cube GR Notification Cube GR Notification Cube Freight Cube Freight Cube Statistics Cube Statistics Cube Source Header ODS Source Header Source Item ODS ODS Source Item ODS Source Schedule Line ODS Source Schedule Line ODS Detail Reporting ODS for Indirect Purchase Detail Reporting ODS for Indirect Purchase Freight Detail ODS Freight Detail ODS Freight Indicator ODS Catalog ID ODS Catalog ID ODS Shopping Cart ODS Shopping Cart ODS EFORMS ODS EFORMS ODS GR Notification ODS Plant X-Ref ODS Plant X Distribution ODS Expense- Ref ODS Expense Distribution ODS
BW RS6000 Upload from Flat Files SAP Server Master Data Text Master Data Attribute
Company Name / SAP AG 2003, Title of Presentation, Speaker Name / 22
Master Data Text Master Data Attribute Master Data Hierarchy Freight Detail Freight indicator PO Header PO Item PO Schedule Line Plant X-Ref Tax Expense Distribution
Master Data Hierarchy National Vendor # Budget Catalog ID Shopping Cart Header Shopping Cart Item GR Notification EFORM
Other Source Systems INFINIUM AS/400 BASIS AS/400 EBP RS/6000 SAP R/3 RS/6000
Copyright by Coca Cola Enterprises Inc Reprinted by permission of Coca-Cola Enterprises. All rights reserved.
*Similarly detailed examples of SoE judgments for the five other hypotheses are presented in Appendix B. A total of 60 7 = 420 of these SoE judgments were made independently by the two raters, then reconciled to a difference not exceeding 1.
320
Table 4. Criteria Used for Scoring Strength of Evidence in the Qualitative Context Analysis
Criterion No evidence concerning the importance of the factor in the presentation Factor mentioned explicitly but in passing (e.g., by one dot point on one slide) or implicitly, but not discussed at length (see example 1 in Table 3) Factor clearly identified as a benefit driver (e.g., by a full slide) or by one or more paragraphs of the transcript (see example 2 in Table 3) Strong evidence of the importance of the benefit driver (e.g., discussed at length) or the point was emphasized by speaker (see example 3 in Table 3) SoE Score 0 1 2 3
Figure 3. Lower Half of Coder 1s Analysis Worksheet (Cases 25 through 60)*

*Three examples of strength-of-evidence decisions (see Table 4) are presented in Table 3. Table 5 shows the average percentages from teh bottom three rows of this and coder 2s equivalent spreadsheet.
321
Table 5. Summary of Evidence Supporting the Six Hypotheses

Sapphire 2003 Data Inter-rater correlation post reconciliatio n (Gamma statistic) (b) 0.96 0.97 0.99 0.99 0.98 1.00 1.00 Percent of the 60 presentations containing evidence supporting H1H6 (and project go live) Mentioned as a factor (SoE = 1) (c) 13 18 18 25 18 28 9 Clearly identified (SoE = 2) (d) 44 26 33 47 14 40 38 Strong Evidence (SoE = 3) (e) 37 28 44 14 12 7 32 Sapphire 2005 Data % of the 66 presentations with SoE > 0 (supporting Total % H1H6 and (SoE = 1, 2, or 3) project go live) (f) 94 73 94 86 43 75 78 (g) 95 52 95 88 67 68 53
Hypothesis (a) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Functional fit Overcoming organizational inertia Integration Process optimization Improved access to information On-going projects
Project go live
Notes: 1. SoE stands for strength-of-evidence. Definitions of SoE = 0, 1, 2, and 3 are given in Table 4. 2. Achieving successful project go live may be assumed to be a goal for all ES implementation projects, but was only discussed explicitly in 78% and 53% of presentations in 2003 and 2005, respectively. This suggests that the percentages in this table probably also understate the importance of the factors in H1 through H6.
1.
The evidence is strongly consistent with the view that organizations invest in ES to help them execute some part of their business processes more effectively. That is why software functionality (H1), integration (H3), and process optimization (H4) were discussed so often. The evidence also suggests strongly that two major difficulties organizations face in gaining benefits from their investments in ES are overcoming organizational inertia (H2) and successfully going live (row 7). The evidence is consistent with the view that organizations invest in ES to help them gain access to better information for decision making (H5). Further, and consistent with the earlier quotation from Davenport et al. (2002), comments such as outrageously beneficial and the most accurate, timely, actionable data that the company has seen in years from some presenters (see the examples of the SoE analysis for H5 in Appendix B) show that improved access to information is a very important source of benefits for some organizations. ES ownership usually involves an ongoing series of major business projects (H6).
Discussion and Limitations

