Badewi and Shehab (2016)

Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com
ScienceDirect
International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 412 – 428
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman
The impact of organizational project benefits management

governance on ERP project success: Neo-institutional
theory perspective
Amgad Badewi a,b,⁎, Essam Shehab a
a
School of Aerospace, Transport and Manufacturing (SATM), Cranfield University, UK
b
Faculty of Commerce, Tanta University, Egypt
Received 24 June 2015; received in revised form 21 November 2015; accepted 1 December 2015
Available online 7 January 2016
Abstract
The success of ERP has been discussed extensively throughout the last decade. However, this research offers a new lens for understanding this
success through combining project management theory with institutional theory. Based on neo-institutional theory, it is proposed that the more the
Project Management (PM) and Benefits Management (BM) are used as practice and governance frameworks in an organization, the more it is able
to use them in ERP projects since they become part of its institutional logic in managing its projects. Therefore, ERP investment success is
hypothesized to be associated with the organization's project and benefits management institutional logics. After analyzing 130 questionnaires
using Structural Equation Modeling, it is found that these hypotheses are supported. Furthermore, the organizations that have both logics
outperform others which have not. This research implies that project management is not responsible for the project investment success. This is the
responsibility of business change management.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Project management institutional logic; Benefits management; Project benefits management; Project benefits governance; ERP project investment success;
Project success; Institutional theory; Project management theory
1. Introduction three different roles: the senior responsible owner, the business
change manager and the project manager (Badewi, in press). The
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) “is a business manage- deployment of the three roles in implementing projects is argued
ment system that comprises integrated sets of comprehensive to significantly affect their project investment success. Indeed,
software, which can be used, when successfully implemented, to the existence of this organizational structure to implement routine
manage and integrate all the business functions within an projects can create a distinctive institutional logic.
organization” (Shehab et al., 2004). The use of the project Institutional logic can be defined as “a set of material
management approach as a way of delivering project investment practices and symbolic constructions — which constitute its
success has been studied in general (Badewi, in press) and in the organizing principles and which is available to organizations
ERP field in particular (Dezdar and Ainin, 2011a). The Project and individuals to elaborate” (Friedland and Alford, 1991) pp.
Benefits Governance framework is designed to manage and 248–249. It is structurization of active actors' roles through
control project investment success, by assigning accountability to norms, values and beliefs (Thornton et al., 2012). This new
mental model of the organization (Forrester, 1992) which
emerged due to the use of this governance in organizations'
⁎ Corresponding author. routine projects is proposed to affect the organizational
E-mail addresses: a.badewi@cranfield.ac.uk (A. Badewi), capacity to implement, assimilate and realize benefits from
e.shehab@cranfield.ac.uk (E. Shehab). new transformational projects such as ERP systems.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.12.002
0263-7863/00/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
A. Badewi, E. Shehab / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 412–428 413
The underpinning theory for this proposition is institutional external pressures: regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive
theory. Institutional theory is used to study how coercive, (Dimaggio and Powell, 1983). Regulative inclines them to
normative and mimicking pressures, in a certain environment, coercive isomorphism by expedience, rules and sanctions.
make organizations behave similarly toward and by, similar Normative inclines them to professional isomorphism, which is
objects (Dimaggio and Powell, 1983). Indeed, an organization compliance by social obligation, certification and accreditations
in itself is a system (Checkland and Holwell, 1997; Forrester, in the organization's external and internal contexts. Cognitive or
1994). Therefore, this research looks at the organization as a cultural inclines them to is mimetic isomorphism — taken for
system in itself which has the same features used in the bigger granted (“All the others are doing this, so we are on the right
system. In other words, its internal IT projects face the same path!”). By the time this institutionalization has proceeded
pressures (regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive) to be across and within organizations, it has structurized the values
constructed, behaved and performed similarly, what we call IT and way of thinking which creates institutional logic, whether
project isomorphism. for professionals (Greenwood et al., 2002), scientific disci-
Drazin and Van de Ven (1985) underlined that internal plines (Weerakkody et al., 2009), industry (Aldrich and Fiol,
coordination and control practices may become so institution- 1994) or even for a specific department in a specific
alized over time as to be difficult to change. Indeed, the organization (Dunn and Jones, 2010; Kraatz and Block,
routinization of certain controlling and coordination practices 2008).
can serve as instrumental tools in achieving control and The project management framework is being scrutinized by
improving performance (Gresov, 1989). This is reflected in the intuitional theory. Mignerat and Rivard (2012) showed,
the fact that hybrid dynamic organizational structures can have through a 52-year historical study, that formal control (project
different and perhaps conflicting, institutional logics which governance), external integration (stakeholder management)
leave the actors in some confusion (Pache and Santos, 2012). and project risk management norms, values and practices have
This was clear in the American aerospace institute, NASA, after evolved and been institutionalized (become similar) in the
one year of implementing its Enterprise System, since its information systems industry because project managers face
organizational institutional logics were in conflicting between the same pressures and these make them adopt the same ways
different organizational actors, which led to loose coupling of management. Müller et al. (2014) provided a useful literature
(Berente and Yoo, 2012). Following these arguments, if an review to show how project governance, the governance of
organization uses the same governance framework in managing projects and governmentality can be similar across organiza-
its projects, can it achieve higher success than those who do are tions since they face the same regulative, normative and
not have a consistent institutional logic? In other words, the cultural-cognitive pressures. Since project managers who live
research addresses this question: by making them part of in the same external environment face the same institutional
organizational institutional logic, does the institutionalization pressures, the isomorphism of the PM practices and tools in
of project management and benefits management practices one industry can be similar to those in another (Besner and
affect the success of ERP projects? Hobbs, 2012). For instance, one of the factors that led to
project management isomorphism across organizations is that
2. Literature review a significant number of project managers hold PMP and/or
Prince2 Certificates (Mignerat and Rivard, 2012). This
2.1. Organizational institutionalism normative pillar prompts project managers to behave in a
similar way in their daily projects (Greenwood et al., 2002).
There are various theories explaining the differences in the Furthermore, the moving of project managers from one
structures that organizations design for coordinating and organization to another increases the homogeneity of PM
controlling their members and activities. Unlike contingency practices among organizations. The institutionalization prac-
theory which suggests that the demands imposed by technical tices among organizations in the external environment of one
tasks in the organization encourage the development of strategies industry can also happen on a smaller scale within a single
to coordinate and control internal activities (Gresov, 1989), organization (see Fig. 1).
institutional theory proposes that the expectations concerning the Since homogeneity between organizations is accepted in
fitting organizational forms and behavior that are conveyed in practice, the isomorphism of project management practices
the wider social environment endorse the development of an across the same organization should be underlined for the same
organization's structure (Meyer and Rowan, 1977). Institutional reasons. With the neo-institutional theory, Scott (2001) provided
theory addresses the processes by which social structures, a new lens for institutional theory by formulating a comprehen-
including both normative and behavior systems, are established, sive framework to show that the institutionalization process
become stable and undergo changes over time (Scott, 2008a). results from both external and internal pressures. Therefore, this
Once the institution goes through the institutionalization spotlights the role of actors in the institutionalization process.
process, organizational isomorphism is established, which means Unlike the external environment pressures which can be
that organizations will have similarity or identity of form, shape unintentional, organizations usually adopt the three pressures
and structure. This isomorphism is believed to be critical for discussed above (coercive, mimetic and normative) as control
organizational survival (Scott, 2008b). It takes place because all mechanisms to constrain and direct the behavior of their actors
organizations, according to institutional theory, face the same (Haggerty and Golden, 2002). . For instance, the existence of a
414 A. Badewi, E. Shehab / International Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 412–428
of time, cost and quality (i.e. project management success

