ERP Implementation Success through Effective Management of Roles

and Responsibilities among Stakeholders

A Holistic Framework Adopted from Two Case Studies

Waiel Al-Rashid, Mustafa Alshawi

University of Salford, Manchester, U.K.

walrashid@yahoo.com, M.A.Alshawi@salford.ac.uk

Majed Al-Mashari

King Saud University, Riyadh Saudi Arabia

majed@ksu.edu.sa

Keywords: Enterprise Resource Planning, ERP, Stakeholders, Roles and Responsibilities, Public-private Partnership,

Return on Investment, ROI.

Abstract: This paper describes a case study of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) implementation in a public-private

partnership organisation. The primary focus of the study is to explore, from a holistic view, how Return On

Investment (ROI) can be achieved through effective management of roles and responsibilities in an ERP

implementation context. The paper starts with an introduction, which includes highlights from the literature

indicating the significance of roles and responsibilities management among various ERP stakeholders. The

introduction is followed by a brief description of the research methodology used, and then followed by a

description of the chosen case study for this paper. The case is then analysed with more focus on how roles

and responsibilities among ERP stakeholders interrelate with the implementation outcomes. A separate

section is dedicated to extracting appropriate lessons that improve ROI from ERP investment. The findings

from the case are assessed through the literature and a published case study that is addressed to ERP

stakeholders. The result of discussing the case findings will be presented in a new version of the

management framework for the stakeholder’s roles and responsibilities in the context of ERP.

1 INTRODUCTION

ERP is a system that consists of an integrated

commercial software solution which fulfils the

function of uniting the different functions of an

organisation (Ifinedo & Nahar, 2009). One of the

key benefits which are perceived to be associated

with the implementation of an ERP system is the

fact that it enables managers to have a holistic

perception of the workings of the organisation and,

as a consequence, the popularity of such system

implementations has grown rapidly. Indeed, the

benefits which are associated with ERP systems are

perceived to be so strong that ERP systems have

been widely heralded as one of the most significant

developments to have taken place in the field of

organisational information systems within the last

decade (Grabski, Leech and Schmidt, 2011).

Al.Rashid, Al.Shawi and Al.Mashari (2009)

review relevant literature and found ERP

stakeholder perspective is a wide research area

where authors suggested studying relationships

amongst stakeholders at all implementation levels as

well as the success of the implementation.

Research which has been conducted by Arlbjorn

and Haug (2010) suggests that the key reason for the

failure of ERP implementations is due to the fact

that the methods used to manage the human issues

which arising from the ERP implementation are

ineffective.

According to research which has been conducted

by Madhani (2012), the implementation of a new

ERP system can result in significant changes in the

management processes, culture and structure of an

organisation and the success of the implementation

of a system therefore requires a holistic view of such

changes to be adopted. Murphy, Chang and

Unsworth (2012) has conducted a series of case

studies to argue that an insufficient amount of

157

Al-Rashid W., Alshawi M. and Al-Mashari M.

ERP Implementation Success through Effective Management of Roles and Responsibilities among StakeholdersA Holistic Framework Adopted from Two Case Studies.

DOI: 10.5220/0004775001570165

In Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Business Modeling and Software Design (BMSD 2013), pages 157-165

ISBN: 978-989-8565-56-3

attention has been dedicated to managing the effects

that the new ERP system is likely to have on the

culture of the organisation. This work has given rise

to recommendations that a more cohesive and more

comprehensive approach is adopted, which

acknowledges and manages the changes that the

ERP system has on the entire range of stakeholders

which exist within the organisation.

However, despite the array of advantages which

are associated with the implementation of ERP

systems, this is belied by the large number of high

profile ERP failures which have been discussed

within the media. For example, in a survey which

was conducted by Murphy et al (2012) of 250

companies, it was found that the proportion of

companies who stated that they were ‘very satisfied’

with their ERP system was just 10 per cent in 2010,

while the number of companies who claimed that

they were ‘very dissatisfied’ with the outcome of

their ERP system rose significantly from 2 per cent

in 2006 to 31 per cent in 2010 (Tiwana & Klei,

2010).

There appear to be a number of reasons why the

reputed benefits which are associated with ERP

systems fail to materialise for many companies.