In assessing the results reported above, the first question one might ask is whether it is valid to use presentations from Sapphire conferences as a source of data for testing a variance model such as that presented in Figure 1. On the negative side, (1) all firms have a vested interest in showcasing the positive aspects of their products, so it is likely that SAP was selective in choosing the topics for presentation at Sapphire, (2) the speakers would have felt that their role as Sapphire presenters obliged them to focus on the good outcomes of their implementations and to gloss over the problems their organizations had experienced as they implemented their systems, and (3) the presenters would have had a tendency to present themselves and their firms in a good light.19 This might mean that conclusions based on content analysis of the presentations reveal little of value about the factors that really drive benefits from ES. On the positive side, as is apparent from the examples in Table 3 and Appendix B, the Sapphire
2.
3.
19
4.
Self-reporting bias is an issue in all single-informant studies (e.g., surveys), but is likely to be stronger at a Sapphire conference than, say, in an anonymous survey, because respondents and their firms are on display in a highly visible setting.
322
presentations provide rich and detailed first-hand accounts from senior managers of their experiences in a wide range of major corporations, the presenters knew they were talking to knowledgeable peers, which would have tended to keep them from stretching the truth too far, and some of the comments in the presentations are quite frank about difficulties their organizations experienced. After weighing the pros and cons above, we have concluded that the evidence from the Sapphire conferences is useful for researching in the area of benefits from ES and benefit drivers. The strongest evidence to support this conclusion is that, in a parallel study, Yang and Seddon (2004) analyzed the same 60 Sapphire 2003 presentations to identify benefits from ES and project critical success factors (CSFs). The resultant lists of benefits and CSFs are very similar to those reported by prior authorsDeloitte (1998), Davenport et al. (2002), and Harris and Davenport (2006) for benefits, and factors from the 45 studies summarized in Finney and Corbett (2007) for CSFsyet those studies used a range of different research methods. Since results from content analysis of these same Sapphire presentations produced results in two closely related topics so similar to those of prior researchers, it seems reasonable to conclude that the results from the content analysis reported in this paper may also be trusted. A second question is whether the model in Figure 1 is a valid representation of cause and effect for the phenomena described in the 126 presentations. Here, we acknowledge that there are undoubtedly other factors not explored in this studyfor example, information quality (Gattiker and Goodhue 2005), organizational context, or alignment of the ES with business strategy (Lee and Myers 2004; Somers and Nelson 2003)that may be important drivers of organizational benefits from ES, and, as discussed earlier, there may be relationships between the factors (e.g., greater integration probably enables greater process optimization and improved access to information). Unfortunately there is not space to address these issues in this paper. We can, however, make two positive claims about the validity of the OBES model. First, because it was possible to explore causality at the individual-case level, we believe that the six relationships described by the OBES model are both important and causal. Second, because most firms undertake multiple ES-improvement projects (see row 6, Table 5), and the functional fit and overcoming organizational inertia outcomes of each project could differ markedly from project to project, the two-part, multi-project structure of OBES is important. Since most of the organizations studied were very large and from a wide range of industries, and causal arguments sup-
porting the model in Figure 1 do not appear to be either SAPspecific or peculiar to the organizations studied, the results reported here are likely to be applicable to other large organizations using either SAP or non-SAP enterprise-system software in Western-style organizations around the world. However, because the needs and resources of small organizations are so different, we are not confident that the results above are applicable to small Western-based organizations. Nor are we confident that they apply to large or small organizations in countries such as China with highly collectivistic decision processes (Hofstede 2001). With regard to the possible applicability of OBES to organization-wide applications of IT other than ES (e.g., custom-built software), or software such as corporate e-mail systems, we are also very cautious. After the implementation of, say, a corporate e-mail system, logic says that functional fit and overcoming organizational inertia will be important. However, e-mail systems do not constrain the processes through which people in an organization interact, as ES do. Nor is it clear that either integration with other systems is important, or that concepts like process optimization and access to better information for decision making (e.g., through business intelligence) have any meaning in an e-mail context. Thus we do not claim that OBES is applicable to all organization-wide applications of IT.
Conclusion
The objective of this study was to synthesize from the literature and conduct a preliminary test of a model of key enterprise system (ES) success factors that reflects the multiproject reality that organizations today all seem to face as they seek to derive increasing benefits from their enterprise systems. The two-part organizational benefits from ES (OBES) model in Figure 1 summarizes and integrates insights from the research literature on organization-wide applications of IT over the last 40 years, particularly the ES research literature summarized in Table 2. A two-part model was required because most organizations that implement ES find themselves wanting or needing to conduct additional projects after the initial implementation (e.g., to upgrade the initial software and/or to improve and extend the original system). Since projects can have varying success, it was necessary to separate out the project-related factors on the right from the longer-term drivers of organizational benefits from ES use on the left. The right-hand side of the model hypothesizes that two factors identified repeatedly in the literaturefunctional fit and overcoming organizational inertiaare key determinants of organizational benefits from
323
each major ES implementation project in the first few years after go live. The left-hand side of the model hypothesizes that three factors from Davenport et al. (2002, 2004) integration, process optimization, and improved access to informationtogether with a fourth factor, on-going major ES business improvement projects, explain variance in organizational benefits from ES use over the longer term. As each ES business improvement project goes live, the highlevel goals such as integrate, optimize, and improved access to information that motivated the project are translated into real systems and real processes that help or hinder individuals as they attempt to do their jobs. A preliminary test of the OBES model was conducted by analyzing 126 customer presentations from SAPs 2003 and 2005 Sapphire USA conferences. The tests involved looking for evidence in each presentation of whether any or all of the six independent variables in the model were described as important determinants of what senior management would view as benefits from their investment in ES. Details and examples of the analysis were presented in Table 3, Appendices B and C, and Figure 3, with results summarized in Table 5. Although Table 5 is silent about the amount of variance explained, the high frequencies reported in Table 5 indicate that all six factors in the model are important drivers of organizational benefits from ES. The contribution of this paper on this important topic is its synthesis of so much of the prior literature, its choice of which factors to include and exclude, the arrangement of those factors in the two-part OBES model, and the evidence that those factors are important, not the novelty of those factors. OBES is an important contribution because it provides a richer overall explanation of the drivers of organizational benefits from ES than any prior paper summarized in Table 2, there is strong theoretical justification for each hypothesis in the model in both the ES and the broader IS literature, and it has preliminary empirical support. The explanatory power of OBES comes from its two-part structure and its roots in over 40 years of IS research. The two-part structure is necessary because, as is clear from row 6 in Table 5, many organizations undertake multiple on-going ES improvement and upgrade projects and some projects are likely to have better outcomes than others. Finally, four directions for future research have been identified in the course of this study. First, the test above is preliminary. It is important to test OBES with different types of data, in a range of other settings, both to continue assessing the importance of the OBES factors and to identify other key factorsfor example, information quality, organizational context, assimilation (Liang et al. 2007), strategic alignment, project complexity, or degree of radical change or transformation in a projectthat might need to be added to the model.
Second, it would be valuable to identify key factors that explain variance in the independent OBES constructs. For instance, as mentioned above, Liu and Seddon (2009) suggest that many implementation project CSFs influence ES success through their impact on the OBES benefit drivers. Third, as suggested in the final paragraph in the justification of H3, there are good reasons for believing that integration is not always beneficial to an organization. It would be interesting to identify contexts where the claim made in OBES that integration is always beneficial breaks down. Fourth, as discussed earlier, it would be interesting to explore relationships among the OBES independent variables. In short, there is plenty of scope for future research in enterprise systems!
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Shari Shang, Christina Soh, Sia Siew Kien, Rens Scheepers, Toomas Tamm, Kalle Lyytinen, colleagues at the research seminars at the University of Melbourne and the University of Sydney, students in Enterprise Systems at the University of Melbourne, and the anonymous reviewers for comments and feedback on this and earlier versions of this paper. Thanks also to SAP for sharing their Sapphire presentations with their user community, and to the speakers from the various firms who agreed to allow slides from their presentations to be included in this paper.
References
