ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF COMMERCE
GRADUATE PROGRAM IN PROJECT MANAGEMENT

FACTORS AFFECTING THE SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF

ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING (ERP) PROJECT: THE CASE
OF ETHIOPIAN POSTAL SERVICE ENTERPRISE

BY

ELIAS WOLDEMARIAM (ID: GSR/5688/10)

ADVISOR: KONJIT HAILU (Ph.D.)

July, 2019 ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA

 ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF COMMERCE

GRADUATE PROGRAM IN PROJECT MANAGEMENT

FACTORS AFFECTING THE SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF

ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING (ERP) PROJECT: THE CASE
OF ETHIOPIAN POSTAL SERVICE ENTERPRISE.

BY
ELIAS WOLDEMARIAM (ID: GSR/5688/10)

APPROVED BY BOARD OF EXAMINERS AND ADVISOR

___________________ ________________ ________________

Advisor Signature Date

____________________ _________________ ________________

Internal Examiner Signature Date

____________________ _________________ ________________

External Examiner Signature Date
 Statement of Declaration

I, Elias Woldemariam, have carried out a research project on the “Factor Affecting The
Successful Implementation of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Project in Ethiopian
Postal Service Enterprise” in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Masters of Art
(MA) degree in Project Management at Addis Ababa University, School of commerce with
the guidance and support of the research advisor, Konjit Hailu (PhD).

I, also declare that this research project is my original work and that all sources of materials
used for the research project are also properly recognized.

Elias Woldemariam

Name: Signature Date

 Endorsement

This is to certify that Elias Woldemariam has carried out this thesis on the topic entitled
“Factors Affecting the Successful Implementation of Enterprise Resource Planning
(ERP) Project in Ethiopian Postal Service Enterprise” under my supervision.
Accordingly, I here assure that his work is appropriate and standard enough to be submitted
for the partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the degree of Masters of Art in
Project Management.

KONJIT HAILU (Ph.D.)

Advisor Signature & Date

Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................... i
KEY TO ACRONYMS ............................................................................................ ii
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................. iv
Abstract ......................................................................................................................v
CHAPTER ONE: .......................................................................................................1
Introduction ................................................................................................................1
1.1. Background of the Study......................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................................ 2
1.3. Research Question .................................................................................................................. 4
1.4. Hypothesis............................................................................................................................... 4
1.5. Objectives of the Study ........................................................................................................... 5
1.5.1. General Objective ............................................................................................................... 5
1.5.2. Specific Objectives ............................................................................................................. 5
1.6. Significance of the Study ........................................................................................................ 5
1.7. Scope of the Study .................................................................................................................. 6

1.8. Limitation of the study .....................................................................................6

1.9. Organization of the study ........................................................................................................ 6

CHAPTER TWO: ......................................................................................................8

Literature Review .......................................................................................................8
2.1. Theoretical Review ................................................................................................................. 8
2.1.1. The meaning and characteristics of Projects ....................................................................... 8
2.1.2. The concept of project management ................................................................................... 8
2.1.3. Definition of ERP................................................................................................................ 9
2.1.4. A Brief History of ERP ..................................................................................................... 10
2.1.5. ERP Systems Characteristics and Benefits ....................................................................... 12
2.1.6. Implementation of ERP..................................................................................................... 14
2.1.7. ERP Life-Cycle Stages...................................................................................................... 16
i. Adoption Decision Phase ...................................................................................................... 16
 ii. Acquisition Phase.................................................................................................................. 16
iii. Implementation Phase ....................................................................................................... 16
iv. Use and Maintenance Phase .............................................................................................. 16
v. Evolution phase ..................................................................................................................... 17
vi. Retirement phase ............................................................................................................... 17
2.1.8. Risks in ERP Implementation ........................................................................................... 17
2.1.9. Critical Success Factors (CSFs) in ERP implementation.................................................. 19
A. Top Management Support ..................................................................................................... 20
B. Business Process Reengineering (BPR) ................................................................................ 21
C. Change Management ............................................................................................................ 22
D. Use of Consultants ................................................................................................................ 23
E. Project team competency ...................................................................................................... 23
F. Project management .............................................................................................................. 24
G. Communication ..................................................................................................................... 25
2.2. Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................................... 27
2.3. Summary of the Literature Review ....................................................................................... 27

CHAPTER THREE: ................................................................................................29

Research Design and Methodology .........................................................................29
3.1. Research approach ................................................................................................................ 29
3.2. Research Design.................................................................................................................... 29
3.2.1. Sampling Frame ................................................................................................................ 30

3.2.1.1. Sampling technique (Census) ....................................................................................... 30