Organisation A Organisation B (Zwikael and Globerson, 2006; Zwikael and Smyrk, 2012a)).
PM framework PM framework
Furthermore, there is a significant relationship between project
Project A management success and project investment success (Serrador
Behaviour
(Framework and Focal and Turner, 2015). In other words, the organizations that can
success) Organisation PM
framework deliver their projects on time and within budget are able to
enjoy project investment success from doing so (Badewi, in
Project C
press). But applying the same argument to a ERP system may
Project B
Behaviour Behaviour
(Framework and
produce different results (Lech, 2013).
(Framework and
success)
success
ERP, unlike limited scale IT projects, involve a radical
Organisation C Organisation D change in the organizational processes and culture which
PM framework PM framework
entails risks to the project and to IT, and organizational
transformation (Dey et al., 2010) which significantly affect the
project's success. Therefore, there are two schools of thought
Fig. 1. The institutionalization process between PM frameworks in different about the impact on ERP project success of using project
organizations and within the same organization. management. One school believes that project management
enables the organization to deliver an ERP artifact on time and
Project Management Office (PMO), as an internal actor, which within budget (ERP project management success) but it cannot
puts its own regulative and normative pressures on all the projects affect the success of ERP project investment (Ram et al., 2013,
conducted under its umbrella (Tsaturyan and Müller, 2015). It is 2014a). This belief comes from the idea that focusing on the
can even be a governors' way of controlling and directing the iron triangle of delivering an ERP project is misleading (Lech,
users' behaviors toward the successful realization of benefits 2013). Not only this, but also the reliance on traditional PM
ERP Project Success. methodologies has been attacked as the reason for the rigidity
of the ERP system (Leonard and Higson, 2014) which may
2.2. ERP project investment success harm the fit between ERP and the organization's functions (Soh
and Sia, 2004).
Project success can be understood as product, process and However, it suffices to say that poor project management of an
organizational success (McLeod et al., 2012). Likewise, there ERP project leads to failure without even being fully introduced
are three perspectives on success for ERP projects. First, ERP to stakeholders (Yusuf et al., 2004). That is why poor project
project management success is defined in terms of delivering management, project team composition are seen among the most
ERP on time and within budget with the required functionality critical failure factors (Amid et al., 2012; Garg and Garg, 2013).
(Lech, 2013). Second, ERP project investment success is the Indeed, poor ERP project management results, in terms of scope
realization of ERP's non-financial and financial benefits so that creep, poor risk management and inadequate allocation of
users perceive the usefulness of it and sponsors find the return resources, in frustrated users pushing the organization to fail in
from it to be satisfactory (Al-Mashari et al., 2003). Third, ERP its ERP project investment (Chen et al., 2009). Because of this,
project success is defined as deploying the ERP artifacts on project management is a found to be predictor for the quality of
time and within budget while delivering organizational change ERP implementation and eventually to project success (Zhu et
so that the users are satisfied, benefits are realized and the al., 2010). Consequently, Peslak (2006) revealed that the
sponsor is satisfied. successful implementation of an ERP project (in terms of time
For the data between 1995 and 2008, organizations that have and cost) led to the stakeholders' perception of its success. In
the same organization “productivity-enhancing business prac- the same vein, Dezdar and Ainin (2011b) found that the extent
tices” regarding technology have the same rate of return on IT to which project management tools are used in ERP
investments (Brynjolfsson and Saunders, 2010). Thus, based on implementation affects the realization of ERP benefits and
Cybernetic control theory (Green and Welsh, 1988), ERP users' satisfaction with it.
investment success can come once the organization is able to The divide in the findings can be traced back to many
use it to capture, process, disseminate and analyze directive and factors. Firstly, Since Dezdar and Ainin (2011b) focused on the
predictor indicators on a timely basis (Wier et al., 2007). These “extent” to which tools are used, the difference between the two
arguments imply that, since any project entails changing schools can be understood in terms of level of maturity
working practices (Cicmil, 1999), an ERP project is designed (professionality) with which the project management tools and
to realize a significant increase in return on investment which practices are deployed. Furthermore, secondly, a significant
will be accompanied by organizational change in the ways of proportion of organizations, which claim to implement “project
doing and perceiving work practices and thus will be supported management practices” in ERP implementation, are indeed
by psychological change toward the ERP. not adopting project management tools in a consistent way.
Tasevska et al. (2014) found that most of the organizations
2.2.1. The impact of project management on ERP success surveyed did not use project management planning tools such
The successful implementation of project management as Gantt Charts or WBS. However, most of the organization
practices leads to the successful delivery of projects in terms used general project management principles such as having a
time baseline and defining the project scope. Lastly, the output is part of ‘business as usual’ and making sure that the
difference may have arisen due to the use of change management users of this output can get the best of it (Axelos, 2011).
tools and procedures. Moreover, because organizational change By reflecting that in an ERP project where there is a project
management is perceived as one of the critical failure factors in management approach, governance and tools can be useful in
ERP implementations (Garg and Garg, 2013), change man- its successful delivery on time and within budget, it is argued
agement in such projects is perceived to be critical to integrate in this paper that the Benefits Management (BM) approach
with the project management methodology used (Cicmil, will complement the successful recouping of ERP benefits. In
1999; Hornstein, 2015). Otherwise, it is advised to dedicate a other words, BM is introduced as approach to managing the
Business Change Manager (BCM) or Benefits Management lifecycle of the ERP. This argument is aligned with Norton et
(BM) to the work of managing the organizational change al. (2013) who identified the critical success factors in each
(Badewi, in press). phase of ERP benefits management: planning benefits,
According to institutional theory, the use of normative delivering benefits (the project management phase), reviewing
pressures to control the actors (such as the project managers) benefits (post-implementation phase 1) and exploiting the
affects their ability to do their job more professionally (in a ERP benefits (post-implementation phase 2).
more mature way) (Gupta et al., 1994). In other words, the Davenport et al. (2004) were among the first to consider the
organizations that use project management practices in their principles of ERP BM vital for successful benefits realization in
routine projects are able to carry out projects more efficiently the post-implementation phase. They addressed ERP benefits
and effectively because they are not only will be expected to be management by defending the view that benefits should be
professional enough in practicing PM; but will also better defined and prioritized and that action plans should be made to
understand their users' perceptions, expectations and attitudes achieve these benefits. Other researchers came to define (Shang
and become part of the organization's institutional logic. and Seddon, 2000), quantify (Shang and Seddon, 2002) and
Therefore, they can be expected to succeed in ERP projects. develop the relationships between ERP benefits (May et al.,
On this basis, it is hypothesized that the organizations that use 2013). Furthermore, without the deliberately and actively
projects management practices as a normative isomorphism are managing the organizational attitude toward the ERP, the
successful in that they can successfully implement ERP in organization may fall in ERP death spiral (Badewi et al., 2013).
terms of delivering its expected return on investment and Active benefits management strategies (Remenyi and Sherwood-
earning the users' satisfaction. Smith, 1998) imply, as well, reviewing the predefined benefits.
Empirically proven, ERP benefits were reviewed on the basis
Proposition 1. The organization's use of project management of quality (Nicolaou, 2004a), nature (Nicolaou, 2004b), timing
in its routine projects becomes part of its institutional logic and (Nicolaou and Bhattacharya, 2008) and decisions taken after
affects ERP investment success. the review (Nicolaou and Bhattacharya, 2006) and were all
found to be critical because there is strong evidence that all
these factors in the long run affect the related financial
2.2.2. The impact of Benefits Management on ERP success performance of the ERP.
Benefits management is a management philosophy that puts Finally, Davenport et al. (2004) underlined that ERP
the benefits in the central point for all actors' activities in implementation was an ongoing process until the “critical
organizational change. According, to the Cranfield benefits mass” of implementation was achieved which by integrating
management model, benefits management goes through six the main function of departments so that the real value of ERP
processes: Benefits identification, planning, implementation, could be realized. Therefore, benefits review was seen as a
execution, reviewing and exploitation (Ward et al., 1996). Project mechanism to follow up implementation and action taken so
Benefits Management is “the initiating, planning, organizing, that the organizational fitness with current and new ERP
executing, controlling, transitioning and supporting of change implementation was perceived to be associated with the
in the organization and its consequences as incurred by project organizational sustainable financial performance from ERP
management mechanisms to realize predefined benefits” (Nicolaou and Bhattacharya, 2008). Thus, the role of project
(Badewi, in press). A benefits management governance management was not to stop after the implementation phase.
framework is built on the existence of a business case for Exploiting and sustaining the ERP benefits had to be a
contrasting benefits behavior with cost behavior (Eckartz, continuous process since most of its benefits comes after it
2012; Ward et al., 2008), which is in the charge of the senior has been implemented (Davenport et al., 2004).
responsible owner of this change. Usually a benefits audit is In order to avoid confusion between the traditional role of
conducted 6–12 months after delivering the project output project management (to handle the project) and the BM
(Thomas and Fernández, 2008). Therefore, according to framework, the Business Change Manager (BCM) and the
Zwikael and Smyrk (2012b), the responsibility of benefits Benefits Audit have come to reflect these extended responsi-
realization in the post-implementation stage is beyond the bilities. The BCM should not be responsible for the continuous
responsibility of project management. It may be the responsi- realization of benefits only, but also for helping benefits
bility of the business change manager, whose responsibility is owners to identify the benefits before implementing the ERP,
to manage the readiness to change before implementation, assigning accountabilities and responsibilities in realizing bene-
ensuring that the smoothing process of transitioning the project fits, auditing the benefits realization in the post-implementation
phase, managing the changes required and managing any misfit 2.2.3. The impact of institutionalizing project and benefits
between organizational function and ERP structure. management practices on ERP success
Either the change readiness (Stratman and Roth, 2002) or The misfit between the ERP package and the organizational
ERP readiness before implementation has a significant impact functions affects both the success of implementing ERP project
on ERP project success (Ram et al., 2015). Indeed, readiness is management (on time within budget) and project investment
better managed through governmentality (Govern Mentality) success in the post-implementation stage (Gattiker and
(Foucault et al., 1991) not through managing behavior. For Goodhue, 2005). This misfit can come from the fact that the
instance, using expectation theory (Wabba and House, 1974), ERP vendor and ERP user come from different countries
when beneficiaries from the project output (ERP system) (Wang et al., 2006). Therefore, ERP should be customized to a
expect to gain from it, they participate actively (Purvis et al., certain level while an organization's processes should be
2015) which enhances the probability of its success (Beringer changed to maintain the fit between them (Soh and Sia, 2004).
et al., 2013; Missonier and Loufrani-Fedida, 2014). Thus, the Project manager is to deliver the required ERP customization,
BCM is critical for managing and monitoring the readiness and whereas business change manager is to work on organizational
the current institutional logics of the department(s) that will change so that the fitness between ERP and organization
implement the ERP module because ERP implementation is occur. All of them shall work collaboratively to design ERP
expected to change many things in the organizational blueprint (i.e. how the organization should look like after
institutional logic. This position is also important for implementing the ERP) because benefits, costs, and risks are
managing the change process hand in hand with the ERP highly interdepend factors (Badewi and Shehab, 2013).
project manager who will develop the ERP project capability Therefore, Zhong Liu and Seddon (2009) found that project
(Axelos, 2011). and change management and top management support enabled
Based on the previous arguments, it can be extrapolated that organizational benefits to come from ERP by managing the
two roles should be proposed for effectively managing the organizational functional fit and overcoming organizational
benefits realization process of the ERP system. The BCM and inertia. This can have a vital implication that ERP needs two
benefits audit go together because the value of ERP is roles can work as a close couple.
optimized once the fit between the ERP and the organization This is why it has been suggested that the various activities
is continuously managed in the post-implementation phase required during a project management lifecycle (Söderlund,
through the benefits auditing mechanism (Nicolaou and 2004) (i.e. the lifecycle from chartering the project with the
Bhattacharya, 2008). project manager to handling the ERP artifact) and also the
whole ERP project lifecycle (Bintoro et al., 2015) (from
Proposition 2. Success of benefits management roles affects
developing a business case to realizing ERP benefits) need to
ERP project success positively.
have different authorities, accountabilities and responsibilities.
In project benefits governance framework, Badewi (in press)
When an organization believes and adopts a benefits
showed that project benefits are better managed through
management mentality in its normal projects it becomes a
different circles of accountability: the Senior Responsible
part of the organizational institutional logic in working with
Owner (who owns and sponsors the project), the Benefits
projects. Furthermore, the rise of distinctive actors and action
Management (who is accountable for realizing the benefits) and
routines comes from the institutional symbolic and behavioral
the project management (who are accountable for delivering the
systems, which contain representational, constitutional, nor-
artifact on time and within budget) (see Fig. 2).
mative rules and regulatory mechanisms (Scott, 2004). The
existence of stable organizational structuring for tasks such as
project management creates institutional logic which defines ERP Sponsor Accountability
the values, norms and beliefs that structure the mental models Business Change Manager
ERP Project Manager
between actors (Barley and Tolbert, 1997). Although Benefits Accountability Accountability
Management practices are found to have a weak, but