A study by Burns (2008), that sought to discover

the ten most frequent selection and implementation

mistakes of 2007, found that clearly defined roles

and responsibilities were amongst the key factors

vital to the success of ERP implementation.

A recent survey study of ERP implementation in

the retail sector in India, conducted by Garg and

Garg (2013) found evidence that the management of

stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities was crucial

to success.

In fact a review of the literature regarding critical

success factors (CSF) in ERP implementation,

conducted by Finney and Corbett (2007), resulted in

a key finding being made, namely that there was a

huge gap in the literature regarding what key

stakeholders perceived as the CSF that resulted in

implementation success, which suggests that their

views are not considered valuable nor is the

effective management of their roles and

responsibilities.

Al.Rashid et al (2012) attempted to study ERP

implementation from a stakeholder’s management

through a case study of an agricultural organisation.

The study is concluded by producing a framework

(Figure 1).

Figure 1: Framework for the first revision of the roles and

responsibilities among stakeholders. Source: Al.Rashid et

al (2012) pp 70.

This framework is based on a single case study

and limited to the preoperational stage of ERP

implementation only. It did not address the two

stages of the core and post implementation.

Therefore, this paper aims to test the framework

using another ERP implementation case study and to

expand the framework to cover part of the issues

needed for the other two implementation stages; i.e.

implementation and post implementation. A new

version of a holistic framework is then developed

that can assist in improving ROI from ERP

investment through effective management of

stakeholders.

2 RESEARCH APPROACH

This paper has chosen another exploratory study of

ERP implementation from a stakeholder’s

perspective, through qualitative data collection, to

verify the applicability of the existing framework

(Figure 1) and suggest how the framework can be

enhanced.

ServCo is a given name for a public-private

partnership organisation to manage water supply

services. ServCo’s experience in implementing ERP

is studied in the context of effective identification

Integrated Stakeholder’s Roles & Responsibilities

reement First Revision

Lead To

ERP Initiative

Scope

Objectives

Readiness

Assessme

Integrated Training Plan

Mission Critical

ERP strategy

External Forces

Main

competitors

started

implemented

ERP.

ERP Stakeholders

Internal Forces

Internal pressure to

discard legacy systems.

New management

enthusiasm for change

Third International Symposium on Business Modeling and Software Design

158

and management of the roles and responsibilities of

various stakeholders involved or affected by the

implementation. The data collection followed a

qualitative approach through a number of interviews

with key personnel involved in the implementation

at different stages. Other sources of data collection

are used to complement and assess the data collected

from interviews including various documents such

as implementers’ proposals, status reports, power-

point presentations, minutes of meetings, etc. The

data is then analysed and discussed through

supporting related literature and the case study by

Al.Rashid et al (2012). The discussion of findings from

this case is concluded with a holistic framework of

effective management of roles and responsibilities

which can be considered as an enhanced and

upgraded version of the framework (Figure1) that is

suggested by Al.Rashid et al (2012).

3 CASE DESCRIPTION

A government decree is announced in a developing

country requesting Ministry of Water to privatise

water services. To prepare a new company for

business, the Ministry started the development of

support finance, HR and logistic policies and

procedures for the new organisation including the

initiation of supporting information systems.

The CEO decided to adopt the same ERP

solution that has been just implemented in the

Sewage organisation (another entity governed by the

Ministry).

The purchasing department in the Ministry of

Water produced a public Request For Proposal

(RFP) for an ERP service, where a number of IT

consulting companies applied. The technical

committee awarded one implementor (I-a), who had

just completed ERP implementation in the water

desalination organisation. The contract, also

developed by the Ministry contracting department,

states that ‘I-a’ should complete the implementation

in eight months in the centralised region only before

adding a second region that has recently fallen under

ServCo’s responsibility.

A month later, ServCo announces that it has

signed an operations and maintenance (O&M)

agreement with the technical partner to manage the

operations of the second region. Gradually, I-a

became more and more frustrated because the

requirements for changes never stopped, and they

were unable to complete the remaining

implementation activities.