3.2.1.2. Total population as a sample size.................................................................................. 30
3.3. Data source and Type ............................................................................................................ 31
3.4. Data collection Procedures.................................................................................................... 32
3.5. Measurement Instruments ..................................................................................................... 32
3.6. Data Analysis and Presentation Techniques ......................................................................... 33
3.6.1. Descriptive statistical Analysis ......................................................................................... 33
3.6.2. Inferential statistical Analysis ........................................................................................... 34
3.7. Validity and Reliability ......................................................................................................... 35
3.7.1. Validity ............................................................................................................................. 35
3.7.2. Reliability .......................................................................................................................... 36
3.8. Ethical Considerations .......................................................................................................... 37
CHAPTER FOUR: ...................................................................................................38
Results and Findings ................................................................................................38
4.1. Demographics Information ................................................................................................... 38
4.1.1. Gender of the Respondents ............................................................................................... 38
4.1.2. Age of the Respondents .................................................................................................... 39
4.1.3. Education Level of the Respondents ................................................................................. 40
4.1.4. Employee‟s Job Experience .............................................................................................. 40
4.1.5. Respondent‟s Department ................................................................................................. 41
4.1.6. Respondent‟s Position ....................................................................................................... 42
4.2. Descriptive Analysis ............................................................................................................. 42
4.2.1. Top Management Support ................................................................................................. 43
4.2.2. Business Process Reengineering ....................................................................................... 45
4.2.3. Use of Consultant .............................................................................................................. 47
4.2.4. Project Management ......................................................................................................... 48
4.2.5. Project Team competency ................................................................................................. 50
4.2.6. Change Management......................................................................................................... 51
4.2.7. Communication ................................................................................................................. 53
4.2.8. Summary of survey results for the dependent variable. .................................................... 56
4.2.9. Summary of frequency results of each variable and Mean Score for dependent and
independent variables........................................................................................................................ 57
4.3. Correlation analysis .............................................................................................................. 60
4.3.1. Correlation analysis between independent and dependent variables ............................ 61
4.3.2. Correlation matrix analysis between independent variables ......................................... 63
4.4. Multiple Linear Regression Analysis .................................................................................... 64
4.4.1. Assumptions of Multiple Regressions .............................................................................. 64
4.4.2. Model Summary................................................................................................................ 69
4.4.3. ANOVA Model Fit ........................................................................................................... 70
4.4.4. Beta Coefficient ................................................................................................................ 71
4.4.5. Relationship of the variables ............................................................................................. 73
4.5. Discussion of the Results ...................................................................................................... 74
4.5.1. Hypotheses test and findings............................................................................................. 74
4.5.2. Effect of Business Process Reengineering on ERP implementation................................. 75
4.5.3. Effect of Communication on ERP implementation .......................................................... 76
4.5.4. Effects of Top Management Support on ERP implementation ......................................... 77
 4.5.5. Effects of Team Competency on ERP implementation .................................................... 78
4.5.6. Effects of Project management on ERP implementation .................................................. 79

CHAPTER FIVE: ....................................................................................................81

Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations......................................................81
5.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 81
5.2. Summary of the Findings ...................................................................................................... 81
5.3. Conclusion. ........................................................................................................................... 84
5.4. Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 86
5.5. Limitation and Suggestion for Future research ..................................................................... 87

Reference..................................................................................................................88
Appendices ...............................................................................................................94
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to thank the Almighty God for giving me the strength,
knowledge, ability and opportunity to undertake this research and to persevere and complete
it satisfactorily. Without his blessings, this achievement would not have been possible.

Next, I would like express my gratitude to my research advisor Dr. Konjit Hailu, Who tirelessly
provided me all with the necessary advise, guidance, and comments throughout this study.

My thanks also go to my dear wife, Betelehem Kassaye, for her understanding, support and
contribution throughout the period of my studies. I would also like to appreciate my beautiful
kids, Hasset and Menna Elias, and my sisters and brothers, for being there for me all the time.

It would be inappropriate if I omit to mention the names of my dear friends Belesti Esubalew,
Taye Tarekegn, Abnet Gondere, Zebider Tamiru & My Boss Aron Bisrat, who have, in their
own ways, kept me going on my path to success, assisting me as per their abilities, in
whatever manner possible and for ensuring that good times keep flowing.

Finally, Special thanks go to Taye Tarekegne, who has been instrumental in assisting me with
the data analysis.

Thank You All!!!