significant, impact on project investment success, it is believed
that when the organization uses benefits management in its
routine projects, it not only masters these practices but also
confers a consistent and stable institutional benefits manage-
ment logic on other active agents, for instance project ERP Project Management Success ERP Project Investment Success
1- Delivering the ERP artefact on time 1- Realisation of financial and non-
ERP Project
management logic. Consequently, it is expected that organiza- 2- Delivering the ERP artefact on Budget Success
financial benefits
2- Users perceive the usefulness of
tions that apply benefits management methodology in their 3- Delivering the required functionality
the ERP
routine projects will use it in ERP projects, giving rise to the

following hypothesis.
Proposition 3. The use of Benefits Management practices in
organizational routine projects the ERP project investment
success conditioned by using benefits management roles with
the ERP. Fig. 2. ERP implementation accountability circles.
The logic of project management and benefits management process (Hatch and Cunliffe, 1997). For instance, while the
can be differentiated based on four dimensions: principles, functional organizations hold most of the power in the
assumptions, identity and domain (Thornton and Ocasio, functional departments, in projectized and strong matrix
2008). All of these aspects are inseparable components of the organizations the power in the projects is more restrained
institutional logic. Separation between management logics (Ford and Randolph, 1992).
does not necessarily mean that they associated with two Once the PM and BM practices are institutionalized, the
persons or two roles. However, in this research, we advocate practice can survive for longer and become more successful
separating the two logics when two positions are involved. than a one-time practice (Greenwood et al., 2002) and they can
Still, the consistency between logics is proposed as a factor work as a closed couple. Therefore, it is proposed that if the
in securing successful ERP project investment. Table 1 is project management and benefits management are institution-
developed on the basis of Badewi (2015, in press) Managing alized together in organizational logic, ERP project success
Successful Programmes, Project Management Professional, increases.
PRINCE2 and Managing Benefits Certificates.
H4. Institutionalization of PM and BM logics concurrently
During the lifecycle of ERP, in implementation, there are
affects the ERP investment success.
many different players with different impacts and importance
(Somers and Nelson, 2004). These players are not only
persons external to the organization (e.g. ERP consultants and 3. Research methodology
ERP vendors), but also internal ones (such as top management,
users, the project champion) who are affected by the Unlike the traditional way of researching institutional logics
organizational structure, power, culture and norms (Bintoro and institutional analysis (Thornton and Ocasio, 2008), this
et al., 2015). For instance, in the organizations where ERP is research adopts the positivist paradigm. The rationale behind this
initiated and promoted by a certain department or person is as follows. Since the professional bodies have great impact on
(called the ERP activator), its ERP success can be affected actors' identities, values and behavior (Greenwood et al., 2002;
negatively if this activator puts pressure on the ERP project to Scott, 2008c) and project management is dominated by bodies of
add weight to his/her department (Bernroider, 2013). Another knowledge, project management institutional logics are devel-
example of structuring the power in organizations which affects oped from these handbooks and a relevant literature review.
the realization of benefits is the agency role of managers An online survey was used to test the theoretical framework.
(Staehr, 2010). An online questionnaire was distributed to a range of social
ERP project success is not only due to effort from the senior media groups in LinkedIn and Facebook. Project managers
responsible owner, BCM and PM, but is the sum of actions by were then identified and targeted on LinkedIn. 421 responses
different actors (active stakeholders). Although the relative were received; when the incomplete ones had been deleted, 267
importance of each has been studied (Somers and Nelson, were found to be valid and used in the analysis. However, only
2004), it is still not clear how the interaction between them may 130 of the respondents had ERP systems. Thus, the effective
affect ERP project success (Bintoro et al., 2015). Logically, the sample was 130 in total (sample characteristics are presented in
interaction between actors in a system is determined by the Table 2).
distribution of power, authority and accountability between
them which affects the success of investment in ERP project 3.1. Concept operationalization
(Bernroider, 2013). Indeed, this distribution of power and
authority becomes institutionalized in the organization over The distributed questionnaire consists of seven sections:
time due to many pressures such as the departmentalization organizational project management logic; organizational benefits
Table 1
Distinctions between Project Management Logics and Benefits Management Logics.
Project management logic Benefits management logic
Organizing principle Outside the department Inside the changing department
There is a contract with ERP sponsor to delegate the There is a benefits profile contract to assign accountabilities and to be the
authority to start the work (Project charter) basis for a benefits review
Assumptions Deliver what is required on time and within budget A benefit is the central point for all actors' activities in the organizational
with a predefined quality level. change. This can be translated into return on investment, or users'
and organization's satisfaction with the change
Domain An engineer or someone with a technical background Management background, change management and understanding
business processes
Identity Technical words to communicate with vendors Business words to communicate with business people
Tools PERT/CPM and Gantt Chart Benefits profiles, benefits modelling, benefits simulation, benefits
validity test and benefits network diagram
The work lifecycle Output lifecycle Outcome lifecycle
Initiation, planning, execution, controlling and closing Benefits identification, benefits planning, benefits implementation,
benefits review and benefits exploitation
Table 2 Table 3
Sample Characteristics. Validity (Factor Analysis) and Reliability Tests (Cronbach's alpha).
Characteristics of the sample (n = 130) Rotated component matrix a
Country n % Length of time in this position N % Component
Arab Countries 25 19% 0–3 years 41 31% 1 2 3 4 5 6
Europe 30 23% 4–8 years 38 29%
Cronbach's alpha .848 .815 .786 .757 .715 .774
USA 36 28% 9–15 years 25 19%
Others 39 30% More than 15 years 14 10% PM_Succ_T .838
Missing (refused to specify) 12 9% PM_Succ_C .807
Total 130 Total 130 Proj_Inv_Succ_Benefits .773
Proj_Inv_Succ_Sat_1 .767
Proj_Inv_Succ_Sat_2 .708
Positions BM1_Business_Case .511
BM2_Benefit_Audit .644
Project managers 53 40%
BM4_Benefits_identification .745
Programme Managers 10 8%
BM5_Benefits_Accountability .748
CIO/IT Managers/IT directors 15 12%
PM1_Project_Charter .616
IT Technical (e.g. Programmers, DB) 11 8%
PM2_Reviewing_Cost_Plan .785
ERP project managers 22 17%
PM3_Reviewing_Time_Plan .820
Missing (refused to specify) 19 15%
PM4_Imp_comm_plan .716
Total 130
ERP_Bus_Chan .766
ERP_Benefit_Auditor .740
ERP_Ease .637
ERP_Useful .816
management logics; organizational project investment success; ERP_ROI .831
organizational project management success; benefits manage- ERP_Succ .838
ment roles in ERP implementation; ERP project success; and Extraction method: principal component analysis.
respondents' information. Rotation method: varimax with Kaiser normalization.
a
Rotation converged in 7 iterations.
For the sake of examining the reliability of the measures;
Cronbach's alpha was used as a measure of reliability. As long
as the Cronbach's alpha of a construct is more than 0.6, it is the projects. This construct is reliable and valid because its
considered reliable (Nunnally et al., 1967). Concerning the Cronbach's alpha is 0.815 and all items have loading scores of
validity of the questions, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) more than 0.6.
was deployed, using Principal Component Analysis with
Varimax rotation to test the divergent validity of the constructs, 3.1.1.2. Ability to deliver project management success. The
as illustrated in Table 3. Based on KMO and Bartlett's test of basic assumption of the project management mentality is the
the significance of the dimension reduction process for testing need to deliver the required project output on time and within
validity, this process is valid with P b 0.000 and sample budget (Atkinson, 1999). Nevertheless, in recent project
characteristics for the dimension reduction process are management research it is believed that project investment
adequate and accepted, as 0.884 (more than 0.6 is acceptable). success should also be considered in the mentality of project
managers in order to deliver the desired results (Chih and
3.1.1. Project management logics Zwikael, 2015; Zwikael and Smyrk, 2012a).
Therefore, respondents were asked to indicate how far they
3.1.1.1. Practices and values. The level of adopting project agreed that their organizations' IT projects were delivered on
management logics in the organization's projects is measured time and within cost. These questions are derived from the
by the degree of agreement that the respondents' organizations literature and include some questions used to measure project
engage in the following practices in its IT projects: having a efficiency (Dvir and Lechler, 2004; Zwikael et al., 2014). The
project charter before starting to implement a new IT project; Cronbach's alpha for determining the reliability of this
reviewing cost plans periodically; reviewing time plans construct was 0.805. In addition, based on Factor Analysis for
periodically; and implementing communication plans. measuring the validity of the constructs, the factor loads of the
Therefore, the first question, on the use of a project charter items of scale exceeded 0.6, which confirms that this construct
before starting a project, is used to understand the organiza- is valid.
tional institutional logic of the values and norms of the Project investment success is the concern of the project
governance requirement to delegate responsibility to a project sponsor, who wants to judge whether a project is worth
manager for implementing the project (Project Management investment (Zwikael and Smyrk, 2012a). Since the sponsor's
Institute, 2013). The next two questions asked about reviewing financial satisfaction (in terms of the project's return on
the cost and time plans. Finally, a question was put about investment) cannot be realized without the ability of project
implementing a communication plan, since one of the elementary deliverables to secure the planned benefits (Axelos, 2011),
needs for successful project management is to spotlight the project investment success focuses on the benefits which accrue
values of the managing internal and external customers of from projects (Camilleri, 2011) and the return on investment.
Therefore, as the literature suggests, project investment success 4.1. Correlational analysis and analytic model selection
is operationalized in terms of return on investments, successful
realization of the desired benefits and users' satisfaction Correlational analysis was used to find the relationship
(Besner and Hobbs, 2006; Serra and Kunc, 2015). The between the different variables used in the analysis. Correla-
reliability of the construct in the present study was 0.775 and tional analysis suggests that the organizations that routinize
the factor loads of the items under this construct were above benefits management practices are more likely than others to
0.6. These figures indicate that these measures were reliable adopt benefits management roles (business change manage-
and valid for the analysis. ment and benefits audit). It is logical to find a correlation of
49% (P b 0.001) for organizations that are used to benefits
auditing for their routine projects and to, allocating to a
3.1.2. Benefits management logics benefits auditor some role in ERP implementation and
Benefits management logics are benefits accountability and post-implementation. Furthermore, there is a close association
responsibilities assigned; benefits identified; and benefits (45.2% (P b 0.001)) between the organizations that are used to
audited. This scale has been used before (Badewi, in press). assigning accountabilities for benefits realization from IT
The reliability of this scale is 0.786 and all items except investments with the inclusion of a Business Change Manager
business case development have factor loads of more than 0.6. in ERP implementation. In general, all benefits management
Nevertheless, it should remain because removing it reduces the practices are found to be closely associated with the existence
reliability of the construct. Furthermore, its load does not of BM roles by more than 40% with a P-value less than 1%.
appear in any other construct with a score of 0.5. Regarding ERP success, the routinization of BM practices is
not equally important. The business case shows the lowest
association with ERP success, whereas benefits audit shows
3.1.3. ERP benefits management logics
the highest association of all the variables in the study by 18%
Benefits management needs two main actors to ensure the
(P b 0.05) and 44.7% (P b 0.001).
use of benefits management practices: BCM and a Benefits
As illustrated in Table 4, most of the variables are
Auditor. However, appointing them does not guarantee that
significantly correlated. This is due to measuring variables
they will be effective. Therefore, the scale covers five
that are correlated in real-life practices. In other words, the
categories: not available, part time but unsuccessful, part time
organizations that are used to a project management frame-
and successful, full time but unsuccessful and full time and
work in their routine projects are used to use BM as well
successful. After testing the validity and reliability of the
because the correlation between the variables of 56.3%
construct, we found that the scale to be used in the analysis was
(P b 0.001). Moreover, organizational project management
valid and reliable (0.715).
success is correlated with project investment success by about
45.6% with a confidence interval of 99%. This implies that a
3.1.4. ERP business success significant number of organizations that are happy with the
ERP project success is operationalized from two perspec- delivery of their project outputs on time and within budget are
tives: the expectation of use and behavior (Delone and McLean, happy with the benefits recouped from them and satisfied with
2002; DeLone and McLean, 2003) and the perception of project them and with their return on investment from them.
investment success (Badewi, 2015, in press; Zwikael and The correlational analysis also implies that the organizations
Smyrk, 2012a; Zwikael et al., 2014). Therefore, respondents that have a tendency to apply PM and BM frameworks do
were asked to show their level of agreement on four questions: better than those which do not apply them; the correlations of
ease of use, usefulness, return on investment and the perception PM and BM with ERP project success are 34.5% and 39.3%
of its success. The construct was found reliable and valid for respectively. However, this result can be misleading due to the
analysis with a Cronbach alpha of 0.848 and all factor loads for significant correlation between the independent variables,
the construct above 0.6 which is called the problem of multi-collinearity (Fisher and
Mason, 1981). This problem will lead to exaggerated results if
the traditional analytic models such as Regression, multiple
4. Analysis regression and partial regression analysis are used (Cassel et al.,
1999). Therefore, structured equation modeling is used to
The analysis used three analytical models. First, correla- overcome these model misspecification problems from the
tional analysis was used to understand how the different traditional regression methods (Byrne, 2013; Netemeyer et al.,
variables were correlated and to help to identify which analytic 2001).
models should be used. Based on correlational analysis, the
dependent variables were found to be correlated. Thus, 4.2. SEM fitness model
Structural Equation Modelling was used for the analysis after
examining its fitness for use. Finally, in order to learn the Before using Structural Equation Modelling, the reliability
impact of each logic on ERP success, step-wise analysis was and validity of the model should first be examined. Various
used to show that the two logics were complementary and perspectives are used to assess the model's fitness (Hair et al.,
significantly affected ERP success. 1998). Three measures are used for measuring the fit: the
25
1
Goodness-of-fit index (GFI), Chi-Square per Degree of
Freedom (x2/df)) and Root Mean Square Effort of Approxima-
−.378⁎⁎
tion (RMSEA). In our case, all the fitness criteria are satisfied.
20
The Chi-Square per Degree of Freedom (x2/df)), which scores
1
0.952, is lower than the cut off points of either 2.0 (Byrne,
.883⁎⁎
− .313⁎⁎
1989) or 5.0 (Marsh and Hocevar, 1985). The GFI was 0.912
19
which is above the level of 0.9 that indicates the good fit of the
1
sample data (Hair et al., 1998). In addition, the RAMSEA was
.881⁎⁎
−.355⁎⁎
.556⁎⁎
virtually null, with a confidence of 90% between 0.00 and
0.037. This is a respectable result, since it is acknowledged in
18
1
the literature that under 0.1 is acceptable, from .08 and 0.05 it to
.449⁎⁎
−.345⁎⁎
.363⁎⁎
.429⁎⁎
be suggested and below 0.05 is ideal (Browne et al., 1993).
Finally, the Standardized Root mean Square residual (SRMR)
17
.450⁎⁎ is 0.069, which is far below the accepted cut-off point of 0.1.
.836⁎⁎
−.287⁎⁎
.385⁎⁎
.408⁎⁎
All these indicators show that the model error is accepted and
the model can be used for analysis.
16
1
.797⁎⁎
.351⁎⁎
−.277⁎⁎
.569⁎⁎
.273⁎⁎
.347⁎⁎
4.3. SEM results