3.1 Operations & Maintenance (O&M)

Partnership

The ERP team was not aware of the contract signed

between ServCo and the O&M partner. Six months

from the O&M signing date, the ERP teams received

several enquiries about the ERP implementation

status. The ERP team discovered that ServCo

appointed the O&M partner to manage the

operations and maintenance by which they need an

ERP system to facilitate their activities. ERP project

manager explained clearly that ERP plans did not

include any consideration of the new requirements

of the O&M partner. A formal report by the O&M

partner submitted to ServCo stating clearly that the

ERP implementation is significantly delaying the

O&M handover plans. The report includes specific

rectifications and a road map that includes several

alternatives for ServCo to recover the situation by

aligning ERP with the O&M plans. One week later,

the ERP project manager circulates a memo that sets

out clearly a fast-tracked ERP release to fulfil the

partnership agreement with the O&M partner.

During the ERP fast-track implementation

process, a new CIO is hired to manage all

information systems requirements. The first priority

assigned to him is to assure all O&M information

systems requirements are fulfilled including

consistency and integration with ERP

implementation. The CIO takes the lead in capturing

all necessary tasks needed to meet this mission and

starts a new discussion with the implementor ‘I-a’.

The implementor responds that these requirements

are new and require a new implementation

assignment. The CIO takes a firm stand and decides

to black list ‘I-a’ and refuses to release their

remaining payments. This conflict with the existing

implementor urges the CIO to find an alternative

implementation partner. The implemented modules

are self-explained in table 1.

Table 1: Implemented modules in Phase I.

Areas AS IS Modules

Finance G-Ledger & Account Payable

Supply Chain Inventory & Purchasing

Human Resources HR & Payroll

A new implementor ‘I-b’ is hired for a six month

contract to provide post-implementation

maintenance and support services for selected ERP

modules.

ERP Implementation Success through Effective Management of Roles and Responsibilities among Stakeholders - A

Holistic Framework Adopted from Two Case Studies

159

3.2 The Emergence of the Third ERP

Implementor

In parallel to the assignment of ‘I-b’, the CIO is

developing a long-term plan that can assure

fulfilment of O&M ERP requirements. An

International implementor is hired to conduct a total

assessment review of the existing implementation

gaps. The process starts by stating a number of

objectives that include evaluating the actual

modules/functionalities installed in ServCo to assess

of the current usage of the system, functions

activated but not used, functions not used and

recurring issues. The assessment includes also

evaluating the completeness of current

implementation for the implementation of the new

module requested for phase II.

The assessment is concluded by a detailed report

that includes gap analysis for all implementation

areas. Those gaps were categorised based on the

severity level (Table 2).

Table 2: Analysis of the Implementation

Gap Categories Distribution.

Severity

Area

H M L Total

All

1 1

Finance

2 34 10

1 9 47

SCM

4 4 2 10

Finance & SCM

Total

9 48 60 117

Two months after ServCo reviews and discusses

the assessment review the ‘I-c’ is awarded to

implement the third cycle. ServCo & ‘I-c’, who are

announced as the strategic partner in information

technology, celebrate the new project, which will

significantly contribute towards raising the

efficiency and the quality of the services offered by

ServCo. The new project is introduced as a global

initiative that seeks to transform and enhance the

way ServCo operates its business and delivers its

service to customers. More specifically, the

transformation is claimed to arrive through unified,

lean and robust business processes and state-of-the-

art technology. Customers are expected to benefit

from the project, through a Customer Care & Billing

system. Also employees have been promised that

they will benefit from the project, thanks to the new

maintenance processes and the implementation of

the enterprise asset management system. The

implementation starts with close coordination

between the two project managers i.e. from ServCo

and from ‘I-c’ where each project manager

facilitates the resources and services required by the

implementation. In parallel with the normal

implementation process, the change management

team sets up a ServCo college to take care of all the

required training. The college trains nearly twenty

five trainers who take on the training of the end

users. The implementation is completed on-time and

‘I-c’ advertised the perceived implementation

benefits are achieved.

4 ANALYSIS

The analysis of the case suggests implementation is

to be divided into three phases (Table 3).

Table 3: Implementation phases.

No Implementation Description

Phase

(I-a)

Preparation activities that include the

development of the policies &

Procedures, selection process and

contract development. Core

implementation of the As-Is of ERP

modules based on the policies &

procedures developed in the first phase.

Phase

(I-b)

A new implementor hired to provide

support and to renovate the existing

Implementation

Phase

(I-C)

The advance implementation that covers

all user requirements and the operations

and maintenance partner considerations.