i
 KEY TO ACRONYMS
APM = Association for project Management

APS = Advanced Planning and Scheduling

CRM = Customer Relationship Management

CSF = Critical Success Factors

EPSE = Ethiopian Postal Service Enterprise

ERP = Enterprise Resource Planning

ERPI = Enterprise Resource Planning Implementation

EY = Ernst and young

IC = Inventory Control

ISSP = Information System Strategic Plan

IT = Information Technology

MRP = Material Requirements Planning

MRP II = Manufacturing Resource Planning

PM = Project Management

PMI = Project Management Institute

SCM = Supply Chain Management

SPSS = Statistical Package for Social Science

TC = Team Competency

TMS = Top Management Support

UC = Use of Consultant

VIF = Variance Inflation Factor

ii
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Tangible and intangible benefits of ERP systems ........................................................ 13
Table 3.1 : Target Population which was used as a sample size................................................... 31
Table 3.2: The references of the measurement items ................................................................... 33
Table 3.3: Model Specification of Variables ................................................................................ 35
Table 3.4: Reliability Statistics/Cronbach's Alpha ....................................................................... 37
Table 4. 1 Responses Related to Top Management Support ........................................................ 44
Table 4. 2: Responses Business Process Reengineering ............................................................... 46
Table 4. 3: Responses Related to Consultant ................................................................................ 47
Table 4. 4: Responses Related to project management................................................................. 48
Table 4. 5: Responses Related to project team competency ......................................................... 50
Table 4. 6: Responses Related to Change Management ............................................................... 52
Table 4. 7: Responses Related to Communication ....................................................................... 54
Table 4. 8: Responses related to ERP implementation success. ................................................... 56
Table 4. 9: Frequency of respondents for each level of agreement .............................................. 58
Table 4. 10: Criterion – referenced scale definitions .................................................................... 58
Table 4. 11: Mean score result summary according to Criterion–referenced scale ...................... 59
Table 4. 12: Measures of Associations and Descriptive Adjectives ............................................. 61
Table 4. 13: Correlation between independent variables and dependent variable ........................ 61
Table 4. 14: Correlation Matrix within dependent variables ........................................................ 63
Table 4. 15: Normality of data distribution .................................................................................. 65
Table 4. 16: Multicollinearity Test Table ..................................................................................... 68
Table 4. 17: Model Summery Table ............................................................................................. 69
Table 4. 18: Anova Model Fit ....................................................................................................... 71
Table 4. 19: Beta Coefficient ........................................................................................................ 72
Table 4. 20: Summary of Hypothesis Testing Results from Regression Analysis Coefficients. . 74

iii
 LIST OF FIGURES
Fig 2.1: ERP evolution (source Rashid, et al 2002) ...................................................................... 11
Fig 2.2: Conceptual Framework Developed for the research ....................................................... 27
Fig 4. 1: Response Rate ................................................................................................................ 38
Fig 4. 2: Gender of the Respondents ............................................................................................. 39
Fig 4. 3: Age of the Respondents .................................................................................................. 39
Fig 4. 4: Educational Level of the Respondents ........................................................................... 40
Fig 4. 5: Work Experience of the Respondents ............................................................................ 41
Fig 4. 6: Department of the Respondents...................................................................................... 41
Fig 4. 7: Position of the Respondents ........................................................................................... 42
Fig 4. 8: Normality distribution taste figure ................................................................................. 66
Fig 4. 9: linear relationship test figure. ......................................................................................... 67
Fig 4. 10: Scatter plot for linearity test ......................................................................................... 67

iv
 Abstract
The purpose of the study was to examine factors affecting successful implementation of ERP
Project in Ethiopian postal service enterprise. The study was guided by the following specific
objectives; Identification of common factors affecting successful implementation of ERP project
in Ethiopian postal service, assessing collective effects of the factors on ERP project
implementation, assessing the individual effect of each of factors on ERP project, and ranking
the factors according to the weight of their effects on ERP project. Quantitative research
approach was used in the study. Mixed research design was used to identify and examine factors
that affect the successful implementation of ERP Project in the case company. The total numbers
of purposively selected respondents were taken as the sample size of the study. The data was
collected using a questionnaire comprised of 47 close-ended questions with Likert scale. Based
on the findings, among the seven independent factors five of (Business Process Reengineering,
Communication, Top Management Support, Team Competency, Project management) the
independent factors were found to have positive and significant correlation with the dependent
variable which is ERP implementation. The ANOVA test result showed that, the value of R and
R2 obtained under the model summary was statistically significant. The multiple linear
regression analysis revealed that, 4 of the 7 independent variables (Communication, Top
Management Support, Team Competency, Project management) have a statistically significant
positive relationship to predict ERP implementation successes whereas Business Process
Reengineering has a statistically significant negative relationship to predict ERP implementation
successes.

Key Words: business process reengineering, communication, top management support, team
Competency and project management

v
 CHAPTER ONE:
Introduction

1.1. Background of the Study

Today, it is hard to imagine any organization that has not been affected by information
systems and computer applications. Many organizations consider information systems and
computer applications as essential to their abilities to compete or gain a competitive advantage.
Information has become a management resource of equal importance to property, facilities,
employees, and capital. It almost became unthinkable that an organization can fulfill its
objectives without the effective use of information (Ethiopian Postal Service Information System
Strategic Plan (ISSP report, 2004).

As the business world moves ever closer to a collaborative model and competitors
upgrade their capabilities, to remain competitive, organizations must improve their own business
practices and procedures. Functions in the company must upgrade their capability to generate
and communicate timely and accurate information. To accomplish these objectives, companies
are increasingly turning to enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems (Loizos, 1998).