15
The results supported most of the research hypotheses.

Organizational Benefits Management practices are found to be
.854⁎⁎
.392⁎⁎
− .283⁎⁎
.689⁎⁎
.636⁎⁎
.281⁎⁎
.411⁎⁎
significant (with a Critical Ratio (CR) of 5.040 and P b 0.001)

1
on the use of benefits management roles (the existence and

9
success of business change managers and benefits auditors).

− .270⁎⁎
.748⁎⁎
.259⁎⁎
.462⁎⁎
.426⁎⁎
.466⁎⁎
.228⁎⁎
.229⁎⁎
However, the direct impact of BM on ERP success is

insignificant. Indeed, the routinization of these practices
1
8
alone explains 44.9% (P b 0.001) of the successful use of the

.563⁎⁎
.552⁎⁎
−.393⁎⁎
.431⁎⁎
.526⁎⁎
.407⁎⁎
.449⁎⁎
.522⁎⁎
.452⁎⁎
BM roles (Table 5). The existence of these BM roles and their

success are found to affect the ERP investment significantly by
1
7
0.348 (CR N 2.318 with P b 0.02). Thus, by using indirect

.790⁎⁎
.455⁎⁎
.427⁎⁎
− .329⁎⁎
.318⁎⁎
.430⁎⁎
.365⁎⁎
.361⁎⁎
.418⁎⁎
.335⁎⁎
effect analysis, as shown in Table 6, the organizational use of

benefits management is seen to affect ERP success indirectly
1
6
by 0.233 with a confidence level of over 95%. This is a clear

.790⁎⁎
− .260⁎⁎
.405⁎⁎
.473⁎⁎
.562⁎⁎
.416⁎⁎
.434⁎⁎
.345⁎⁎
.329⁎⁎
.353⁎⁎
.363⁎⁎
indication that the use of BM roles in ERP fully mediates the

routinization of BM practices in an organization and its ability
1
5
to realize ERP business success.

.794⁎⁎
.339⁎⁎
−.447⁎⁎
.472⁎⁎
.430⁎⁎
.538⁎⁎
.262⁎⁎
.342⁎⁎
.228⁎⁎
.257⁎⁎
.489⁎⁎
.344⁎⁎
The organization's use of project management practices is

found to be significant on both kinds of organizational project
1
4
management and project investment successes, with an impact

Bold words are concepts; others are items constituting concepts.
.749⁎⁎
.497⁎⁎
.417⁎⁎
of 0.449 and 0.5.56 and a CR of 3.686 and 5.227 (both

.491⁎⁎
.508⁎⁎
.351⁎⁎
.358⁎⁎
.441⁎⁎
.334⁎⁎
.458⁎⁎
.365⁎⁎
.371⁎⁎
−.184⁎
P b 0.000). However, while organizational project manage-

1
3
ment success affects ERP success by 0.345 with a CR of 2.962

(P b 0.01), organizational project investment success cannot
−.410⁎⁎
.310⁎⁎
.465⁎⁎
.427⁎⁎
.290⁎⁎
.445⁎⁎
.393⁎⁎
.324⁎⁎
.321⁎⁎
.343⁎⁎
.340⁎⁎
.375⁎⁎
.304⁎⁎
.243⁎⁎
be found to have any impact on ERP success.

1
In order to discover whether organizational successful

2
implementation is important for achieving ERP success and the

.456⁎⁎
.365⁎⁎
.394⁎⁎
− .377⁎⁎
.338⁎⁎
.248⁎⁎
.327⁎⁎
.232⁎⁎
.349⁎⁎
.282⁎⁎
.272⁎⁎
.354⁎⁎
.177⁎
.166
.147
use of organizational benefits management practices need

benefits management roles in ERP implementation, mediation
1
1
analysis was conducted. As the standardized indirect effects in

BM5_Benefits_Accountability
BM4_Benefits_identification
PM3_Reviewing_Time_Plan
Table 6 show, organizational BM and PM practices have a

PM2_Reviewing_Cost_Plan
PM_Investment_Success
significant impact on ERP success. Nevertheless, no signifi-

Correlational Analysis.
PM4_Imp_comm_plan
ERP_Benefit_Auditor
PM1_Project_Charter
BM1_Business_Case
cant impact can be seen as directly affecting ERP success. This

BM2_Benefit_Audit
is a clear sign that the mediation hypothesis is supported.