Abdinnour-Helm, S., Lengnick-Hall, M. L., and Lengnick-Hall, C. A. 2003. Pre-implementation Attitudes and Organizational Readiness for Implementing an Enterprise Resource Planning System, European Journal of Operational Research (146:2), pp. 258-273. Akkermans, H., and van Helden, K. 2002. Vicious and Virtuous Cycles in ERP Implementation: A Case Study of Interrelations between Critical Success Factors, European Journal of Information Systems (11:1), pp. 35-46. Aladwani, A. M. 2001. Change Management Strategies for Successful ERP Implementation, Business Process Management Journal (7:3), pp. 266-275. Al-Mashari, M., Al-Mudimigh, A., and Zairi, M. 2003. Enterprise Resource Planning: A Taxonomy of Critical Factors, European Journal of Operational Research (146:2), pp. 352-364. Argote, L., and Epple, D. 1990. Learning Curves in Manufacturing, Science (247:4945), pp. 920-924. Armenakis, A. A., and Bedeian, A. G. 1999. Organizational Change: A Review of Theory and Research in the 1990s, Journal of Management (25:3), pp. 293-315. Bancroft, N. H., Siep, H., and Sprengel, A. 1998. Implementing nd SAP R/3 (2 ed.), Greenwich, CT: Manning Publications. Barki, H., and Pinsonneault, A. 2005. A Model of Organizational Integration, Implementation Effort, and Performance, Organization Science (16:2), pp. 165-179.
324
Bingi, P., Sharma, M. K., and Godla, J. 1999. Critical Issues Affecting an ERP Implementation, Information Systems Management (16:3), pp. 7-14. Bnnen, C., Herger, M., and Wodtke, D. 2008. SAP NetWeaver Visual Composer (2nd ed.), Boston, MA: Galileo Press. Boudreau, M-C. 2003. Learning to Use ERP Technology: A Causal Model, in Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, January 6-9, Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press. Boudreau, M-C., and Robey, D. 1999. Organizational Transition to Enterprise Resource Planning Systems: Theoretical Choices for Process Research, in Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Information Systems, P. De and J. I. DeGross (eds.), Charlotte, NC, December 13-15, pp. 291-299. Boudreau, M-C., and Robey, D. 2005. Enacting Integrated Information Technology: A Human Agency Perspective, Organization Science (16:1), pp. 3-18. Bradford, M., and Florin, J. 2003. Examining the Role of Innovation Diffusion Factors on the Implementation Success of Enterprise Resource Planning Systems, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems (4), pp. 205-225. Brehm, L., Heinzl. A., and Markus, M. L. 2001. Tailoring ERP Systems: A Spectrum of Choices and their Implications, in Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, January 3-6, Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press. Breyfogle, III, F. W. 2003. Implementing Six Sigma: Smarter Solutions Using Statistical Methods (2nd ed.), New York: Wiley. Calvert, C. 2006. A Change-Management Model for the Implementation and Upgrade of ERP Systems, in Proceedings of the 17th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Adelaide, December 6-8 (available online at http://aisel.aisnet.org/ acis2006/18). Cameron, K. S., and Whetten, D. A. 1983. Some Conclusions About Organizational Effectiveness, in Organizational Effectiveness: A Comparison of Multiple Models, K. S. Cameron, and D. A. Whetten (eds.), New York: Academic Press, pp. 261-277. Carr, D. F. 2002. Hersheys Sweet Victory, Baseline, December, (available online at http://www.baselinemag.com/article2/ 0,3959,760615,00.asp, accessed August 2009). Cotteleer, M. J., and Bendoly, E. 2006. Order Lead-Time Improvement Following Enterprise-IT Implementation: An Empirical Study, MIS Quarterly (30:3), pp. 643-660. Dalal, N. P., Kamath, M., Kolarik, W. J., and Sivaraman, E. 2004. Toward an Integrated Framework for Modeling Enterprise Processes, Communications of the ACM (47:3), pp. 83-87. Davenport, T. H. 1993. Process InnovationReengineering Work through Information Technology, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Davenport, T. H. 1998. Putting the Enterprise into the Enterprise System, Harvard Business Review, July-August, pp. 121-131. Davenport, T. H., and Harris, J. G. 2007. Competing on Analytics: The New Science of Winning, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Davenport, T. H., Harris, J. G., and Cantrell, S. 2002. The Return of Enterprise Systems: The Directors Cut, Wellesley, MA: Accenture Institute for High Performance Business. Davenport, T. H., Harris, J., and Cantrell, S. 2004. Enterprise Systems and On-Going Process Change, Business Process Management Journal (10:1), pp. 16-26.
Davis, G. B. 1974. Management Information Systems: Conceptual Foundations, Structure, and Development, New York: McGraw Hill. Davis, G. B., and Olson, M. H. 1985. Management Information Systems, Conceptual Foundations, Structure, and Development (2nd ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill. Deloitte Consulting. 1998. ERPs Second Wave: Maximizing the Value of ERP-Enabled Processes, New York: Deloitte Consulting. DeLone, W. H., and McLean, E. R. 1992. Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable, Information Systems Research (3:1), pp. 60-95. DeLone, W. H., and McLean, E. R. 2003. The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update, Journal of Management Information Systems, (19:4), pp. 9-30. DeMarco, T. 1978. Structured Analysis and System Specification, New York: Yourdon Press. Financial Executives International & CSC. 2006. 2006 Annual Report: Technology Issues for Financial Executives, Committee on Finance & Information Technology of Financial Executives International, Financial Executives Research Foundation, and Computer Sciences Corporation, Florham Park, NJ (http://www. csc.com/solutions/managementconsulting/knowledgelibrary/ uploads/2335_1.pdf; accessed August 2009). Finney, S., and Corbett, M. 2007. ERP Implementation: A Compilation and Analysis of Critical Success Factors, Business Process Management Journal (13:3), pp. 329-347. Gable, G. G., Sedera, D., and Chan T. 2003. Enterprise Systems Success: A Measurement Model, in Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Information Systems, S. T. March, A. Massey, and J. I. DeGross (eds.), Seattle, WA, December 1417, pp. 576-591. Gane C., and Sarson, T. 1979. Structured Systems Analysis: Tools and Techniques, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Garvin, D. A. 1988. Managing Quality: A Strategic and Competitive Edge, New York: The Free Press. Gartner. 2008. Gartner EXP Worldwide Survey of 1,500 CIOs Shows 85 Percent of CIOs Expect Significant Change Over Next Three Years, Gartner Newsroom (http://www.gartner.com/ it/page.jsp?id=587309; accessed August 2009). Gattiker, T. F., and Goodhue, D. L. 2005. What Happens After ERP Implementation: Understanding the Impact of Interdependence and Differentiation on Plant-Level Outcomes, MIS Quarterly (29:3), pp. 559-585. Gefen, D., and Ragowsky, A. 2005. A Multi-Level Approach to Measuring the Benefits of an ERP System in Manufacturing Firms, Information Systems Management (22:1), pp. 18-25. Grover, V., Jeong, S. R., and Segars, A. H. 1996. Information Systems Effectiveness: The Construct Space and Patterns of Application, Information and Management (31:4), pp. 177-191. Hammer, M. 1996. Beyond Reengineering, New York: Harper Collins. Hammer, M. 2007. The Process Audit, Harvard Business Review, April, pp. 111-123. Hammer, M., and Champy, J. 1993. Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution, New York: Harper Business.
325
Harley, B., Wright, C., Hall, R., and Dery, K. 2006. Management Reactions to Technological Change: The Example of Enterprise Resource Planning, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science (42:1), pp. 58-75. Harris, J. G., and Davenport, T. H. 2006. New Growth from Enterprise Systems: Achieving High Performance through Distinctive Capabilities, Wellesley, MA: Accenture Institute for High Performing Business. Hesterman, C., Anderson, R. P., and Pang, C. 2009. Magic Quadrant for Midmarket and Tier 2-Oriented ERP for ProductCentric Companies, Gartner Research (available online at http://www.gartner.com/technology/mediaproducts/reprints/microsoft/vol4/article12/article12.html) Hofstede, G. 2001. Cultures Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations (2nd ed.), London: Sage Publications. Holland, C., and Light, B. 1999. A Critical Success Factors Model for ERP Implementation, IEEE Software (16:3), pp. 30-36. Hong, K-K, and Kim, Y-G. 2002. The Critical Success Factors for ERP Implementation: An Organizational Fit Perspective, Information and Management (40:1), pp. 25-40. Ives, B., Olson, M. H., and Baroudi, J. J. 1983. The Measurement of User Information Satisfaction, Communications of the ACM (26:10), pp. 785-793. Joshi, K. 1991. A Model of Users Perspective on Change: The Case of Information Systems Technology Implementation, MIS Quarterly (15:2), pp. 229-242. Joshi, K. 1992. A Casual Path Model of the Overall User Attitudes toward the MIS Function: The Case of User Information Satisfaction, Information and Management (22:2), pp. 77-88. Keen, P. G. W. 1981. Information Systems and Organizational Change, Communications of the ACM (24:1), pp. 24-33. Keen, P. G. W., and Scott Morton, M. S. 1978. Decision Support Systems: An Organizational Perspective, Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Keil, M., and Tiwana, A. 2006. Relative Importance of Evaluation Criteria for Enterprise Systems: A Conjoint Study, Information Systems Journal (16:2), pp. 272-262. Keller, G., and Teufel, T. 1998. SAP R/3 Process-Oriented Implementation, Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing. Ko, D-G., Kirsch, L. J., and King, W. R. 2005. Antecedents of Knowledge Transfer from Consultants to Clients in Enterprise System Implementations, MIS Quarterly (29:1), pp. 59-85. Kohli, R. 2007. Innovating to Create IT-Based New Business Opportunities at United Parcel Service, MIS Quarterly Executive (6:4), pp. 199-210. Kohli, R., and Grover, V. 2008. Business Value of IT: An Essay on Expanding Research Directions to Keep up with the Times, Journal of the AIS (9:1), pp. 23-39. Kotter, J. P. 1996. Leading Change, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Lapointe, L., and Rivard, S. 2005. A Multilevel Model of Resistance to Information Technology Implementation, MIS Quarterly (29:3), pp. 461-491. Lee, J. Siau, K, and Hong, S. 2003. Enterprise Integration with ERP and EAI, Communications of the ACM (46, 2), pp. 54-60. Lee, J. C., and Myers, M. D. 2004. Dominant Actors, Political Agendas, and Strategic Shifts Over Time: A Critical Ethnog-
raphy of an Enterprise Systems Implementation, Journal of Strategic Information Systems (13:4), pp. 355-374. Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q., and Xue, Y. 2007. Assimilation of Enterprise Systems: The Effect of Institutional Pressures and the Mediating Role of Top Management, MIS Quarterly (31:1), pp. 59-87. Light, B. 2005. Going Beyond Misfit as a Reason for ERP Package Customization, Computers in Industry (56:6), pp. 606-619. Linthicum, D. S. 2000. Enterprise Application Integration, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison-Wesley. Liu, A. Z., and Seddon, P. B. 2009. Understanding How Project Critical Success Factors Affect Organizational Benefits from Enterprise Systems, Business Process Management Journal (15:5), pp. 716-743. Luo, W. H., and Strong, D. M. 2004. A Framework for Evaluating ERP Implementation Choices, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management (51:3), pp. 322-333. Mabert, V. A., Soni, A., and Venkataraman, M. A. 2003a. Enterprise Resource Planning: Managing the Implementation Process, European Journal of Operational Research (146:2), pp. 302-314. Mabert, V. A., Soni, A., and Venkataraman, M. A. 2003b. The Impact of Organization Size on Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Implementations in the US Manufacturing Sector, Omega (31:3), pp. 235-246. Markus, M. L. 2004. Technochange Management: Using IT to Drive Organizational Change, Journal of Information Technology (19:1), pp. 4-20. 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 (15:4), pp. 245-265. Markus, M. L., and Benjamin, R. I. 1996. Change Agentry: The Next IS Frontier, MIS Quarterly (20:4), pp. 385-407. Markus, M. L., and Tanis, C. 2000. The Enterprise Systems Experiencefrom Adoption to Success, in Framing the Domains of IT Research: Glimpsing the Future through the Past, R. W. Zmud (ed.), Cincinnati, OH: Pinnaflex Educational Resources, pp. 173-207. McAfee, A. 2002. The Impact of Enterprise Information Technology Adoption on Operational Performance: An Empirical Investigation, Production and Operations Management (11:1), pp. 33-53. Mohr, L. B. 1982. Explaining Organizational Behavior, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Moon, Y. B. 2007. Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP): A Review of the Literature, International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development (4:3), pp. 235-263. 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 (75:1), pp. 83-94. Nah, F. H., Lau, J. L-S., and Kuang, J. H. 2001. Critical Factors for Successful Implementation of Enterprise Systems, Business Process Management Journal (7:3), pp. 285-296. OASIS. 2007. Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0,11 April (http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsbpel/2.0/ wsbpel-v2.0.pdf; accessed August 2009)