Enterprise resource planning (ERP) system has been one of the most popular business
management systems, providing benefits of real-time capabilities and seamless communication
for business in large organizations. ERP systems attempt to integrate all business processes
into one enterprise wide solution to enhance data homogeneity and integration of modular
applications (Morris and Venkatesh, 2010). Subsequently, a signified benefit of ERP
systems is to streamline the workflow across various departments, ensure a smooth
transition and quicker completion of processes, and enable all the inter departmental
activities to be properly tracked and none of them to be “missed out” provided that
processing all business acts in accordance with information processing (Rajesh 2011).

Successful implementation of ERP systems yields advancements in planning, making

decision, improves the firm performance and creates opportunities for growth. ERP system acts
as an effective tool that enhances firm performance and sustains a continuous competitive
advantage (Li et al., 2006).However, not all ERP implementations have been successful. Since
ERP implementation affects entire organizations such as processes, people, and culture, there are

1
some challenges that companies may encounter in implementing ERP. For instance, lack of
support from stakeholder, selection of an inappropriate ERP system, unavailability of proper
support from senior management and not having proper communication with the stakeholders are
the common ones.

An ERP implementation takes many years to complete and requires a large amount of IT
investment and their effectiveness are hard to evaluate. Today organizations of any magnitude
have implemented or in implementing Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) in order to reap the
benefits of integration and to remain competitive in the market (Ashish Kr ,Dixit, 2011).

Ethiopian postal service engaged with Ernst and young (EY) to provide financial reform and
ERP implementation in 2008 E.C. in-order to capitalize the benefit after implementing ERP
system which is improving productivity, increase efficiency, decrease cost and simplify
processes. However, the project is not delivered based on the standards (planned schedule, cost,
scope, and quality standards). In the event of such distressed project, the company going to incur
a huge loss. Therefore, identifying the issues involved with ERP implementation at Ethiopian
postal service is important. This paper aims to identify factors affecting the successful
implementation of ERP project, assessing individual effect and collective effect of these factors
on ERP project implementation, at the Ethiopian Postal Enterprise.

1.2. Statement of the Problem

In recent times, Information Technology (IT) and Information Systems (IS) play an
important role in business environment. In regards to growing global competition, numerous
state-of-the-art information systems have been developed. Among these systems Enterprise
Resource Planning (ERP) systems is one of them. ERP systems, designed to support both the
functional and operational processes of the organization, are commercial software packages that
“promise the seamless integration of all the information flowing through the company–financial
and accounting information, human resource information, supply chain information, customer
information” (Davenport,1998; Ranganathan and Brown, 2006).

Today, many public and private organizations worldwide are implementing or in the process
of implementing ERP systems in place of the functional legacy systems that are not anymore
well-compatible with modern business environment. ERP system is a modular integrated

2
business software system that facilitates an organization to use its resources efficiently and
effectively. The integration brought by ERP enables organizations to respond to competitive
forces and market opportunities, to improve product portfolio, to reduce carrying costs and to
maintain supply chain relations strictly (Mishra et al. 2011).

Most organizations have invested in ERP systems to replace legacy systems, for cost
containment reasons and to improve operational performance, efficiency and internal controls.
Considering the available industry-wide solutions and their benefits, particularly when compared
to other means of processing structured organizational data, ERP systems have the ability to
automate and integrate business processes, share common data and practices across an
organization, and produce and access real-time information.

Despite the promises and the continued popularity of ERP Systems, evidence is accumulating
to demonstrate that obtaining benefits from an ERP is not as straightforward as those selling and
promoting such systems would like us to believe (Boersma & Kingman, 2005). Many companies
have experienced challenges in implementing ERP systems leading to wastage of time and
money. It is therefore important for companies planning to implement ERP systems to
understand the factors affecting implementation in order to minimize the risk of failure and to
optimize their ERP implementation.

A study conducted by Nah and Delgado (2006) identified seven critical factors for ERP
implementation. These factors are: business plan and vision, change management, ERP Team
composition, management support, project management and system analysis. However this study
was based on a developed country which is significantly different from a developing country like
Ethiopia.

Aldammas & Al-Mudimigh (2005) classified eleven factors affecting ERP implementation.
These factors are: ERP team work and composition, top management support, effective
communication, project management, business plan and vision, project champion, appropriate
business and legacy systems, business process reengineering and customization, change
management program and culture, software development testing and trouble shooting and
monitoring and evaluation. This study was also conducted in Saudi Arabia which is a far more
developed country compared to Ethiopia.

3
 A local research conducted by Saron (2017) the case of Heineken breweries S.c Ethiopia,
asserts that top management support, project team competency, user training and education, inter
departmental communication, business process reengineering and consultants support are the key
factor influencing ERP implementation success. Also Foziya (2017) tried to assess factors
affecting the implementation of enterprise resource planning at commercial bank of Ethiopia and
found out that good communication and coordination between implementation partners is
essential.