ERP_Bus_Chan
a
ERP_Success
However, the PM practices that affect ERP success derive only

PM_Success
BM_Roles
from project management success and not from project

Table 4
investment success. This may indicate that the organizational

BM
PM
ability to realize ERP success does not necessary mean

Table 5
The total standardized impacts with their significance level and explanation ratios.
Stand. estimate S.E. C.R. P Supp R2 Sig R2
ERP_BM_ b— BM_Prac .670 .149 5.040 ⁎⁎⁎ Yes ⁎⁎⁎ 44.9% .001
PM_M_Succ b— PM_Practices .449 .156 3.686 ⁎⁎⁎ Yes ⁎⁎⁎ 20.2% .001
PM_Inv_Succ b— PM_Practices .556 .137 5.227 ⁎⁎⁎ Yes ⁎⁎⁎ 30.9% .001
ERP_Suc b— ERP_BM_ − .348 .113 − 2.318 .020 Yes ⁎⁎ 39.8% .017
ERP_Suc b— PM_Practices − .107 .187 − .742 .458 No
ERP_Suc b— BM_Prac .153 .137 .941 .347 No
ERP_Suc b— PM_M_Succ − .345 .119 − 2.962 .003 Yes ⁎⁎⁎
ERP_Suc b— PM_Inv_Succ − .176 .138 − 1.292 .196 No
⁎⁎⁎ At 99%.
⁎⁎ At 95%.
requiring the organization to be able to implement its project 5. Discussion

successfully from the financial perspective as long as the
benefits management practices are conducted properly. This paper started by asking whether the institutionalization
of project management and benefits management as part of the
organization's institutional logic affects the success of ERP
4.4. Is PM institutional logic sufficient for ERP success? Step- implementation. There is no clear answer to this question from
wise regression analysis the literature. The role of PM practices in realizing ERP project
success is critical. Although other studies have considered the
In order to find which institutional logic is more important, impact of these practices on ERP investment success and found
new variables are computed for the analysis. Project manage- mixed results (some see an impact but others do not) (Dezdar
ment and benefits management logics are computed by and Ainin, 2011a; Ram et al., 2013, 2014b), this study supports
multiplying the project management practices by the project both sides by providing a new lens through which to view this
management success and benefits management practices by the relationship. From one side, the use of project management
BM roles in ERP implementation, respectively. practices in an organization without the ability to realize
It is possible to choose the choice of predictive variables in success from implementing this framework does not affect the
automatic procedures using stepwise regression. This measures success of ERP projects. This implies that those organizations
the fitness of each model using one variable and compares that are not successful in delivering routine projects on time
competing models with one another to find whether a single and within budget will not easily be able to use project
model fits or using two variables achieves higher fitness and management practices to implement big projects such as ERP
explanation ratios. Afterwards, insignificant models can be projects.
removed (Draper and Smith, 1981; Hocking, 1976). Thus, the institutionalization of project management practices
Stepwise analysis is used to find which logic is more critical in an organization can be operationalized into two constructs:
and whether or not combining both logics would increase the organization's use of project management practices and
ERP success. In stepwise analysis, two competing models the organizational success in implementing projects. As
are compared, namely, project management logic and project institutional theory suggests, the greater the institutionaliza-
management logic combined with benefits management logic. tion of practices, coordination and control between rules,
The results suggest that PM logic alone explains only 17.8% of the higher the expected performance (Gupta et al., 1994).
ERP success. However, according to Table 7, when PM and Supporting the institutional theory perspective, Thomas and
BM logics are combined in one model, taking into consider- Mullaly (2008) argue that the more the organization uses PM
ation the multi-collinearity problem, the explaining ratio is practices, the more maturely it develops its PM capabilities
increased significantly by 8.1% (with P b 0.000) to achieve and therefore the more proficient at delivering project success.
more than 25%. Nevertheless, as the standardized betas in This explains the use of project management practices, in this
Table 7 suggest, the impact of institutionalizing BM practices study and others, where the same relationship was found
has more impact and more significant impact on ERP success (Badewi, in press), to affect both project management and
than PM has. investment success.
Table 6
Standardized Direct and Indirect Effects on ERP success.
BM_Prac PM_Practices PM_Inv_Succ PM_M_Succ ERP_BM_
Indirect − .233⁎⁎ −.253⁎⁎⁎ .000 .000 .000
Direct .153 − .107 − .176 − .345⁎⁎⁎ − .348⁎⁎
Mediation Full mediated Full mediated Not a mediator Full mediator Full mediator
The significance level is estimated using the Bootstrap of 2000 samples.
*** 99% **95% * 90%.
Table 7
Stepwise Analysis.
Coefficients a
Model Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients T Sig. R2
B Std. error Beta
1 (Constant) 3.575 .151 23.624 .000 18.5%
PMXPM_Success − .060 .011 − .430 − 5.387 .000
2 (Constant) 3.703 .148 25.003 .000 26.6%
PMXPM_Success − .041 .012 − .292 − 3.452 .001
BMXBM_Roles − .039 .010 − .317 − 3.754 .000
a
Dependent variable: ERP_Successful.
Furthermore, the more project management and benefits (suggesting a significant correlation between organizational
management are used in an organization's routine projects, the project investment success and ERP success), ca be interpreted
more organization is helped to avoid the contradictions of as saying that the organizations that are able to achieve project
institutional logic (Berente and Yoo, 2012) between project management success only or project management success and
managers and business change managers or between business investment successes are able to achieve ERP project
change managers and the potential beneficiaries of the system. investment success. However, the organizations that are able
Unlike loose coupling, where firms work as distinct and to achieve project investment success without achieving
separate from each other but may still be responsive to each project management success are not able to realize proper
other (Orton and Weick, 1990),when project management and ERP project investment success.
benefits management practices work together for a long time This indeed is an important reflection of the quality of
they become tightly coupled. Therefore, the other side of project implementation. Although most of the literature
understanding the paradox of whether project management argues that project investment success is more critical and
practices affect ERP project success is that the more important than project investment success; this research is
organizational project management practices are institutional- inclined to argue that project management success is the
ized, the more an organization can realize ERP project success. cornerstone of the success of projects. It provides the robust
This finding supports Engwall (2003), who investigated how infrastructure for implementing big projects. Furthermore, it
the organizations' history in projects and the availability of a can be a significant indication that project investment success
project-management enabler context are critical for the future is not in the current project management logics or at least is
success of new transitional projects. not required to be part of project management institutional
What is interesting in the results is that even though the logic for realizing investment success (such as ERP success).
project management practices affect the project management According to the SEM, this conclusion can fit only if a
and investment successes, only project management success benefits management logic exists in the organization.
is found to be significant for ERP success (see Fig. 3). Therefore, we argue that project managers should not be
Understanding this finding from Structural Equation Model- accountable for the return on investment in the project nor the
ling (SEM), which contradicts those of correlational analysis users' satisfaction and benefits. These are not part of his
logics, which usually come from technical perspectives. This
is the accountability of the benefits management (or of a
Organisational PM and BM Practices business change manager who works as an agent of benefits
.107
management practices).
In this sample, it was impossible to find evidence that the
Organisational Project
Management Success routinization of benefits management practices affected ERP
.449* * *
(22.8%)* *
0.345* * *
project success as a direct relationship; rather the impact is
Organizational ERP Investment significant but indirect. Adopting the logic of BM in an
PM Practices Success
(39.8%)* * organization will and enable it and impel it to apply BM
0.595* * * - 0.176
Organizational Project practices successfully by having successful BM roles that
Investment Success 0.348* *
(30.9%)* * *
affect ERP success significantly. This implies that, supported
by the literature (Pache and Santos, 2012), in an organization
Use of BM in
Organizational
0.67* * *
ERP without a standard way of doing its job (projects), institutional
BM Practices implementation
(44.9%)* * *
logic for handling tasks will be confusing to the organiza-
tional members. Indeed, the institutional logic developed over
.153
time through the existence of a benefits audit in routine
* * * 99% * * 95% * 90% projects can create an individual and collective sense of
responsibility for achieving the return on investment from normal
Fig. 3. The research model. projects. Likewise, business change managers supported by the
institutional logics of benefits management philosophy (“Ben- In our understanding of project management theory using
efit” is the central aim of all actors in any organizational institutional theory, we believe that the academic efforts to
change) can create more capable business change managers to change management theory to include the perspective of
manage the organization's identity through the organizational change management are useless unless professional bodies
change processes (Lok, 2010). include it (Cicmil, 1999; Hornstein, 2015). Furthermore, we
This research supports other research that allocates ERP argue that project management should be kept as it is and new
business change managers in organizations. They help users to roles should be available with its logics. Contradictions
realize that the benefits from ERP projects have a significant between the logics of the two discipline are possible, but this
impact on recouping in the system (Chou and Chang, 2008). does not mean that we must avoid contradiction. What is
Likewise, the benefits audit function is supported by the literature; believed in this research is that the project and benefits
however, this research is the first to find that assigning this management logics should be studied in depth and then
functionality to a specific person or department is essential for possibilities for aligning them by practices and tools should
realizing ERP benefits. Furthermore, as correlational analysis be sought. These tools and practices should be reflected in the
suggests, the success of this role is based on the routine use of the body of knowledge of project management, benefits manage-
benefits audit in routine projects. Likewise, the success of the ment and change management.
business change manager in ERP implementation is conditioned This research has its methodological strengths and weaknesses.
by the routinized assigning accountabilities of realizing benefits for Among the former is the ability to test the hypotheses over large
normal projects. Furthermore, the results suggest that the roles of number of organizations, whereas the latter are seen in the limited
business change managers and benefits auditors are leveraged ability to understand project and benefits management practices in
when they exist in organizations where institutionalized benefits ERP systems. Likewise, the institutional logics of project and
management practices are used in routine projects. benefits management can be different from country to country. It is
not clear how the logics can be similar or different. This is why, in
this research the questions were mainly about the main values and
6. Conclusion principles of project and benefits management. Furthermore, it still
not clear whether the role of project manager is an employee or a
The use of organizational theories (Greenwood and Miller, contractor has impact on ERP project success. Being a contractor
2010) such as institutional, contingency and the resource- could have consequences because this outsourced project manager
based-view in understanding the governance of project may not share the same institutional logics in understanding their
management practices and its actors' interactions within the project management frameworks. Furthermore, it is not clear how
organization has not so far been fully understood. The present specific ERP vendors' implementation frameworks (e.g. ASAP
research was one step toward understanding how the specific used by SAP) may contradict or being aligned with current
project governance framework of Badewi (Badewi, in press) organizational IT project and benefits management frameworks.
can increase the success of radical projects such as ERP Furthermore, how the organizational institutional logics are
systems. This research started by asking whether the institu- affected by this implementation process?
tionalization of PM and BM practices as an institutional logic Although the institutionalization process of the project
affects the success of ERP investment. The main underpinning management process has been studied to some extent (Mignerat
theory is that the institutional process of certain institutional and Rivard, 2012), the mechanisms of creating the isomorphism in
logics creates institutional project identity. This identity project management practices across organizations have not yet
improves performance because the maturity of applying the been clarified. It is possible that this understanding of the mental
practices and tools is increased and the actors understand their models of PM may lead to a unified theory for setting the
circles of accountability better because of the harmonised boundaries of project management or even improving it radically.
institutional logics of the project. The institutional logic of project management practices within
The role of PM practices in realizing ERP project success is and across organizations is evolving due to greater knowledge
critical. Although other studies have gauged the impact of of technological and environmental factors. Although it is
these practices on ERP investment success and found mixed known the professional certificates affect PM logic and theory,
results (some found an impact while others did not), this study the mechanics of the governmentality of this institutional logic
provides a new lens through which to understand this are still vague to us.
relationship. The use of project management in routinized
organizational projects is not sufficient to guarantee ERP
Conflict of interest
investment success. However, when the project management
practices are mature enough, in terms of the ability to deliver
There is no conflict of interest in this research.
projects on time and within budget, the project management
will significantly affect ERP investment success. Nevertheless,
the ability to realize the success of the organization's project Acknowledgment
investment is found to be not at all critical in mediating the
relationship between organizational project management and This research is funded by Egyptian Government (Tanta
ERP investment success. University) and Cranfield University.
Appendix A
Descriptive statistics
N Mean Std. deviation Skewness
Statistic Statistic Std. error Statistic Statistic Std. error
PM_Succ_T 130 3.15 .107 1.217 − .064 .212
PM_Succ_C 130 3.16 .094 1.070 − .174 .212
PM_Success 130 3.1577 .09072 1.03436 −.064 .212
Proj_Inv_Succ_Benefits 130 3.62 .086 .976 − .432 .212
Proj_Inv_Succ_Sat_1 130 3.62 .078 .893 − .687 .212
Proj_Inv_Succ_Sat_2 130 3.55 .081 .924 − .729 .212
PM_Investment_Success 130 3.5949 .06702 .76417 −.715 .212
BM1_Business_Case 130 3.72 .102 1.168 − .568 .212
BM2_Benefit_Audit 130 2.54 .106 1.208 .391 .212
BM4_Benefits_identification 130 3.56 .096 1.100 − .443 .212
BM5_Benefits_Accountability 130 3.32 .107 1.221 − .306 .212
BM 130 3.2865 .08044 .91717 −.021 .212
PM1_Project_Charter 130 3.84 .099 1.133 − .845 .212
PM2_Reviewing_Cost_Plan 130 3.85 .091 1.035 − .681 .212
PM3_Reviewing_Time_Plan 130 4.09 .070 .802 − .628 .212
PM4_Imp_comm_plan 130 3.47 .099 1.129 − .448 .212
PM 130 3.8135 .07266 .82846 −.359 .212
ERP_Bus_Chan 130 3.10 .134 1.529 − .303 .212
ERP_Benefit_Auditor 130 2.26 .133 1.518 .587 .212
BM_Roles 130 2.6808 .11787 1.34396 .144 .212
ERP_Ease 130 3.32 .077 .881 − .389 .212
ERP_Useful 130 2.62 .090 1.030 .398 .212
ERP_ROI 130 2.77 .085 .969 .168 .212
ERP_Succ 130 2.63 .080 .908 .361 .212
ERP_Successful 130 2.8327 .06893 .78589 .197 .212
Valid N (listwise) 130
Direct effects — two tailed significance (BC) (group number 1 — default model)
PM_Practices BM_Prac PM_Inv_Succ PM_M_Succ ERP_BM_ ERP_Suc