326
Object Management Group. 2007. Unified Modeling Language (UML), Version 2.1.1, Object Management Group, Needham, MA (available online at http://www.omg.org/technology/ documents/formal/uml.htm; accessed August 2009). Parr, A., and Shanks, G. 2000. A Model of ERP Project Implementation, Journal of Information Technology (15:4), pp. 289-303. Parr, A., Shanks, G., and Darke, P. 1999. Identification of Necessary Factors for Successful Implementation of ERP Systems, in New Information Technologies in Organisational Processes, O. Ngwenyama, L. D. Introna, M. D. Myers, and J. I. DeGross (eds.), Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 99-119. Purvis, R. L., Sambamurthy, V., and Zmud, R. W. 2001. The Assimilation of Knowledge Platforms in Organizations: An Empirical Investigation, Organization Science (12:2), pp. 117-135. Ragin, C. C. 1987. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Rai, A., Sang, S. S., and Welker, R. B. 2002. Assessing the Validity of IS Success Models: An Empirical Test and Theoretical Analysis, Information Systems Research (13:1), pp. 50-69. Rajagopal, P. 2002. An Innovation-Diffusion View of Implementation of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Systems and Development of a Research Model, Information and Management (40:2), pp. 87-114. Ramiller, N. C., Swanson E. B., and Wang, P. 2008. Research Directions in Information Systems: Toward an Institutional Ecology, Journal of the Association for Information Systems (9:1), pp. 1-22. Ranganathan, C., and Brown, C. V. 2006. ERP Investments and the Market Value of Firms: Toward an Understanding of Influential ERP Project Variables, Information Systems Research (17:2), pp 145-161. Reilly, K. 2005. AMR Research Reports Oracle-PeopleSoft Merger Could Result in a $5.5 Billion Applications Business, AMR Research, January 18 (available online at http://www. amrresearch.com/content/view.aspx?compURI=tcm:7-33464& title=AMR+Research+Reports+Oracle-PeopleSoft+Merger+ Could+Result+in+a+$5.5+Billion+Applications+Business; accessed August 2009). Robey, D., Ross, J. W., and Boudreau, M-C. 2002. Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change, Journal of MIS (19:1), pp. 17-46. Rosemann, M., Vessey, I., and Weber, R. 2004. Alignment in Enterprise Systems Implementations: The Role of Ontological Distance, in Proceedings 25th International Conference on Information Systems, R. Agarwal, L. Kirsch, and J. I. DeGross (eds.), Washington DC, December 12-15, pp. 439-448. Ross, J. W., and Vitale, M. 2000. The ERP Revolution: Surviving Versus Thriving, Information Systems Frontiers (2:2), pp. 233-241. Ross, J. W., Weill, P., and Robertson, D. C. 2006. Enterprise Architecture as Strategy, Creating a Foundation for Business Execution, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Samson, D., and Terziovski, M. 1999. The Relationship between Total Quality Management Practices and Operational Per-
formance, Journal of Operations Management (17:4), pp. 393-409. SAP. 2006. Caterpillar Logistics Services Inc. (http://www.sap. com/usa/industries/automotive/pdf/CS_Caterpillar_Logistics_ Services.pdf; accessed June 2008). SAP. 2008. Evolving to a Business Process Platform with SAP Solutions, Sapphire, Orlando USA (available online at http:// www.sap.com/community/showdetail.epx?itemID=13327; accessed August 2009). Sarker, S., and Lee, A. S. 2003. Using a Case Study to Test the Role of Three Key Social Enablers in ERP Implementation, Information and Management (40:8), pp. 813-829. Scheer, A. W. 1994. Business Process Engineering: Reference Models for Industrial Enterprises, New York: Springer Verlag. Scheer, A. W., and Haberman, F. 2000. Making ERP a Success, Using Process Models to Achieve Positive Results, Communications of the ACM (43:4), pp. 57-62. Scott, J. E. 1999. The FoxMeyer Drugs Bankruptcy: Was it a Failure of ERP?, in Proceedings of the Fifth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Milwaukee, WI, pp. 223-225 (available online at http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis1999/80). Scott, J. E., and Vessey, I. 2002. Managing Risks in Enterprise Systems Implementations, Communications of the ACM (45:4), pp. 74-81. Sedera, D., and Gable, G. 2004. A Factor and Structural Equation Analysis of the Enterprise Systems Success Measurement Model, in Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Information Systems, R. Agarwal, L. Kirsch, and J. I. DeGross (eds.), Washington, DC, December 12-15, pp. 449-464. Shang, S. 2001. Maximizing Benefits from Enterprise Systems, unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Melbourne, Australia. Shang, S., and Seddon, P. B. 2002. A Comprehensive Framework for Assessing and Managing the Benefits of Enterprise Systems: The Business Managers Perspective, Information Systems Journal (12:4), pp. 271-299. Sia, S. K., and Soh, C. 2002. Severity Assessment of ERPOrganization Misalignment: Honing on in Ontological Structure and Context Specificity, in Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Information Systems, R. D. Galliers, L. Applegate, and J. I. DeGross (eds.), Barcelona, Spain, December 15-18, pp. 723-729 (available online at http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2002/70). Sia, S. K., and Soh, C. 2007. An Assessment of PackageOrganization Misalignment: Institutional and Ontological Structures, European Journal of Information Systems (16:5), pp. 568-583. Siegel, S., and Castellan, N. J. 1988. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill. Skok, W., and Legge, M. 2001. Evaluating Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Systems Using an Interpretive Approach, Proceedings of the 2001 ACM SIGCPR Conference on Computer Personnel Research, April, New York: ACM Press, pp. 189-197. Soffer, P., Golany, B., and Dori, D. 2003. ERP Modeling: A Comprehensive Approach, Information Systems (28:6), pp. 673-690. Soh, C., Kien, S. S., and Tay-Yap, J. 2000. Cultural Fits and Misfits: Is ERP a Universal Solution?, Communications of the ACM (43:4), pp. 47-51.
327
Soh, C., and Sia, S. K. 2005. The Challenges of Implementing Vanilla Versions of Enterprise Systems, MIS Quarterly Executive (4:3), pp. 373-384. Soh, C., Sia, S. K., Boh, W. F., and Tang, M. 2003. Misalignments in ERP Implementation: A Dialectic Perspective, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction (16:1), pp. 81-100. Somers, T. M., and Nelson, K. 2001. The Impact of Critical Success Factors across the Stages of Enterprise Resource Planning Implementations, in Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press. Somers, T. M., and Nelson, K. G. 2003. The Impact of Strategy and Integration Mechanisms on Enterprise System Value: Empirical Evidence from Manufacturing Firms, European Journal of Operational Research (146:2), pp. 315-338. Somers, T. M., and Nelson, K. G. 2004. A Taxonomy of Players and Activities across the ERP Project Life Cycle, Information and Management (41:3), pp. 257-278. Staehr, L. 2007. Assessing Business Benefits from ERP Systems: An Improved ERP Benefits Framework, in Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Information Systems, Montreal, Canada (available online at http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2007/36). Staehr, L., Shanks, G., and Seddon, P. 2002. Understanding the Business Benefits of ERP Systems, in Proceedings of the 8th Americas Conference on Information Systems, R. Ramsower and J. Windsor (eds.), Dallas, TX, August 9-11, pp. 899-906. Staehr, L., Shanks, G., and Seddon, P. B. 2006. Understanding the Business Consequences of ERP Use, in Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Information Systems, J. Ljungberg and M. Andersson (eds.), Gteborg, Sweden, June 12-14. Strong, D. M., and Volkoff, O. 2004. A Roadmap for Enterprise System Implementation, Computer (37:6), pp. 22-29. Sumner, M. 2000. Risk Factors in Enterprise-Wide/ERP Projects, Journal of Information Technology (15:4), pp. 317-327. Tallon, P., Kraemer, K., and Gurbaxani, V. 2000. Executives Perceptions of the Business Value of Information Technology: A Process Orientated Approach, Journal of Management Information Systems (16:4), pp. 145-173. Taylor, S., and Todd, P. 1995. Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models, Information Systems Research (6:2), pp. 144-176. Umble, E. J., Haft, R. R., and Umble, M. M. 2003. Enterprise Resource Planning: Implementation Procedures and Critical Success Factors, European Journal of Operational Research (146:2), pp. 241-257. Volitich, D. 2008. IBM Cognos 8 Business Intelligence: The Official Guide, New York: McGraw-Hill. Volkoff, O., Elmes, M. B., and Strong, D. 2004. Enterprise Systems, Knowledge Transfer and Power Users, Journal of Strategic Information Systems (13:4), pp. 279-304. Wagner, E. L., and Newell, S. 2007. Exploring the Importance of Participation in the Post-Implementation Period of an ES Project: A Neglected Area, Journal of the AIS (8:10), pp. 508-524.
Walton, M. 1986. The Deming Management Method, New York: Perigee Books. Webster, J., and Watson, R. T. 2002. Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review, MIS Quarterly (26:2), pp. xiii-xxiii. Wei, H. L., Wang, E. T. G., and Ju, P. H. 2005. Understanding Misalignment and Cascading Change of ERP Implementation: A Stage View of Process Analysis, European Journal of Information Systems (14:4), pp. 324-334. Wixom, B. H., and Watson, H. J. 2001. An Empirical Investigation of the Factors Affecting Data Warehousing Success, MIS Quarterly (25:1), pp. 17-41. Wu, J-H, and Wang, Y-M. 2007. Measuring ERP Success: The Key-Users Viewpoint of the ERP to Produce a Viable IS in the Organization, Computers in Human Behavior (23:3), pp. 1582-1596. Yang, S., and Seddon, P. B. 2004. Benefits and Key Project Success Factors from Enterprise Systems Implementations: Lessons from Sapphire 2003, in Proceedings of the Australasian Conference on Information Systems (available online at http://aisel.aisnet.org/acis2004/27). Ziskasen, J. 2008. The Business Drivers and Value of Upgrading to SAP ERP 6.0 at Kraft Foods, Sapphire, Orlando USA (http://www.sap.com/community/showdetail.epx?itemID=11736; accessed August 2009). Zuboff, S. 1988. In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power, New York: Basic Books.
About the Authors