4.1 High Level Stakeholders

Identification

The high level stakeholders involved at the initiating

ERP implementation process are the Ministry of

Water, the Ministry of Finance and the Operations

and Maintenance partner (Figure 2).

Figure 2: High level stakeholders of the first

Implementation Cycle.

Third International Symposium on Business Modeling and Software Design

160

The Ministry of Water at the time of adopting

ERP is the sponsor of water services in the whole

country. Therefore, ServCo business practices are

dominated by inherited government culture and

practices. The Ministry of Finance governs all

financial transactions across ministries. Its mandates

include the management of the expenses and

revenues of all ministries. This includes the unified

government purchasing system that is used to award

the first implementor ‘I-a’.

For newly set up companies purchasing

sophisticated systems like ERP, government

purchasing systems can be seen as inappropriate

since the stakeholders involved in the purchasing

process lack adequate knowledge to make ERP

purchasing and contract decisions.

This can justify why the contract and the scope

of the first implementation can be seen as

inappropriate to the nature of ERP implementation.

It is obvious that stakeholders involved from both

ministries including purchasing and contracting

departments have dealt with ERP as an off-the-shelf

software type of product. No considerations are

made towards the need to review and improve the

business process for ERP to succeed. For example,

the process of managing and organising fragmented

warehouses is underestimated and hinders several

ERP functionalities from being used due to the huge

amount of data that needs to be prepared and the

processes that need changes.

Besides the knowledge gap within different

stakeholders involved from the two ministries, there

is a clear roles and responsibilities gap at that stage.

A clear example is why the ERP team disengaged

from the O&M partnership agreement.

In fact, the ERP implementation team may be

shocked with the magnitude and un-criticality of the

operations and maintenance partner’s requirements

that should have been thoroughly considered at early

implementation phases. The proposal by the O&M

partner indicates clearly before the contract is signed

that ERP is expected to be ready before operations

are started. However, the purchasing and contracting

stakeholders who prepared the contract never

communicated this to ERP team in a timely manner.

All stakeholders drift from bearing the responsibility

of such a mistake Figure 2 demonstrates that ERP is

centred on three stakeholders who lack consistency

and integrity in their requirements.

That poor management of roles and

responsibilities has cascaded down through lower

levels to line managers and end users who become

part of the dilemma because of the lack of clarity in

the definition of their roles and responsibilities.

During the requirements definition, the response

from end users was slow and incomplete. This

behaviour by end users increased the frustration of

‘I-a’ as this is expected to delay the implementation.

End users stated that they received conflicting

directions from two parties.

The first party is their line managers who tried to

comply with ERP implementation instructions and

guidelines, while the second party is the operating

and maintenance partner who used their power from

the mandate obtained from the contract.

This scenario that first started from poor

management of roles and responsibilities resulted

into ERP failure during first implementation cycle

(Figure 3).

Figure 3: Relationship between R&Rs & ERP failures.

4.2 Policies & Procedures Focus

The attempt at gaining a head start by developing

policies and procedures for ServCo through the use

of management consultants has heavily affected the

implementation.

Those policies and procedures become the

primary source for the definition of ERP

requirements. When functional managers are hired

by ServCo at a later stage they found that large

requirements gaps are missing from the current

configuration. End users found HR modules

inflexible to cope with real business practices. This

finding can be seen in the tendency by several end

users to manage core business operations outside the

system as much as they could, which defeated the

point of adopting such advanced systems like ERP.

The driving forces of expediting and developing

policies and procedures before hiring line managers

are understood. However, the complete ignorance of

key stakeholders in the requirements definition by

relying only on policies and procedures can be seen

ERP Implementation Success through Effective Management of Roles and Responsibilities among Stakeholders - A

Holistic Framework Adopted from Two Case Studies

161

as an explicit mistake. Policies and procedures are as

good as business owners understand and use them in

practice. However, in ServCo’s case not only were

business owners disengaged from the development

process of those policies and procedures but also it

had never been used in the company. ERP modules,

therefore, are designed on a very weak base as

regards defining the requirements. As a result, the

outcome of the first implementation cycle is poor in

terms of assisting HR practices, most of the issues

are resolved outside the system and ultimately

another implementation is initiated. The ROI from

ERP investment is then significantly decreased since

the return has to cover double of the cost.