To the best of the researcher‟s knowledge, no study had been conducted on ERP
implementation focusing on the postal sector. This study therefore sought to bridge this
knowledge gap by taking in to account the common critical success factors (CSFs) faced and
evaluate their contribution in the successful ERP implementation process at Ethiopia postal
service.

1.3. Research Question

Based on the statement of problem and objective of study, the researcher posed the
following Major questions

 What are the factors that affect successful implementation of ERP project at Ethiopian
postal service?
 To what extent do the identified CSFs collectively affect successful implementation of
ERP project at Ethiopian postal service?
 To what extent does each of the CSFs influence successful implementation ERP project at
Ethiopian postal service?
 How can these factors be ranked in relation to their influence on the successful
implementation of ERP project at Ethiopian postal service?

These questions will be answered based on the findings from facts and figures collected in the
course of this study.

1.4. Hypothesis

Depending on the review of empirical studies made, the researcher has developed the
following hypothesis.

4
 H1: Top management support has a positive impact on ERP implementation success

H2: Business Process Reengineering (BPR) has a positive impact on ERP implementation
success

H3: Change Management has a positive impact on ERP implementation success

H4: Consultant support has a positive impact on ERP implementation success

H5: Project team competency has a positive impact on ERP implementation success

H6: Project Management has a positive impact on ERP implementation success

H7: Communication has a positive impact on ERP implementation success

1.5. Objectives of the Study

1.5.1. General Objective

The broad objective is to assess the factors affecting successful implementation of ERP
project implementation in Ethiopia post service.

1.5.2. Specific Objectives

The specific objectives of the study that emanate from the general objective are:

 Identification of common factors affecting successful implementation of ERP project in

Ethiopian post service.
 Assessing collective effects of the selected CSFs on ERP project implementation
 Assessing the individual effect of each of these CSFs on ERP project
 Ranking these CSFs based on the weight of their effects on ERP project

1.6. Significance of the Study

The findings of the study will have many advantages for practitioners and academicians
in the area of project management by providing useful information about the success and filer
factors in implementing ERP. Theoretically the study is expected to contribute to the
advancement of knowledge about the factors affecting the successful implementation of ERP
projects. In addition, it will be of an invaluable importance and will open doors to realize the
factors that affect successful implementation of the ongoing and potential ERP projects and

5
thereby ERP projects and implementing organizations will be able to plan the necessary
techniques to ensure effective implementation of these projects. The study will also be used as a
base on which others can develop theirs.

The results of this study will also be used to fill the literature gap on ERP in Ethiopian
context and can be used as a reference for future research projects.

1.7. Scope of the Study

The study is limited to the CSFs (Business Process Reengineering, Communication, Top
Management Support, Team Competency, Project management, Use of Consultant, Change
Management ) affecting the successful implementation of ERP project in Ethiopia postal service
enterprise. The Ethiopian Postal Service Enterprise ERP project has been chosen as a case for the
study. In effect it may not at any cost reflect performance issues of other projects. The research
has only focused on the company‟s Head Quarter located in Addis Ababa.

1.8. Limitation of the study

This study is limited to testing the correlation between CSFs (Business Process
Reengineering, Communication, Top Management Support, Team Competency, Project
management, Change Management, Use of consultant) frequently used in research and ERP
implementation success. Another limitation imposed on the study is that the scope of the study
was confined to head office which may limit the comprehensive view of findings. Furthermore,
since the research was restricted on the available time and budget, the study was limited to focus
only on single case company and specific areas. These all have impact on the outcome of this
research.

1.9. Organization of the study

The paper contains a total of five chapters. Chapter one of the study focuses only
introductory aspects including background of the study statement of the problem, objectives of
the study, significance, scope and limitation of the study. Chapter two presents the review of
related literature. Chapter three presents the research design and methodology including data
source and method of data collection, sampling techniques to used, and measurement and

6
analysis parts. Chapter four discusses the findings of the study. Based on the finding of the study,
chapter five presents the conclusion and recommendation of the study.

7
 CHAPTER TWO:
Literature Review

2.1. Theoretical Review

2.1.1. The meaning and characteristics of Projects

Project is defined as a temporary endeavor undertaken by people who work cooperatively
together to create a unique product, service or result. The temporary nature of projects indicates
that a project has a definite beginning and end (PMI, 2007). A project can be considered to be
any series of activities and tasks that: Have a specific objective to be completed within certain
specifications, have defined start and end dates, Have funding limits, consume human and
nonhuman resources and are multifunctional (Kerzner, 2009)

A project can be characterized by a few elements such as objectivity as it is definable

with result or output, complexity with normally interrelated activities and large number of
different tasks, unique where it is usually a “one-off” assignment, uncertainty as it has element of
risk, temporary with its well defined beginning and end and lastly operate in a life cycle as
emphasis and resource needs change during the life of the project.