Peter B. Seddon is an associate professor in the Department of Information Systems at the University of Melbourne, Australia. His teaching and research focus on helping people and organizations gain greater benefits from their use of information technology. His major research interests are in the areas of evaluating information systems success, packaged enterprise application software, IT management, IT outsourcing, business intelligence, and accounting information systems. Cheryl Calvert is an Enterprise Systems Project Manager, Corporate Business Systems, Monash University, Australia. Her research interests include enterprise system change management, education, and learning; evaluation of enterprise systems education; and finance-related work on stock market seasonality. Cheryl has authored a number of books on SAP training that are used at universities in Australia and internationally. She is a project leader for major SAP business improvement projects at Monash University. Song Yang is a Ph.D. student at the University of Melbourne. Her research interests include understanding social consequences of mobile phone use and factors affecting benefits from enterprise system.
328
Seddon et al./Key Factors Affecting Organizational BenefitsAppendices
RESEARCH ARTICLE
A MULTI-PROJECT MODEL OF KEY FACTORS AFFECTING ORGANIZATIONAL BENEFITS FROM ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS
By: Peter B. Seddon Department of Information Systems University of Melbourne Victoria 3010 AUSTRALIA p.seddon@unimelb.edu.au Cheryl Calvert Corporate Business Systems Monash University Victoria 3800 AUSTRALIA Cheryl.Calvert@adm.monash.edu.au Song Yang Department of Information Systems University of Melbourne Victoria 3010 AUSTRALIA yanssy1@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au
Appendix A
Full List of Organizations and Speaker Roles
Head, ES or Project Manager Business Manager (see Note for meaning of 1) On the podium more than once in 2003 or 2005
On the podium in both 2003 and 2005
2003
Organization Name
Presenter
1 1 1 1 1
2Wire Senior Director, IT Abbot Laboratories Business Manager Addmore Personnel + Bookham President and VPs +Tallard Adidas CIO of Adidas Salomon Advanced Energy Director of planning
1 1 1 1 1 1
MIS Quarterly Vol. 34 No. 2, Seddon et al., Appendices/June 2010
Same topic discussed in both sessions? A1
2005
CIO
Head, ES or Project Manager
Business Manager (see Note for meaning of 1)
On the podium more than once in 2003 or 2005
2003
Organization Name Air Products & Chemicals Air Products & Chemicals Alabama Gas Corp., Energen Corp Allied Irish Bank American Army Armstrong World Industries Artisan Entertainment AstraZeneca AT&T bus services AUDI AG Auto Industry Action Group Avaya AZ Electronic Materials B & Q Plc Banco Ita Bank of Canada Barclays Bank BASF Blount + Fusion UV + Greenheck Bosch North Corporation Bosch Rexroth Corporation Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. Brookshire Grocery Co. Brother International Corp. Brother International Corp. Capita + Cincinnati Insurance Cardinal Health Caterpillar Celent CHEP ChevronTexaco City of Cape Town CN Rail Coca Cola Enterprises Inc. Colgate Palmolive Computer Sciences Corp. Computer Sciences Corp. ConAgra Foods Inc. ConAgra Foods Inc. ConocoPhillips Du Pont
Presenter Director SAP HR Project Director, Business process ERP program Vice President, Vice President & CIO Group CIO Project manager, Logistics IS VP Logistics & IT for Building Products CFO, CIO and CEO Executive director, SAP project Process controller for revenue Head of CRM Applications General Motors Loaned Executive Senior Manager, Supply Chain Planning CFO Director of Commercial Systems General Manager HR director + ERP services mgr Director, Finance Projects Project Leader VP, IS + Sales Support + VI, IS Project Lead VP and CIO, Director Business Applications Program Director Informatics Director Financial Accounting CIO President & CEO, and CIO both Project managers Senior Project Leader, SD Group President, Caterpillar logistics CEO Enterprise Architect Manger, Global SAP Strategy Director of ERP Business Transformation Director of Business Solutions Manager, e-Procurement Director, Global IT Vice President, Bus Development plus Director, Global Outsourcing VP, Business Development VP Enterprise System implementation Director, Business Practices Project manager Mgr Business Planning
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 0 No
A2
Same topic discussed in both sessions? No
2005
CIO
On the podium in both 2003 and 2005 1
2003
Organization Name Energen Five North American state and local government orgs Florida Crystals Corporation GE Consumer and Industrial Gen-Probe Graybar Graybar Great West Life and Annuity GTECH Corp.+ Novo Nordisk + IDC GTECH Corporation Halliburton Company Hawaiian Tropic Hershey Foods HP Indigo Books Infineon Technology International Paper J. Crew Johnson & Johnson
Presenter VP&CIO all five are project managers Vice President & CIO Content mgr leader Senior director, IS VP and CIO VP and CIO Project mgr Director, of Fin. Planning & Analysis Director, Corp financial planning & anal. Director, ERP Center of Excellence EVP & CFO,VP, Kentucky Division Director of applications Director Shared Services and SAP COE CTO Vice President, IT Alignment; plus partner from Accenture Director, HR Operations Senior Vice President & CIO Senior Director, Pharmaceutical Research and Development, J&J Pharmaceuticals Delivery Bus Systems Leader VP Sen Marketing Office + IT manager Senior Information Technology Director, Applications Senior Director Sales systems Director of IT + Manager of ERP Development CIO ERP project mgr Product Manager Project leader Director, SCM Project mgr Project Manager, & Technology Manager President, Global procurement + VP Operations CIO & CFO Vice President, Corporate Services CIO & V.P. Global Business Solutions Snr Director, Strategic IT Development Director, eBusiness,
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 No
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Kaeser + Robotics Inc Kimberley Clark KLA-Tencor KLA-Tencor Lennox + Komatsu Lions Gate Entertainment Lockheed Martin Lockheed Martin LOreal LSI logic Lyondell Chemical Co Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC Marathon Oil + Wellogix Mar-Mac Wire, Inc. MassMutual Financial Group McCormick & Company MCI/WorldCom, Inc.+ IBM/Telefonica Millennium Chemicals
1 1 1 1 1 1 No
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Same topic discussed in both sessions? Yes No No A3
2005
CIO
On the podium in both 2003 and 2005 1
2003
Organization Name Morrison homes Mott + Johnson + Conair + Brown-Forman Nike Norske Canada Nortel North Carolina Dept of Transport OfficeMax Ondeo Nalco Global Ontario Electricity Pacific Coast Feather Company Phillips + Deloitte Procter & Gamble Procter & Gamble Purdue Pharmaceuticals Rohm & Haas Rohm & Haas Company Royal Dutch Shell Group: Schenker AG SI Corporation Sony Europe Tastykake Tesoro Tetra Pak SA + Adobe Systems Inc. Texas Instruments Texas Instruments Titanium Metals Tom Davenport + Wells Fargo+ Bank One +First Chicago Toyota Material Handling, U.S.A. Trivirix international Tyson Foods Ulta Uni of Kentucky + Baylor College US Army US Customs + Treasury US Navy US Pipe VF Services, Inc. Visteon Corp (Part of Ford till
Presenter VP&CIO Four Directors, Supply Chain Discussed Netweaver Project Director & VP Supply Chain & IT SAP Program Mgr Project Manager & Funct. Team Manager VP Direct Marketing, VP CRM Director, Mfg Volume Strategy Manager, Planning & Perf. Mgt Systems CIO & Director of Business IS Senior Bus Info Mgr Employee services area, Global Director, Supply Network Operations Exec Director, Information Officer e-Transformation Director eBusiness Technology Manager CIO Team Head of IT Management Logistics Project manager General Manager, Finance & HR Systems Director, Enterprise Apps VP and CIO Head of Global IM Support & VP IS Lead solution architect Director Procurement Systems Mgr Bus Support and Apps four project managers Vice President Vice President of Information Technology Project mgr Senior VP Sales+Sen VP IS Prof and project director and Project Manager Project mgrs (one from CSC) Business requirements director Project manager Project manager, technology VP supply chain Global director, Applic. Strategy
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 No
A4
Same topic discussed in both sessions? No No
2005
CIO
2003
Organization Name 2000) Washington Post Waters Corp. + Villeroy & Boch AG Waters Corporation Wells Fargo Bank + Corp Properties Gp Whirlpool + Pacific Cycle William Wrigley Wolf Inc Wolverine Wrigley
Presenter VP of Operations Director of Marketing Services & CIO and Project leader Director of PLM Project mgr Director, eBusiness Nth America + Director, IS Mgr Global development SAP CFO Director, Internet marketing + Senior IT director Project lead
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 70 130
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 No
1 1
1 1 64 142 45%
60
48 34%
31 22%
4 Yess
Notes: 1. A 1 indicates that the characteristic of interest, identified by the column heading, was present or applies in this presentation. 2. A + indicates speakers from more than one organization (e.g., a panel discussion).
Same topic discussed in both sessions? A5
2005
CIO
Appendix B
Examples of Strength of Evidence Judgments of Positive Causal Relationships between Benefit Drivers in the OBES Model and Organizational Benefits from ES Use from the Perspective of Senior Management
Factor
1. Functional fit
SoE
1
Example
Texas Instruments SRM eProcurement Solution
SAP R/3
SAP Reports
Explanation of SoE Classification