Figure 4: Relationship between disengagement of

Stakeholders & ERP failures.

4.3 Can the Case Considered

Successful or Failure?

The holistic review of the implementation process

including the various implementation cycles leads to

the conclusion that deciding whether the

implementation is successful is problematic.

The second and the third implementation cycles

can be considered successful. Both projects are

completed on time, according to budget and the

objectives are achieved. On the other hand, the

experience of the first implementation cycle was one

of failure. The project was not completed, the cost

and the time is over run. The combination of three

cycles indicates that ultimately ERP achieved most

of its target benefits however ROI is significantly

less than what it should be as ServeCo invested in

two extra unplanned projects to achieve the same

objectives.

Despite these implementation deficits, ERP

implementation produced side-gains. First, the hard

lessons from the first implementation cycles

motivated the company to focus significant attention

on change management. Second, the organisation

learned the significance and the importance of

managing roles and responsibilities to ERP success;

which can be demonstrated by the examples of table

4 & 5.

5 LESSONS LEARNED

A number of lessons which fall under the category

of the management of roles and responsibilities

among stakeholders are discussed in the following

sections

5.1 R&Rs Lesson from the Second

Cycle

While analysing the project plan start-up activities

the conclusion can clearly be drawn that the

implementer has suggested a very clear, realistic and

fair roles and responsibilities definition. The ServCo

project manager demonstrated excellent leadership

in assuring a full commitment to the definition of

those roles and responsibilities. The second

implementation cycle project manager offered the

following description:

‘‘The second implementor has successfully

absorbed the legacy implementation issues, rectified

all pending problems, implemented needed additions

and produced excellent support services. The roles

and responsibilities definition provided by the

implementor has proven to be a prime success factor

that paved the route for the third implementation

phase success’’

Table 4: Roles & responsibilities examples from 2nd

phase adopted from ServCo project documents.

Role/Respon

sibility

Activities for the Role

ServCo

Project

Sponsor

1. Provide management sponsorship and

direction to the project

2. Provide limited time for executive

interview and review project progress

3. Chair the steering committee meeting

ServCo

Project

Manager

1. Conduct reviews and weekly status

meeting

2. Engage with I-b support manager in

decision making process around –

support processes

3. Facilitate management decision and

approvals.

4. Single point of contact for I-b team

from communication perspective

id Policies & Procedures

Disengagement of Stakeholders

Unreliable

Requirements

Definition

ERP FAILURE

Third International Symposium on Business Modeling and Software Design

162

5.2 R&Rs Lesson from the Third Cycle

The third implementation cycle can be seen as the

most successful project. The roles and responsibility

management have been developed and improved

exponentially during this implementation cycle.

Table 5 demonstrates how roles and responsibilities

of the core implementation members have been

defined.

Table 5: Roles & responsibilities examples from third

phase adopted from ServCo project documents.

Team

Role

Time

Description

PMO

P/D

20%

Project Director will be involved also

in planning and mobilising Finalisation

(leverage Compass resource)

PMO

60%

SERVCO PM in Plan phase is assumed

high level of involvement based on the

nature of the phase

PMO

PMO/A

40%

Support of PMO (leverage Compass

resource)

Functional

30%

Usually he is a selected and trusted

representative of Business Users

Functions, with corporate visibility and

authority – He will act as gateway with

BU for Planning of Workshop to be

held in Analyse phase. He will act as

the gateway for the user’s community,

facilitating communication and

decision making.

Techno Team

30%

Specific Skills in current IT capabilities

supporting such processes. Able to

discuss/ report/ communicate on

current practices, and act as a catalyst/

change agent on to-be practices. In this

phase just one at HQ level

Change Team

C/M

20%

Representative of HR department - To

cover also the Change Management

part – He will be assumed to be the

gateway with Business Users for

Training needs and schedule

finalization and for the Communication

Plan (leverage Compass resource)

Change

Team

BA/C

40%

Assist the Change Manager in his daily

work

PD: Project Director CM: Change Manager BA/Change: Business

Analyst Change PM: Project Manager

6 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

The holistic review of the lessons learned indicates

the significance of proper identification of

stakeholders in the implementation at initiation stage

of the project. ROI would have substantially

increased if the proper stakeholder’s identification

had been made at the initiation ERP stage. The three

implementation projects could have been reduced

into one project with two phases. These ROI

improvements would have been derived from

shortening implementation cycles, reducing

consultants’ involvements and optimising the

internal resources that had to be dedicated for ERP

implementation for a long time.