2.1.2. The concept of project management

Project management has been in practice for thousands of years. A dotted line can be
drawn from the software developers of today back through time to the builders of the Egyptian
pyramids or the architects of the Roman aqueducts. For their respective eras, project managers
have played similar roles, applying technology to the relevant problems of the times
(Berkun,2008).As a modern management practice, project management evolved out of World
War II and U.S. Department of Defense projects. These projects required organizations to break
the existing functional boundaries and find new ways to accomplish complex work (Gentile,
2012),

Project management is the application of tools, techniques, processes, methods and

experience in achieving the desired purpose of a project (APM, 2012). While Kerzner (2009)
adopts the definition of the classical approach to management to describe project management as
planning, organizing, directing and monitoring of an organization‟s resources for a temporary

8
purpose that will eventually achieve specific goals and objectives. In general, these definitions
all describe project management as 'a means to an end. As such, it involves planning, organizing,
monitoring, and controlling the project and requires its own tools and techniques (Belassi and
Tukel, 1996).

The central theme running through the various project management Body of knowledge
is the project management is an integrative process that has at his core, the balancing of „the iron
triangle‟ of time, cost and output. All three facets must be present for a management process to
be considered project management (Patrick, W 2007).

2.1.3. Definition of ERP

Beheshti (2006) defines Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system as “a set of business
applications or modules, which links various business units of an organization such as financial,
accounting, manufacturing, and human resources into a tightly integrated single system with a
common platform for flow of information across the entire business. ERP systems are very large
software programs that control every aspect of a company from sales to accounting to supply
chain to human resources. Historically, companies have been divided by functional areas, such as
marketing and sales or accounting and finance. However, in order to react to the demands of
customers in a rapidly changing marketplace, work from must flow quickly and accurately
between functional areas (Monk & Wagner 2006). Functional area legacy systems “represent one
of the heaviest drags on business productivity” (Davenport, 1998) and have been increasingly
replaced by a single ERP system, via a single central database and common reporting tools. Each
functional area within an organization is integrated by the software. This cross-functionality
promotes business integration with the ability to view real-time results (Ranganathan & Brown
2006).

The ERP system incorporates a set of programs that provides support for main
organizational activities such as manufacturing and logistics, finance and accounting, sales and
marketing, and human resource. It also helps for sharing of data and knowledge among different
parts of the organization as well as reducing costs, and improves management of business
processes (Adel, 2001).

The architecture of the software facilitates transparent integration of modules, providing

flow of information between all functions within the enterprise in a consistently visible manner.

9
Corporate computing with ERPs allows companies to implement a single integrated system by
replacing or re-engineering their mostly incompatible legacy information systems. American
Production and Inventory Control Society (2001) has defined ERP systems as “a method for the
effective planning and controlling of all the resource needed to take, make, ship and account for
customer orders in a manufacturing, distribution or service company.”

“ERP comprises of a commercial software package that promises the seamless

integration of all the information flowing through the company–financial, accounting, human
resource, supply chain and customer information” (Davenport, 2000).

As Kumar and Hillsgersberg, (2000) said an ERP system is a vast information system,
which enables decision-makers to have an enterprise wide view of the information they need in a
timely, reliable and consistent fashion.

ERP packages are integrated software packages that cover the techniques and concepts
employed for the integrated management of businesses that help effective use of resource, to
improve the efficiency of an enterprise (Ahmed, 2003).

ERP systems are configurable information systems packages that integrate information
and information-based processes within and across functional areas in an organization (Kumar &
Hillsgersberg, 2000). One database, one application and a unified interface across the entire
enterprise (Tadjer,1998). ERP systems are computer-based systems designed to process an
organization‟s transactions and facilitate integrated and real-time planning, production, and
customer response (O‟Leary, 2001).

2.1.4. A Brief History of ERP

The evolution of ERP systems closely followed the development in the field of computer
hardware and software systems and the history of ERP systems starts with efforts of automating
inventory control systems in the 1960s when most organizations designed, developed and
implemented centralized computing systems for their inventory control systems (Rashid et al,
2002).

During the 1960s most organizations designed, developed and implemented centralized
computing systems, mostly automating their inventory control systems using inventory control
packages (IC). These were legacy systems based on programming languages such as COBOL,

10
ALGOL and FORTRAN. Material requirements planning (MRP) systems were developed in the
1970s, which involved mainly planning the product or requirements according to the master
production schedule. Following this route new software systems called manufacturing resource
planning (MRP II) were introduced in the1980s with an emphasis on optimizing manufacturing
processes by synchronizing the materials with production requirements. MRP II included areas
such as shop floor and distribution management, project management, finance, human resource
and engineering (Rashid et al, 2002).