PM_Inv_Succ .001 … … … … …
PM_M_Succ .001 … … … … …
ERP_BM_ … .001 … … … …
ERP_Suc .482 .344 .315 .029 .018 …
PM4_Imp_comm_plan .001 … … … … …
ERP_Ease … … … … … .001
Proj_Inv_Succ_Sat_2 … … .001 … … …
Proj_Inv_Succ_Sat_1 … … .001 … … …
Proj_Inv_Succ_Benefits … … … … … …
PM_Succ_C … … … .001 … …
PM_Succ_T … … … … … …
ERP_Bus_Chan … … … … .001 …
ERP_Benefit_Ide … … … … … …
BM1_Business_Case … .001 … … … …
BM2_Benefit_Audit … .001 … … … …
BM4_Benefits_identification … .001 … … … …
BM5_Benefits_Accountability … … … … … …
PM1_Project_Charter .001 … … … … …
PM2_Reviewing_Cost_Plan .001 … … … … …
PM3_Reviewing_Time_Plan … … … … … …
ERP_Succ … … … … … .001
ERP_ROI … … … … … .001
ERP_Useful … … … … … …
Indirect effects — two tailed significance (BC) (group number 1 — default model)

PM_Inv_Succ … … … … … …
PM_M_Succ … … … … … …
ERP_BM_ … … … … … …
ERP_Suc .005 .014 … … … …
PM4_Imp_comm_plan … … … … … …
ERP_Ease .005 .594 .308 .026 .016 …
Proj_Inv_Succ_Sat_2 .000 … … … … …
Proj_Inv_Succ_Sat_1 .000 … … … … …
Proj_Inv_Succ_Benefits .001 … … … … …
PM_Succ_C .001 … … … … …
PM_Succ_T .001 … … … … …
ERP_Bus_Chan … .001 … … … …
ERP_Benefit_Ide … .001 … … … …
BM1_Business_Case … … … … … …
BM2_Benefit_Audit … … … … … …
BM4_Benefits_identification … … … … … …
PM1_Project_Charter … … … … … …
PM2_Reviewing_Cost_Plan … … … … … …
ERP_Succ .006 .608 .317 .030 .017 …
ERP_ROI .006 .620 .320 .031 .017 …
ERP_Useful .006 .612 .315 .029 .018 …
Total effects — two tailed significance (BC) (group number 1 — default model)