This finding is in line with the study by Alrashid

el at (2012) for an ERP implementation case in the

agricultural field. In that case the implementation

only achieved most of its targets in the third

implementation cycle as a direct result of poor

management and identification of the roles and

responsibilities among ERP stakeholders. This is

exactly the scenario in ServCo’s case as the

implementation achieved most of its benefits in the

third implementation cycles. Both cases indicate that

failure to follow the existing framework

recommendations (Figure 1) in terms of proper

identification of stakeholders and the roles and

responsibilities agreement before deciding to start

the implementation resulted in several

implementation difficulties that adversely affect the

ROI.

However, the case of ServCo provides additional

contribution to the framework; which relates to the

need to audit and review the application of roles and

responsibilities among ERP stakeholders during the

implementation process. More specifically, such an

audit process needs to be conducted before the

decision to go-live. Figure 4 shows how the two

assessment reviews by qualified consulting firms

assist in identifying ERP implementation deficits;

consequently, ServCo amends the roles and

responsibilities matrix among stakeholders in line

with ROI targets. Such audit process needs to be

included in the ERP project master plan. This is will

assist ERP sponsors to use the audit outcomes to

assess implementation outcomes and to take

necessary rectification actions. Proper identification

of implementation issues in a timely manner enables

ERP sponsors to preserve ROI by freezing

implementation costs and expediting ERP benefits.

ERP Implementation Success through Effective Management of Roles and Responsibilities among Stakeholders - A

Holistic Framework Adopted from Two Case Studies

163

7 DERIVING THE FRAMEWORK

The discussion of analysis of the three

implementation cycles can be better represented by a

framework of how effective management of roles

and responsibilities among various ERP stakeholders

can improve implementation outcomes. The derived

model can leverage and be integrated with the

framework (Figure 1) by Al.Rashid et al (2012) that

covered the first part of the ERP initiation stage

only. It can also combine the necessity of including

the audit process before the go-live as explained in

Figure 4.

The result of the audit process can either be

positive findings where implementation can progress

further to the go-live and lead to ERP success. A

second probability, that the audit process indicates

improvement opportunities where a rework process

is needed and further rectifications are required

before the next audit process can be conducted

Figure 6. The integration between the prior research

findings framework (Figure 1) and the extracted

lessons of conducting an audit process (Figure 4)

can be combined to produce an advance version of

the framework (Figure 6). The framework can be

divided into a number of groups.

Firstly, it suggests that ERP implementation

should be divided into three phases, preparation,

implementation and go-live & post implementation.

Through the three phases approach ERP sponsors

can intervene wisely to define and review the ROI

and the roles and responsibilities. Two main points

for their intervention are suggested between the

three phases. The first point is at the time of signing

the contract with the ERP vendors and announces

the starting of ERP. The second review point is

before the go-live where the audit process includes a

full review of the ROI status and the management of

the roles and responsibilities.

Secondly, the framework recommends a proper

understanding of driving forces that brought ERP as

a business case into the organisation. This is

expected to pave the way for setting and defining the

project scope and objectives before stakeholders can

be assigned and made accountable for achieving the

target ROI.

Thirdly, there are the preparation activities

before the implementation starts, including proper

planning centred on effective stakeholder’s

identification and concluded by producing the first

roles and responsibilities agreement among various

ERP stakeholders.

Fourthly, there is the core implementation

activities process in which the framework is

suggesting a comprehensive audit of the roles and

responsibilities among all stakeholders before

committing to the go-live, unless the audit confirms

a successful roles and responsibilities review go-live

should not be approved.

Finally, the implementation can safely progress

to the go-live and post implementation plans where

roles and responsibilities among ERP stakeholders

by that stage are to be seen as an embedded part of

the organisational culture. Once this is achieved; this

can ensure optimal ERP ROI is always achieved

during the continuous ERP improvements.

Figure 5: The audit process Vs. implementation cycles.