According to Mohammad A. Rashid, (2002) on the book The Evolution of ERP Systems:
A Historical Perspective ERP systems first appeared in the late 1980s and the beginning of the
1990s with the power of enterprise-wide inter-functional coordination and integration. Based on
the technological foundations of MRP and MRP II, ERP systems integrate business processes
including manufacturing, distribution, accounting, financial, human resource management,
project management, inventory management, service and maintenance, and transportation,
providing accessibility, visibility and consistency across the enterprise (O‟Leary, 2001).

During the 1990s ERP vendors added more modules and functions as “add-ons” to the
core modules giving birth to the “extended ERPs”. These ERP extensions include advanced
planning and scheduling (APS), e-business solutions such as customer relationship management
(CRM) and supply chain management (SCM) (Rashid et al 2002). Figure 1 summarizes the
historical events related with ERP.

2000s Extended ERP

1990s Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)

1980s Manufacturing Resources Planning (MRP II)

1970s Material Requirements Planning (MRP)

1960s Inventory Control Packages

Fig 2.1: ERP evolution (source Rashid, et al 2002)

11
2.1.5. ERP Systems Characteristics and Benefits
ERP systems are greatly known for their characteristics that qualify them as being highly
dependable integration solutions for the core business solutions of organizations. They provide
an all-inclusive system that covers all aspects of the business that can be easily accessed and
shared across the different departments in organizations. They provide data for strategic decision
making and have full access to organization-wide information that is fully integrated into one
system to facilitate rapid decision making, cost reductions, and greater managerial control
(Holland and Light, 1999). Depending on the ERP system, different components of data can be
accessed. According to Davenport (1998), there is a single central database where data is
collected and dispersed into the different modules of an organization where information on all
the business activities across the organization can be accessed internally and across multi-sites
even if they were around the world. Davenport (1998) further explains that when information is
inserted into the system by one user, any information related to that is directly updated
accordingly.

For a better understanding, Sylvester (2004:71) has categorized characteristics of ERP

system under three dimensions in regards to their nature, namely technical, organizational and
informational. The technical dimension regroups characteristics that refer to the capabilities or
facilities for applications development offered by ERP systems in comparison to traditional
systems.

This includes two basic characteristics: flexibility (adaptability) and openness

(evolutionary). The organizational dimension refers to the system„s deployment in the firm.
These are the characteristics that best reflect the impact of an ERP system on the organization,
on its structure as well as its practices. This includes integration, completeness (generic
function), homogenization, transversally (process-oriented view) and best practices. The
informational dimension regroups characteristics that relate to the quality and usefulness of the
information provided by the system, namely real-time (update and consultation) and simulation
(of actual business processes).

Al-Mashari et al. (2003) has highlighted that benefits of ERP systems are best realized
when a business assesses its performance measurement after having implemented an ERP system
within. It is expected that the benefits realized would be operational, managerial, strategic, IT

12
infrastructure and organization-wide. O'Leary (2004) adds that benefits realized are split into
those that are tangible and intangible. These are described in Table 2-1.

Table 2 1 Tangible and intangible benefits of ERP systems

Tangible benefits realized Intangible benefits realized

 Inventory reduction  Information/visibility

 Personnel reduction  New improved processes

 Productivity improvements  Customer responsiveness

 Order management improvements  Cost reduction

 Financial close cycle reduction  Integration

 IT cost reduction  Standardisation

 Procurement cost reduction  Flexibility

 Cash management improvement  Globalisation

 Revenue/profit increases  Y2K

 Transportation/logistics cost reductions  Business performance

 Maintenance reductions  Supply/demand chain

 On-time delivery

Table 2-1 has presented the tangible and intangible benefits that organizations realize. In terms
of the inventory, personnel and IT reductions, among other benefits, that directly affect the cost
of projects, these clearly are tangible benefits that organizations should realize after deploying a
successful ERP system. Being flexible, their business performances, the integration of their
work, among others benefits, are also considered as benefits realized except that they are not
concrete items that can be touched to prove they exist.

13
2.1.6. Implementation of ERP
When implementing an ERP system within organizations, people need to realize that they
will be investing a lot into it; financially and non-financially (Al-Mashari et al., 2003 and
O'Leary, 2004). Financially, the costs that would be required include those of the hardware that
runs licensed software along with the consultation fees required to ensure that knowledge is
transferred from the ERP system provider to the end-user. The end-user would need to have a
certain understanding of the ERP system as well as ERP project management since an ERP
system is considered to be a project in itself (Whang et al., 2003). Therefore, financially, proper
training would be required to those who would be utilizing it (Willis et al., 2001). Non-
financially, time and effort would need to be dedicated into implementing and maintaining this
system.