PM_Inv_Succ .001 … … … … …
PM_M_Succ .001 … … … … …
ERP_BM_ … .001 … … … …
ERP_Suc .006 .612 .315 .029 .018 …
PM4_Imp_comm_plan .001 … … … … …
ERP_Ease .005 .594 .308 .026 .016 .001
Proj_Inv_Succ_Sat_2 .000 … .001 … … …
Proj_Inv_Succ_Sat_1 .000 … .001 … … …
Proj_Inv_Succ_Benefits .001 … … … … …
PM_Succ_C .001 … … .001 … …
PM_Succ_T .001 … … … … …
ERP_Bus_Chan … .001 … … .001 …
ERP_Benefit_Ide … .001 … … … …
BM1_Business_Case … .001 … … … …
BM2_Benefit_Audit … .001 … … … …
BM4_Benefits_identification … .001 … … … …
PM1_Project_Charter .001 … … … … …
PM2_Reviewing_Cost_Plan .001 … … … … …
ERP_Succ .006 .608 .317 .030 .017 .001
ERP_ROI .006 .620 .320 .031 .017 .001
ERP_Useful .006 .612 .315 .029 .018 …
References Amid, A., Moalagh, M., Zare Ravasan, A., 2012. Identification and
classification of ERP critical failure factors in Iranian industries. Inf. Syst.
Aldrich, H.E., Fiol, C.M., 1994. Fools rush in? The institutional context of 37 (3), 227–237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2011.10.010.
industry creation. Acad. Manag. Rev. 19 (4), 645–670. Atkinson, R., 1999. Project management: cost, time and quality, two best
Al-Mashari, M., Al-Mudimigh, A., Zairi, M., 2003. Enterprise resource guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria. Int.
planning: a taxonomy of critical factors. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 146 (2), 352–364. J. Proj. Manag. 17 (6), 337–342.
Axelos, 2011. Managing Successful Programmes. 4th ed. TSO Shop, United Dey, P.K., Clegg, B.T., Bennett, D.J., 2010. Managing enterprise resource
Kingdom. planning projects. Bus. Process. Manag. J. 16 (2), 282–296.
Badewi, A., 2015. Project management, benefits management, and program Dezdar, S., Ainin, S., 2011a. Examining ERP implementation success from a
management. In: Barclay, C., Osei-Bryson, K. (Eds.), Strategic Project project environment perspective. Bus. Process. Manag. J. 17 (6), 919–939.
Management: Contemporary Issues & Strategies for Developing Econo- Dezdar, S., Ainin, S., 2011b. The influence of organizational factors on
mies, 1st ed. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, US, pp. 85–104. successful ERP implementation. Manag. Decis. 49 (6), 911–926.
Badewi, A., 2015. The impact of project management (PM) and benefits Dimaggio, P.J., Powell, W.W., 1983. The iron cage revisited: institutional
management (BM) practices on project success: towards developing a isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am. Sociol.
project benefits governance framework. Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi. Rev. 48 (2), 147–160.
org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.05.005 (in press). Draper, N.R., Smith, H., 1981. Applied Regression Analysis. 2nd ed. John
Badewi, A., Shehab, E., 2013. Cost, benefit and financial risk (CoBeFR) of Wiley and Sons, New York.
ERP implementation. Advances in Manufacturing Technology XXVII — Drazin, R., Van de Ven, Andrew H., 1985. Alternative forms of fit in
Proceedings of International Conference on Manufacturing Research contingency theory. Adm. Sci. Q. 514–539.
(ICMR 2013), pp. 207–212. Dunn, M.B., Jones, C., 2010. Institutional logics and institutional pluralism: the
Badewi, A., Shehab, E., Peppard, J., 2013. Benefit realisation modelling for ERP contestation of care and science logics in medical education, 1967–2005.
systems using system dynamics. Advances in Manufacturing Technology Adm. Sci. Q. 55 (1), 114–149.
XXVII — Proceedings of International Conference on Manufacturing Dvir, D., Lechler, T., 2004. Plans are nothing, changing plans is everything: the
Research (ICMR 2013). Cranfield University, UK, pp. 225–230. impact of changes on project success. Res. Policy 33 (1), 1–15.
Barley, S.R., Tolbert, P.S., 1997. Institutionalization and structuration: studying Eckartz, S.M., 2012. Managing the Business Case Development in Inter-
the links between action and institution. Organ. Stud. 18 (1), 93–117. organizational IT Projects: A Methodology and Its Application (PhD).
Berente, N., Yoo, Y., 2012. Institutional contradictions and loose coupling: Engwall, M., 2003. No project is an island: linking projects to history and context.
postimplementation of NASA's enterprise information system. Inf. Syst. Res. Policy 32 (5), 789–808. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00088-4.
Res. 23 (2), 376–396 (593,597). Fisher, J.C., Mason, R.L., 1981. The analysis of multicollinear data in
Beringer, C., Jonas, D., Kock, A., 2013. Behavior of internal stakeholders in criminology. Methods Quant. Criminol. 99–125.
project portfolio management and its impact on success. Int. J. Proj. Manag. Ford, R.C., Randolph, W.A., 1992. Cross-functional structures: a review and
31 (6), 830–846. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.11.006. integration of matrix organization and project management. J. Manag. 18
Bernroider, E.W., 2013. Effective ERP adoption processes: the role of project (2), 267–294.
activators and resource investments. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 22 (2), 235–250. Forrester, J.W., 1992. Policies, decisions and information sources for modeling.
Besner, C., Hobbs, B., 2006. The perceived value and potential contribution of Eur. J. Oper. Res. 59 (1), 42–63.
project management practices to project success. Proj. Manag. J. 37 (3), 37–48. Forrester, J.W., 1994. System dynamics, systems thinking, and soft OR. Syst.
Besner, C., Hobbs, B., 2012. An empirical identification of project management Dyn. Rev. 10 (2‐3), 245–256.
toolsets and a comparison among project types. Proj. Manag. J. 43 (5), 24–46. Foucault, M., Burchell, G., Gordon, C., Miller, P., 1991. The Foucault Effect:
Bintoro, B.P.K., Simatupang, T.M., Putro, U.S., Hermawan, P., 2015. Actors' Studies in Governmentality. University of Chicago Press.
interaction in the ERP implementation literature. Bus. Process. Manag. J. 21 Friedland, Alford, 1991. Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In:
(2), 222–249. Powell, Dimaggio, P.J. (Eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational
Browne, M.W., Cudeck, R., Bollen, K.A., 1993. Alternative ways of assessing Analysis, pp. 248–249.
model fit. Sage Focus Editions 154 pp. 136–150. Garg, P., Garg, A., 2013. An empirical study on critical failure factors for
Brynjolfsson, E., Saunders, A., 2010. Wired for Innovation: How Information enterprise resource planning implementation in Indian retail sector. Bus.
Technology is Reshaping the Economy. The MIT Press, USA. Process. Manag. J. 19 (3), 496–514.
Byrne, B., 1989. A Primer of LISREL: Basic Applications and Programming Gattiker, T.F., Goodhue, D.L., 2005. What happens after ERP implementation:
for Confirmatory Factor Analytic Models. Springer-Verlag, New York. understanding the impact of interdependence and differentiation on plant-
Byrne, B.M., 2013. Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS: Basic level outcomes. MIS Q. 559–585.
Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Routledge. Green, S.G., Welsh, M.A., 1988. Cybernetics and dependence: reframing the
Camilleri, E., 2011. Project success: Critical Factors and Behaviours. First ed. control concept. Acad. Manag. Rev. 13 (2), 287–301.
Gower Publishing, Ltd., Farnham. Greenwood, R., Miller, D., 2010. Tackling design anew: getting back to the
Cassel, C., Hackl, P., Westlund, A.H., 1999. Robustness of partial least-squares heart of organizational theory. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 24 (4), 78–88.
method for estimating latent variable quality structures. J. Appl. Stat. 26 (4), Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., Hinings, C.R., 2002. Theorizing change: the role
435–446. of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields.
Checkland, P., Holwell, S., 1997. Information, Systems and Information Acad. Manag. J. 45 (1), 58–80.
Systems: Making Sense of the Field. Gresov, C., 1989. Exploring fit and misfit with multiple contingencies. Adm.
Chen, C.C., Law, C., Yang, S.C., 2009. Managing ERP implementation failure: a Sci. Q. 431–453.
project management perspective. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 56 (1), 157–170. Gupta, P.P., Dirsmith, M.W., Fogarty, T.J., 1994. Coordination and control in a
Chih, Y., Zwikael, O., 2015. Project benefit management: a conceptual government agency: contingency and institutional theory perspectives on
framework of target benefit formulation. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33 (2), GAO audits. Adm. Sci. Q. 264–284.
352–362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.06.002. Haggerty, N., Golden, B., 2002. Theorizing technological adaptation as a
Chou, S.W., Chang, Y.C., 2008. The implementation factors that influence the trigger for institutional change. ICIS 2002 Proceedingsp. 22.
ERP (enterprise resource planning) benefits. Decis. Support. Syst. 46 (1), Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W., 1998. Multivariate Data
149–157. Analysis. 5th ed. Pearson Education Inc., US.
Cicmil, S., 1999. Implementing organizational change projects: impediments Hatch, M.J., Cunliffe, A.L., 1997. Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic,
and gaps. Strateg. Chang. 8 (2), 119–129. and Postmodern Perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Davenport, T.H., Harris, J.G., Cantrell, S., 2004. Enterprise systems and Hocking, R.R., 1976. The analysis and selection of variables in linear
ongoing process change. Bus. Process. Manag. J. 10 (1), 16–26. regression. Biometrics 1–49.
Delone, W.H., McLean, E.R., 2002. Information systems success revisited. Hornstein, H.A., 2015. The integration of project management and organiza-
System Sciences, 2002. HICSS. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii tional change management is now a necessity. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33 (2),
International Conference On, pp. 2966–2976. 291–298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.08.005.
DeLone, W., McLean, E., 2003. The DeLone and McLean model of Kraatz, M.S., Block, E.S., 2008. Organizational implications of institutional
information systems success: a ten-year update. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 19 pluralism. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism 840
(4), 9–30. pp. 243–275.
Lech, P., 2013. Time, budget, and functionality?—IT project success criteria Ram, J., Wu, M., Tagg, R., 2014b. Competitive advantage from ERP projects:
revised. Inf. Syst. Manag. 30 (3), 263–275. examining the role of key implementation drivers. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32
Leonard, J., Higson, H., 2014. A strategic activity model of enterprise system (4), 663–675. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.08.004.
implementation and use: Scaffolding fluidity. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 23 (1), Ram, J., Corkindale, D., Wu, M., 2015. Examining the role of organizational
62–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2013.11.003. readiness in ERP project delivery. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 55 (2), 29–39.
Lok, J., 2010. Institutional logics as identity projects. Acad. Manag. J. 53 (6), Remenyi, D., Sherwood-Smith, M., 1998. Business benefits from information
1305–1335. systems through an active benefits realisation programme. Int. J. Proj.
Marsh, H.W., Hocevar, D., 1985. Application of confirmatory factor analysis to Manag. 16 (2), 81–98.
the study of self-concept: first- and higher-order factor models and their Scott, W.R., 2001. Institutions and Organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
invariance across groups. Psychol. Bull. 97 (3), 562. Scott, W.R., 2004. Institutional theory. Encycl. Soc. Theory 11, 408–414.
May, J., Dhillon, G., Caldeira, M., 2013. Defining value-based objectives for Scott, W.R., 2008a. Approaching adulthood: the maturing of institutional
ERP systems planning. Decis. Support. Syst. 55 (1), 98–109. http://dx.doi. theory. Theory Soc. 37 (5), 427–442.
org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.12.036. Scott, W.R., 2008b. Institutions and organisations: ideas and interests.
McLeod, L., Doolin, B., MacDonell, S.G., 2012. A perspective‐based Reference and Research Book News. Sage Publications, Inc.
understanding of project success. Proj. Manag. J. 43 (5), 68–86. Scott, W.R., 2008c. Lords of the dance: professionals as institutional agents.
Meyer, J.W., Rowan, B., 1977. Institutionalized organizations: formal structure Organ. Stud. 29 (2), 219–238.
as myth and ceremony. Am. J. Sociol. 340–363. Serra, C.E.M., Kunc, M., 2015. Benefits realisation management and its influence
Mignerat, M., Rivard, S., 2012. The institutionalization of information system on project success and on the execution of business strategies. Int. J. Proj.
project management practices. Inf. Organ. 22 (2), 125–153. http://dx.doi. Manag. 33 (1), 53–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.03.011.
org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2012.01.003. Serrador, P., Turner, R., 2015. The relationship between project success and
Missonier, S., Loufrani-Fedida, S., 2014. Stakeholder analysis and engagement project efficiency. Proj. Manag. J. 46 (1), 30–39.
in projects: from stakeholder relational perspective to stakeholder relational Shang, S., Seddon, P.B., 2000. A comprehensive framework for classifying the
ontology. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32 (7), 1108–1122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ benefits of ERP systems. Americas Conference on Information Systems,
j.ijproman.2014.02.010. pp. 1005–1014.
Müller, R., Pemsel, S., Shao, J., 2014. Organizational enablers for governance Shang, S., Seddon, P.B., 2002. Assessing and managing the benefits of
and governmentality of projects: a literature review. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32 enterprise systems: the business manager's perspective. Inf. Syst. J. 12 (4),
(8), 1309–1320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.03.007. 271–299.
Netemeyer, R., Bentler, P., Bagozzi, R., Cudeck, R., Cote, J., Lehmann, D., ... Shehab, E., Sharp, M., Supramaniam, L., Spedding, T.A., 2004. Enterprise
Ambler, T., 2001. Structural equations modeling. J. Consum. Psychol. 10 resource planning: an integrative review. Bus. Process. Manag. J. 10 (4),
(1), 83–100. 359–386.
Nicolaou, A.I., 2004a. Firm performance effects in relation to the implemen- Söderlund, J., 2004. Building theories of project management: past research,
tation and use of enterprise resource planning systems. J. Inf. Syst. 18 (2), questions for the future. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 22 (3), 183–191.
79–105. Soh, C., Sia, S.K., 2004. An institutional perspective on sources of ERP
Nicolaou, A.I., 2004b. Quality of postimplementation review for enterprise package–organisation misalignments. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 13 (4), 375–397.
resource planning systems. Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst. 5 (1), 25–49. http://dx. Somers, T.M., Nelson, K.G., 2004. A taxonomy of players and activities across
doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2004.02.002. the ERP project life cycle. Inf. Manag. 41 (3), 257–278.
Nicolaou, A.I., Bhattacharya, S., 2006. Organizational performance effects of Staehr, L., 2010. Understanding the role of managerial agency in achieving
ERP systems usage: the impact of post-implementation changes. Int. business benefits from ERP systems. Inf. Syst. J. 20 (3), 213–238. http://dx.
J. Account. Inf. Syst. 7 (1), 18–35. doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2008.00316.x.
Nicolaou, A., Bhattacharya, S., 2008. Sustainability of ERPS performance Stratman, J.K., Roth, A.V., 2002. Enterprise resource planning (ERP)
outcomes: the role of post-implementation review quality. Int. J. Account. competence constructs: two-stage multi-item scale development and
Inf. Syst. 9 (1), 43–60. validation. Decis. Sci. 33 (4), 601–628.
Norton, A., Thomas, Y., Joseph, A., Ashurst, C., 2013. Ensuring benefits Tasevska, F., Damij, T., Damij, N., 2014. Project planning practices based on
realisation from ERP II: the CSF phasing model. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 26 enterprise resource planning systems in small and medium enterprises — a
(3), 218–234. case study from the republic of Macedonia. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32 (3),
Nunnally, J.C., Bernstein, I.H., Berge, J.M.t., 1967. Psychometric Theory. 529–539. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.08.001.
McGraw-Hill, New York. Thomas, G., Fernández, W., 2008. Success in IT projects: a matter of
Orton, J.D., Weick, K.E., 1990. Loosely coupled systems: a reconceptualiza- definition? Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26 (7), 733–742.
tion. Acad. Manag. Rev. 15 (2), 203–223. Thomas, J., Mullaly, M., 2008. Researching the Value of Project Management.
Pache, A., Santos, F., 2012. Inside the hybrid organization: selective coupling as a Project Management Institute, Newton Square (PA).
response to conflicting institutional logics. Acad. Manag. J. 56 (4), 972–1001 Thornton, P.H., Ocasio, W., 2008. Institutional logics. In: Sahlin-Anderson, R.,
(amj. 2011.0405). Greenwood, C.O., Suddaby, R. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organiza-
Peslak, A.R., 2006. Enterprise resource planning success: an exploratory study tional Institutionalism. Sage, London, England, pp. 99–129.
of the financial executive perspective. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 106 (9), Thornton, P.H., Ocasio, W., Lounsbury, M., 2012. The Institutional Logics
1288–1303. Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure, and Process. Oxford
Project Management Institute, 2013. A guide to the Project Management Body of University Press.
Knowledge: PMBOK® Guide. Fifth ed. Project Management Institute, US. Tsaturyan, T., Müller, R., 2015. Integration and governance of multiple project
Purvis, R.L., Zagenczyk, T.J., McCray, G.E., 2015. What's in it for me? Using management offices (PMOs) at large organizations. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33
expectancy theory and climate to explain stakeholder participation, its (5), 1098–1110.
direction and intensity. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 33 (1), 3–14. http://dx.doi.org/ Wabba, M.A., House, R.J., 1974. Expectancy theory in work and motivation:
10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.03.003. some logical and methodological issues. Hum. Relat. 27 (2), 121–147.
Ram, J., Corkindale, D., Wu, M., 2013. Implementation critical success factors Wang, E.T.G., Klein, G., Jiang, J.J., 2006. ERP misfit: country of origin and
(CSFs) for ERP: do they contribute to implementation success and post- organizational factors. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 23 (1), 263–292.
implementation performance? Int. J. Prod. Econ. 144 (1), 157–174. http:// Ward, J., Taylor, P., Bond, P., 1996. Evaluation and realisation of IS/IT
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.01.032. benefits: an empirical study of current practice. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 4 (4),
Ram, J., Wu, M., Tagg, R., 2014a. Competitive advantage from ERP projects: 214–225.
examining the role of key implementation drivers. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32 Ward, J., Daniel, E., Peppard, J., 2008. Building better business cases for it
(4), 663–675. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.08.004. investments. MIS Q. Exec. 7 (1), 1–15.
Weerakkody, V., Dwivedi, Y.K., Irani, Z., 2009. The diffusion and use of Zwikael, O., Globerson, S., 2006. From critical success factors to critical
institutional theory: a cross-disciplinary longitudinal literature survey. J. Inf. success processes. Int. J. Prod. Res. 44 (17), 3433–3449.
Technol. 24 (4), 354–368. Zwikael, O., Smyrk, J., 2012a. A general framework for gauging the
Wier, B., Hunton, J., HassabElnaby, H.R., 2007. Enterprise resource planning performance of initiatives to enhance organizational value. Br. J. Manag.
systems and non-financial performance incentives: the joint impact on 23, S6–S22.
corporate performance. Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst. 8 (3), 165–190. http://dx. Zwikael, O., Smyrk, J., 2012b. Identifying key players to ensure outcome
doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2007.05.001. realisation. The Project as a Social System Asia Pacific perspectives on
Yusuf, Y., Gunasekaran, A., Abthorpe, M.S., 2004. Enterprise information project management.
systems project implementation: a case study of ERP in Rolls-Royce. Int. Zwikael, O., Pathak, R.D., Singh, G., Ahmed, S., 2014. The moderating effect
J. Prod. Econ. 87 (3), 251–266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2003.10.004. of risk on the relationship between planning and success. Int. J. Proj.
Zhong Liu, A., Seddon, P.B., 2009. Understanding how project critical success Manag. 32 (3), 435–441.
factors affect organizational benefits from enterprise systems. Bus. Process.
Manag. J. 15 (5), 716–743.
Zhu, Y., Li, Y., Wang, W., Chen, J., 2010. What leads to post-implementation
success of ERP? An empirical study of the Chinese retail industry. Int. J. Inf.
Manag. 30 (3), 265–276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2009.09.007.