In this slide, the speaker from Texas Instruments (TI), a U.S. $19 billion semiconductor company, explains how TI was using SAPs enterprise buyer professional (EBP) product, interfaced to SAPs R/3 ERP product, to enable over 1,300 users in five countries to use eProcurement. The functionality highlighted EPBs ability to use punch out catalogs (e.g., online catalogs maintained by Suppliers A and B, rather than an internal catalog maintained by TI). Since the benefits of this functionality were not clearly spelled out, the strength of this evidence that functional fit leads to benefits was judged to be limited (i.e., 1).
Catalog
Bugseye Shopping Cart
Text Order EBP
Purchase Requisition Purchase Order
Internal Catalog
Standard PO/GR control

Punch-out to Supplier Catalog reconciliation
Standard SAP financial reports If a PR needs to be placed with EBP

supplier, then supplier sees same output/processes Leverage existing archiving Leverage existing tax logic
Supplier A
Supplier B
Data Mart
Leverage existing data mart Supplier reporting portal Total spend/analytics
(Case 59, slide 10) Copyright Texas Instruments; used by permission.
Scope: Clearly Defined Based on Objectives

Contact Management Lead Management Opportunity Management (including TAS Opportunity Planning Methodology) Client Data Client Planning Sales Cycle Management Reporting and Analysis Access via the Internet Mobile Usage Work Flow Management Linkages to Research/Information Repositories Security Marketing/Campaign Management
CSC / SAP AG 2003, CRM in the Services Sector: Preparation and Alignment, Lyn Burchfield, Ron Ricketts / 10
In this slide, the speaker from Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC), a U.S. $13.6 billion outsourcing firm, explains why her firm chose to go for an early release of SAPs CRM product. Presumably, the listed functionality will produce value for CSC. The strength of this evidence that functional fit leads to benefits was judged to be moderate (i.e., 2).
CSC Proprietary
(Case 28, slide 10) Copyright CSC; used by permission.
And any of you guys there in the audience that do apparel or footwear understand that people come in sizes, clothes come in sizes and software doesnt understand sizes. Just does not. Everybody wears clothes, youd think theyd understand it, but it is very difficult to find a package that is suitable for footwear and apparel....So, after searching, we selected SAP, and I think we made the right decision becauselook at them. They are in it for the long haul. They are a major player, and we worked with Reebok, because Reebok at the same time was doing something similar. They were out there searching for a system, they selected SAP about the same time we did. And so we got
In this quotation, the speaker from VF Services Inc, a U.S. $ 5 billion per annum manufacturer whose brands include Lee, Wrangler, Vanity Fair, and North Face, found that functional fit in SAPs basic retail ERP solution was so poor that they worked with Reebock and SAP to develop an apparel and footwear solution (AFS) version of SAPs ERP software, tailored to the needs of the clothing and apparel industry (which needs to keep track of garments of the same style in many sizes and colors). Presumably, this additional functionality leads to greater benefits. The
A6
Factor
SoE
Example
together, and between the two of us, we helped design AFS. So if there is a lot of mess in there, I guess you can blame VF and Reebok. But we tried to do our best (Case 55, transcript p.2).