8 CONCLUSIONS

The paper has explored the research and conclusions

from ERP literature that the management of roles

and responsibilities among various ERP stakeholders

is significant. Prior research suggests a framework

centred on the management of stakeholders to

improve ROI (Figure 1). That framework covers

only the initiation stages of the implementation. A

case study of a public-private partnership

organisation is studied to verify the applicability of

that framework and to extend it to cover the

implementation and post implementation stages. The

case has been described; analysed in a qualitative

manner and related lessons have been extracted. The

analysis shows, through examples from the case,

how ROI is adversely affected as a direct result from

the absence of the management of effective roles

and responsibilities and the failure to implement the

existing model at the initiation implementation

stage. The findings of the analysis have been

discussed using the existing framework from the

previous case by Al.Rashid et al (2012). The paper

found that ERP sponsors are urged to prioritise and

carefully plan for a comprehensive audit process of

Third International Symposium on Business Modeling and Software Design

164

the roles and responsibilities before deciding has to

move to the go-live stage and discard legacy

systems. The audit results assist ERP sponsors to

take the necessary actions that rectify

implementation mistakes and assure optimal results

are achieved from the go-live and post

implementation. The results of the findings and

discussions have then been integrated with the

existing framework in the form of a framework

(Figure 6).

REFERENCES

Al-Rashid, W., Alshawi, M. and Al-Mashari, M. (2009), “

Exploring Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)

Implementation From Stakeholders Perspective –

Analysis of Case Study” , in Proceeding of The 4th

European Conference On Intelligent Management

System In Operations (IMSIO4) Greater Manchester,

UK 7-8 July 2009 PP 140 -147

Al-Rashid, W., Alshawi, M. and Al-Mashari, M. (2012), “

Exploring Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)

Implementation From Stakeholders Perspective – A

Case Study” , in Proceeding of The 5th International

Conference on Communications, Computers and

Applications (MIC-CCA2012) Istanbul, Turkey: 12-14

October 2012 ISBN: 978-1-938302-07-7 PP 65 - 70

Arlbjørn, J. and Haug, A. (2010) Business Process

Optimization. Academica.

Barkier, T. and Frolick, M. (2003) ERP implementation

failure: A case study. Information Systems

Management, 20, pp. 43-49.

Burns, M (2008), "Enterprise software survey 2008", CA

Magazine Sep pp 14-15

Grabski, S. V., Leech, S. A. & Schmidt, P. J. 2011. A

review of ERP research: A future agenda for

accounting information systems. Journal of

Information Systems, 25, 37-78.

Ifinedo, P. and Nahar, N. (2009). Interactions between

contingency, organizational IT factors, and ERP

success. Industrial Management & Data Systems,

109(1), 118-137

Madhani, Pankaj M.,

Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP): Enhancing and S

ustaining Value (May 18,

2012). ICFAIUniversity Press, 2008. Available at

SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1966815

Murphy, G. D., Chang, A. & Unsworth, K. 2012.

Differential effects of ERP systems on user

outcomes—a longitudinal investigation. New

Technology, Work and Employment, 27, 147-162.

Poonam Garg, Atul Garg, (2013) "An empirical study on

Critical Failure factors for Enterprise Resource

Planning implementation in Indian Retail Sector",

Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 19 Iss: 3

Sherry Finney, Martin Corbett, (2007) "ERP

implementation: a compilation and analysis of critical

success factors", Business Process Management

Journal, Vol. 13 Iss: 3, pp.329 - 347

Tiwana, A. & Keil, M. 2009. Control in Internal and

outsourced software projects. Journal of Management

Information Systems, 26, 9-44.

Figure 6: The framework for effective management of

roles and responsibilities among stakeholders adopted

from the case.

Externa

ERP DRIVING

FORCES

Internal

ERP

Stake-Holder

Selection

Process

Scope

Readiness

Assessmen

Engagement &

Identification of

Stakeholders

Integrated

Trainin

Plan

PASS

PHASE 2

PHASE 3

PHASE

ERP Success

Lead To

Integrated Stakeholders Roles &

Res

onsibilities A

reement

R&R Audit

Lead

FAILED

Go-Live

Post Implementation

Implementation Activities

ERP Implementation Success through Effective Management of Roles and Responsibilities among Stakeholders - A

Holistic Framework Adopted from Two Case Studies

165