Badewi and Shehab (2016)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Badewi and Shehab (2016)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Badewi and Shehab (2016)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Available online at www.sciencedirect.

The impact of organizational project beneﬁts management

of time, cost and quality (i.e. project management success

Management practices are found to have a weak, but

routine projects will use it in ERP projects, giving rise to the

The Chi-Square per Degree of Freedom (x2/df)), which scores

4.3. SEM results

The results supported most of the research hypotheses.

significant (with a Critical Ratio (CR) of 5.040 and P b 0.001)

on the use of benefits management roles (the existence and

success of business change managers and benefits auditors).

However, the direct impact of BM on ERP success is

alone explains 44.9% (P b 0.001) of the successful use of the

BM roles (Table 5). The existence of these BM roles and their

0.348 (CR N 2.318 with P b 0.02). Thus, by using indirect

effect analysis, as shown in Table 6, the organizational use of

by 0.233 with a confidence level of over 95%. This is a clear

indication that the use of BM roles in ERP fully mediates the

to realize ERP business success.

The organization's use of project management practices is

management and project investment successes, with an impact

of 0.449 and 0.5.56 and a CR of 3.686 and 5.227 (both

P b 0.000). However, while organizational project manage-

ment success affects ERP success by 0.345 with a CR of 2.962

be found to have any impact on ERP success.

In order to discover whether organizational successful

implementation is important for achieving ERP success and the

use of organizational benefits management practices need

analysis was conducted. As the standardized indirect effects in

Table 6 show, organizational BM and PM practices have a

significant impact on ERP success. Nevertheless, no signifi-

cant impact can be seen as directly affecting ERP success. This

is a clear sign that the mediation hypothesis is supported.

However, the PM practices that affect ERP success derive only

from project management success and not from project

investment success. This may indicate that the organizational

ability to realize ERP success does not necessary mean

requiring the organization to be able to implement its project 5. Discussion

PM_Practices BM_Prac PM_Inv_Succ PM_M_Succ ERP_BM_ ERP_Suc

PM_Practices BM_Prac PM_Inv_Succ PM_M_Succ ERP_BM_ ERP_Suc

PM_Practices BM_Prac PM_Inv_Succ PM_M_Succ ERP_BM_ ERP_Suc

You might also like