strength of this evidence that functional fit leads to benefits was judged to be strong (i.e., 3).
2. Overcoming organizational inertia
People must be prepared for change across the organization. They need support to become IAS literate in time. Stakeholder management is key to ensure desired behavior change....Training staff is the most significant challenge in converting to IAS (Case 9, slide 13).
In this quotation, the director of Finance Projects for Barclays Bank plc, a major UK bank, discusses the banks planned move to international accounting standards (IAS). These two sentences extracted from slide 13 imply that change management and training are major determinants of organizational benefits from the ES-enabled use of IAS. The strength of this evidence that overcoming organizational inertia leads to benefits was judged to be limited (i.e., 1). In this quotation, the VP and CIO from Florida Crystals, a U.S. $1 billion sugar producer and refiner, specifically states that he believes that change management is a major determinant of organizational benefits in this ES project. The strength of this evidence that overcoming organizational inertia leads to benefits was judged to be moderate (i.e., 2). In this quotation, the director of Manufacturing Volume Strategy for Ondeo Nalco, a U.S. $2.6 billion per annum water-treatment company operating in 126 countries around the world explains mechanisms for overcoming resistance to change. The strength of this evidence that overcoming organizational inertia (achieved through executive support) leads to benefits was judged to be strong (i.e., 3).
My experience has shown that one of the number one detriments to any post merger or post acquisition success is change management. And our goal was to completely eliminate that as an issue. And you will see that theme recurring throughout this presentation. So to that end, the first decision that was made was to utilize SAPmySAP, actuallyas the core application solution (Case 33, transcript, p. 4). So if you look at a couple of the key-success factors these are actually ranked in order. I have to say, that executive sponsorship and leadership is number one. This thingcould have died a thousand deaths. Every time something happened, a tool didnt work right, forecasting was a little bit too complicated for the makersOh jeez, the data is wrongthat became a reason to kill the project. Thats how tough that was. So by having our executive sponsors there, CFO or CIO, we had our executive supply chain! Those guys really helped keep pushing this thing forward (Case 54, transcript p. 7). Education: we spent a minimum of 20 hours on face-toface training with an individual that would be just, lets say, a plant operator, who would enter data from the floor, to 60 or 70 hours for the more complex roles of a customer service representative entering orders and tracking shipments and so forth, to a supply-demand planning individual....We also had e-learning that was put out for our folks, so that they could on their breaks and free time go in and educate themselves at their leisure (Case 31, transcript, pp. 3-4). Please see Table 3 in the body of the paper for examples of strength of evidence where integration was judged to have caused benefits.
In this quotation, the director of Global eTransformation for Rohm and Haas, a U.S. $6 billion manufacturer of coatings and adhesives, explains his firms efforts with respect to change management and training. Since this expenditure on training presumes that training produces benefits, the strength of this evidence that overcoming organizational inertia (through training) leads to benefits was judged to be strong (i.e., 3).
3. Integration
A7
Factor
4. Process optimization
SoE
1
Example

In this slide, the speaker from Lockheed Martin, a US$27B aerospace company, explains plans to improve processes using SAPs portal product. The nine and seven-screen processes on the right are to be replaced by single portal screens. Since this new process had not yet actually produced any benefits, the strength of this evidence that process improvement leads to benefits was judged to be limited (i.e., 1).
(Case 42, slide 22) Copyright Lockheed Martin; used by permission.
Streamlining the purchasing organization. What we did was the purchasing organization is now much more focused. We reduced the staff from there and we have now more information from the divisions, as I told you. So we have a smaller staff, doing a better job with better results.... When someone, any place in the bank, asks for something, he goes to the shopping cart; he puts it into the shopping cart. It comes to our headquarters. It runs, it checks if there is a contract for that. If there is a contract, the contract is selected and the purchasing order is put on the supplier immediately and it goes to the branch that is asking for that. The same for services, so we have a more consistent process and it is very quick (Case 49, transcript p. 5).
ROI: Old and New Process for Customer Service
-- Process redesign: to be faster with documents at the customer 2 weeks
Sales rep Before CRM consumer installer architect
phone
In this quotation, the speaker from Banco Ita, a 43,000- employee Brazilian bank, explains how their purchasing processes have been improved using SAPs supplier relationship management (SRM) system. Strength of this evidence that process improvement leads to benefits was judged to be moderate (i.e., 2).
Sales service
phone letter Internet
Mail Fax Mail
address service
Marketing
document service
consumer
Fax Paper
2 days
With CRM
Internet
consumer installer architect Sales rep
Phone Fax Mail
In this slide, the speaker from Villeroy & Boch a 1 billion per annum German manufacturer of home interior products, explains how their customer service processes have been improved using SAPs CRM system. As shown in the diagram, turnaround time dropped from 2 weeks in the upper half of the slide to 2 days in the lower half using the CRM system. The strength of this evidence that ES-based process improvement leads to benefits was judged to be strong (i.e., 3).
Specialized service center
CRM
Print server
document service
consumer
(Case 24, slide 38) Copyright Villeroy & Boch; used by permission.
A8
Factor
5. Improved Access to Information
SoE
1
Example
But probably the most interesting thing that happened wasnt necessarily planned, and that was all of a sudden we had visibility. And I think this is probably the key. And what I mean by visibility is, all of a sudden you could see exactly in the order to cash process where something was being held up. So we had metrics now that we couldnt even think up before. We now know that an order is held up because its in credit lock and you can tell how many days its been held up there (Case 52, transcript p. 3). It wasnt easy, we had six months stabilization, particularly in the business warehouse and reporting capabilities, that was probably the most complex piece....It took a lot longer than we anticipated, and we did have performance issues, and with the system, we did have issues with our own people in terms of performance who could not work on the new platform, as much as the training was done in anticipation.The use of BW has been phenomenal for us in terms of having information, different cubes, to do everything from investment analysis. We have about 300 reports that we use in BW right now with all our financial reporting for our entities and the stand of the 80 entities, our balance sheets and income statements, and the kinds of analysis reports are all done very quickly and very easily. We know the data is goodso its been outrageously beneficial for us (Case 23, transcript pp. 7-8). The base foundation of everything is, in fact, the business warehouse. Business warehouse is the most critical application that we have. The company turns on data, but more, turns on information. Every application we have feeds BW. Purchase-to-pay-to-reporting, that was the scope of effort for the project, from master data all the way through to point of sales....Our decision process comes out of BW. I cannot say enough about it. We are on [version] 3.0....The best application within J.Crew is the business warehouse (Case 4, transcript p. 2). The most accurate, timely, actionable data that the company has seen in years. Scott Rosen, CFO (Case 4, slide 15).

In this quotation, the speaker from Chevron Texaco, a U.S. $100 billion plus oil company explains his firms use of SAPs APO and R/3 ISOil solutions to increase visibility of the order-tocash process. Because the amount of information does not seem to have increased massively, the strength of this evidence that improved access to information (through use of APO and R/3) leads to benefits was judged to be limited (i.e., 1). In this quotation, the presenter from MassMutual, a Fortune 100 U.S. insurance company, explains that despite initial problems during stabilization, the use of SAPs data warehouse (called Business Warehouse or BW) has been outrageously beneficial. Because of the initial problems, the strength of this evidence that improved access to information using an ES leads to benefits was judged to be moderate (i.e., 2). (There were many similar cases where users of SAPs BW product reported much better access to information; see the following example.)
Here, the presenter from J.Crew, a U.S. $750 million retail fashion chain, explains benefits from SAPs data warehouse. The strength of this evidence that improved access to information using an ES leads to benefits was judged to be strong (i.e., 3). (Incidentally, there is a benefits-from-integration story in this quotation, too, that was coded SoE = 2.)
A9
Factor
6. On-going improvement projects
SoE
1
Future Benefits
Example

In this slide from Sapphire 2003, the presenter from Marathon Ashland Petroleum, presents his wish list of future projects following implementation of SAPs portal product for 12,000 users. This slide was treated as evidence that on-going improvement programs lead to benefits. The strength of this evidence was judged to be weak (i.e., 1).
Eliminate paycheck Direct deposit with debit card Labor utilization Leverage Business Warehouse Direct Interface with background check Leverage industry standards Benefit providers New opportunities Recruiting interface
(Case 43, slide 15) Copyright Marathon Ashland; used by permission.
Phase two, internal sales force functional enhancement that is what were dealing with as of today. That is covering sales planning and forecasting. Thats based on SAP portals and SAP CRM as well. Order management for mobile sales, so our sales forces are also able to create orders offline at the customer. Later on that will be replicated to our back bone, to our back office ERP system, and also to our BW system.... So were integrating all of these three systems into one view to the sales force that they dont have to deal with different systems. Its just one approach for them (Case 45, transcript p. 5). And now we are going to roll that thing out over the rest of Graybars geographic business units at least over next year, rolling it out to each one of these business units. And after all thats done, we are going to grade up at 4.60 and we will be lucky to going through that upgrade until the turn of 2004/2005. Its never over. You never will see an end and stand up and say its completely finished. Again, and that is one of the reasons why you need to have a viable, healthy partner, because you are never finished. You get to the end of your implementation and you end up in an upgrade stage. You get to the end of your implementation and somebody wants a new functionalityso you are never done. This is an on-going, never finishable, never finished kind of a war that we are living in. And this is a great job to do when you like doing that (Case 34, transcript, p. 5).
In this quotation, the speaker from Bosch Rexroth, a 3.6 billion German engineering company, explains his firms plans for phased implementation of SAPs CRM, portals, supply chain management, and data warehouse. Since implementation of these systems is expected to lead to greater benefits the strength of this evidence that ongoing improvement programs lead to benefits was judged to be moderate (i.e., 2).
In this quotation, the VP and CIO from Graybar Inc., a U.S. $4 billion electrical distributor, explains why his firms implementation of SAPs suite of software (ERP, CRM, APO, BW) is not the end of the journey. Presumably, the on-going improvements discussed will lead to more benefits. The strength of this discussion as evidence that on-going improvement programs lead to benefits was judged to be strong (i.e., 3).
A10
Appendix C
Examples of Strength of Evidence Judgments Concerning the Need for Successful Go Live in order to Achieve Organizational Benefits from ES Use from the Perspective of Senior Management
SoE
1
Example
Audience: How frequently would you suggest meeting with executive sponsors during an implementation? Presenter: I will give you an example of what weve done. I dont have all the expertise in different implementations that people have done. We actually have a very specific project structureso we have weekly meetings at the lower level of the implementation but we also have weekly meetings with the leadership across all of our projects. And actually we are having, I believe, every other week read outs to the CEO staff on the status of the project and any specific escalations or integration points that we are workingthings that we know are the critical success factors of the project. So it actually occurs fairly frequently in our projects right now. (Case 16, transcript p. 7)
Explanation of SoE classification

In this transcript extract, the Senior Manager, Supply Chain Planning, Avaya Inc., a U.S. $5 billion supplier of telecommunications equipment and services, responds to a question after his formal presentation about his organizations commitment to a project to reduce inventory by 45% using SAPs APO planning software. He makes no explicit statement that successful go live is necessary to achieve benefits, but the pursuit of that goal is implied by the clear management interest in the project. For comparison with the SoE scores for the six OBES hypotheses, the strength of this example as evidence that Successful go live is necessary to achieve benefits was judged to be limited (i.e., 1). In this slide, the VP of the Kentucky Division of Hawaiian Tropic a manufacturer of sun-care creams with a dominant position in U.S. and Canadian markets (slide 4), outlines steps in the implementation of SAPs All-inOne ERP-style system for small businesses. This and adjacent slides 10 and 12 (not reproduced here) provide evidence of Hawaiian Tropics interest in having their project deliver a working system. For comparison with the SoE scores for the six OBES hypotheses, the strength of the evidence in these three slides that Successful go live is necessary to achieve benefits was judged to be moderate (i.e., 2). (The diagram in this slide is from SAPs ASAP project methodology. Many presentations contain ASAP diagrams similar to this one.) In this quotation, the Director of Manufacturing Volume Strategy for Norske Canada, a 3,700-employee Canadian paper manufacturer, explains his teams commitment to the project. Since this awesome effort was presumably undertaken to achieve a successful go live and so achieve benefitswhy else would they work so hard?the strength of this evidence that Successful go live is necessary to achieve benefits was judged to be strong (i.e., 3).
2
m y S A P A ll-in -O n e Im p le m e n ta tio n : W h e re W a s th e T im e S p e n t?
2 w eeks 5 w eeks
16 w eeks 5 w eeks
A c tiv itie s : M a s te r d a ta c le a n- u p D a ta C o n v e rs io n M a p p in g
A c tiv itie s : B u s in e s s P ro c e s s M a p p in g w ith S A P B est P ra c tic e s
A c tiv itie s : S A P fu n c tio n a l k n o w le d g e tra n s fe r B u s in e s s c a s e s te s tin g c y c le s / In te g ra tio n te s tin g
A c tiv itie s : E n d- u s e r T ra in in g
A c tiv itie s : G o- L iv e S u p p o rt In te rn a l S u p p o rt
S u m m a ry T o ta l T im e S p e n t:
M a s te r D a ta C le a n -u p /D a ta C o n v e rs io n : 2 5 % B u s in e s s P ro c e s s M a p p in g w ith m y S A P A ll -in -o n e B e s t P ra c tic e s : 1 0 % B u s in e s s P ro c e s s e s /In te g ra tio n T e s tin g : 4 5 % S u p e r-u s e rs /E n d -u s e rs T ra in in g : 2 0 %
(Case 40, slide 11) Copyright Eveready; used by permission.
From my personal standpoint it was one of the most challenging years of my professional career. This project was a race, every minute of it. I think the race started for me about the middle of November of 2001 and it was a push. There never was a time when there wasnt an impending deadline every week or the week later. We were racing every minute. It was tough. The team did absolutely awesome, but it was very, very tough. It was one of the most difficult things Ive ever done (Case 22, transcript, p. 5).
A11
Copyright of MIS Quarterly is the property of MIS Quarterly & The Society for Information Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

A Multi-Project Model of Key Factors Affecting Organizational Benefits From Enterprise Systems Seddon MISQ 2010

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

A Multi-Project Model of Key Factors Affecting Organizational Benefits From Enterprise Systems Seddon MISQ 2010

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Seddon et al.

/Key Factors Affecting Organizational Benefits

MIS Quarterly Vol. 34 No. 2 pp. 305-328/June 2010

Seddon et al./Key Factors Affecting Organizational Benefits

MIS Quarterly Vol. 34 No. 2/June 2010

Seddon et al./Key Factors Affecting Organizational Benefits

Long-Term Organizational Benefits Model

Short-Term Model: Factors Driving Benefits from Each Project

Integration Process Optimization Improved Access to Information

Implementation Shakedown Continuous improvement project Go live 6 - 12 months Time

On-Going Major ES BusinessImprovement Projects

Functional Fit (FF) Overcoming organizational inertia (OOI)

Figure 1. OBES Model of Factors Affecting Organizational Benefits from ES

Table 1: Definitions of Factors in the OBES Model (Figure 1)

Overcoming organizational inertia (OOI)

MIS Quarterly Vol. 34 No. 2/June 2010

Seddon et al./Key Factors Affecting Organizational Benefits

Table 1. Definitions of Factors in the OBES Model (Figure 1) (Continued)

Improved access to information On-going major ES business improvement projects

Is a New ES Benefits Model Needed?

MIS Quarterly Vol. 34 No. 2/June 2010

Seddon et al./Key Factors Affecting Organizational Benefits

Table 2. Example Studies of Enterprise System Projects and Benefits

2. Project critical success factors (CSFs)

6. Factors affecting variance in organizational benefits

MIS Quarterly Vol. 34 No. 2/June 2010

Seddon et al./Key Factors Affecting Organizational Benefits

ERP Implementation Success

(b) Davenport et al. (2004), Figure 2, p. 18. N = 163 firms globally.

0.18 Optimize 0.15

Benefits Realized R2 = 0.13

MIS Quarterly Vol. 34 No. 2/June 2010

Seddon et al./Key Factors Affecting Organizational Benefits

Hypothesis Development: Synthesizing the OBES Model from the Literature

Organizational Benefits from ES Use

MIS Quarterly Vol. 34 No. 2/June 2010

Seddon et al./Key Factors Affecting Organizational Benefits

MIS Quarterly Vol. 34 No. 2/June 2010

Seddon et al./Key Factors Affecting Organizational Benefits

Overcoming Organizational Inertia

MIS Quarterly Vol. 34 No. 2/June 2010

Seddon et al./Key Factors Affecting Organizational Benefits

MIS Quarterly Vol. 34 No. 2/June 2010

Seddon et al./Key Factors Affecting Organizational Benefits

Improved Access to Information

MIS Quarterly Vol. 34 No. 2/June 2010

Seddon et al./Key Factors Affecting Organizational Benefits

On-Going Major ES Business Improvement Projects

MIS Quarterly Vol. 34 No. 2/June 2010

Seddon et al./Key Factors Affecting Organizational Benefits

The OBES Model in a Nutshell

MIS Quarterly Vol. 34 No. 2/June 2010

Seddon et al./Key Factors Affecting Organizational Benefits

MIS Quarterly Vol. 34 No. 2/June 2010

Seddon et al./Key Factors Affecting Organizational Benefits

MIS Quarterly Vol. 34 No. 2/June 2010

Seddon et al./Key Factors Affecting Organizational Benefits

Table 3. Example of Strength-of-Evidence Judgments for H3*

CCEs Current Implementation - Continued

MIS Quarterly Vol. 34 No. 2/June 2010

Seddon et al./Key Factors Affecting Organizational Benefits

Figure 3. Lower Half of Coder 1s Analysis Worksheet (Cases 25 through 60)*