Without the proper support and understanding, implementation and post-implementation

phases of the project are at risk of failure. Kapp (2001: cited in Whang et al., 2003) has studied
and assessed a few organizations that endured the transformation into ERP systems and has
concluded a few reasons as to why some ERP implementations fail. The main reason found
through their research is due to not having proper and focused training plans that prepare end-
users for the system. Whang & Lee (2002) add to that by suggesting that organizations may not
have a clear and focused goal that directs them to ensure alignment with business strategies and
opportunities. Implementing an ERP system requires dedication, goals, objectives and most
importantly, for it to be treated as a project that receives devoted attention (Kansal, 2007). Not
understanding the potentials of the ERP system and not dedicating enough time to integrate it
well within the organization, may lead to the failure of it. It needs to be recognized that
„integrate‟ is the keyword, where business processes and functions are integrated into the system
to substantially adjust it. Not only is it important to successfully implement an ERP system,
maintaining and continuously improving it, have the same significance.

Furthermore, according to Capaldo and Rippa (2009), the various reasons as to why some
ERP implementation projects fail relate to the technical implementation aspect as well as the
organizational aspect and failure to be attentive to both aspects could lead to negative risks in
choosing the implementation strategy during implementation. According to them, if the factors
relating to the technical and organizational aspect are not identified properly, they could lead to
affecting the project outcome as issues may arise during implementation and it becomes difficult

14
to deal with them if they are not already anticipated. Markus (2004) highlights that organizations
usually implement ERP systems following two different strategies referred to as the “Big Bang”
and the “Incremental” strategy. The big bang strategy deals with implementing the ERP system
and going live in one go. No pilot approach is followed as opposed to the incremental strategy
where the risk of implementation decreases since critical problems realized from stage one of the
'go-live' phase can be fixed for stage 2 prior to the go-live phase. It allows for a timely resolution
of critical situations (Markus, 2004). As ERP systems have their benefits and failure to meet
their success factors could lead to failure, the implementation strategy that an organization
chooses to deploy the ERP system also has it benefits and risks associated with it. Benefits of the
big bang strategy include that the organization adjusts to the characteristics of the system with
minimal customization to meet the maximum benefits of the system. Total integration of the
system in a designated time period allows for the benefits that include going-live as early as
possible. Of course, risks are also associated with that, and for that reason, the right people need
to be a part of the implementation team (Bhatti, 2005). Benefits of the incremental strategy
include a decrease in technical difficulties but also have fewer benefits since resources are
engaged for a longer time period. This adds costs to the project.

To adopt an ERP system into an organization, there are two main technical ways of doing
so. Organizations can purchase and directly implement a standard ERP pack, with little
digression from default settings, or they can customize an ERP pack to suit their requirements
(Brehm et al., 2001). The implementation of an ERP system entails much planning and adequate
research to ensure that the implementation of it runs smoothly and benefits of it are realized as
opposed to criticized. To guarantee that the business procedures, technical aspect of the system
and software are configured and integrated to align with the business processes is the key to
having confidence of a positive transformation to the „new‟. Much research into the
implementation of an ERP system has been done factoring out the CSF‟s and developing process
models.

When it comes to configuring an ERP system, Davenport (1998) advises that an organization
needs to make compromises of finding the best way to balance the way they want to work and
the way the system promotes you to work. When it comes to the ERP system selection, you need
to know your requirements in order to properly assess the modules that you would need to install
against those that are not necessary for your organization. After that, each module is adjusted

15
against certain configuration tables in order to present and reach the best fit possible with the
business processes.

2.1.7. ERP Life-Cycle Stages

(Jose M. Esteves, 1999) argued that ERP system goes through different life-cycle stages
during its whole life within the hosting organization. The complete ERP life-cycle is divided into
six generic stages. These stages are adoption decision phase, acquisition phase, implementation
phase, use and maintenance phase, evolution phase and retirement phase.

i. Adoption Decision Phase

In this phase, the need for ERP system is reviewed and decided while selecting an
information system which best addresses the critical business challenges and improve the
organizational strategy. It is in this stage that the system requirements, its goals and
benefits are defined. Analysis of the impact of ERP adoption at a business and
organizational level is done here.

ii. Acquisition Phase

Acquisition phase is selection of ERP product system which best fits the requirements of
the organization and minimizes customization needs. Consulting company is selected in
this phase to help in the next phases of the ERP life-cycle. Issues of price, training and
maintenance services are analyzed and a contractual agreement is defined here. Return on
investment analysis of the selected product should also be done in acquisition phase.

iii. Implementation Phase

In this phase, the acquired ERP system is customized, parameterized and adapted to the
needs of the organization. This phase is usually done with the help of consultants and
implementer partners who provide implementation methodologies, know-how and
training.

iv. Use and Maintenance Phase

This is the stage when the system must be used in a way that returns expected benefits
and minimizes disruption. This is referred to as Establishment Period, the period after go
live until the system gets stabilized. In addition, once a system is implemented it must be
maintained to correct malfunctions and optimize its functionality.

16
 v. Evolution phase

Evolution phase is the integration of more capabilities to the ERP system and expanding
it to incorporate new benefits and functionalities.

vi. Retirement phase

This phase is the time when decision is made to replace the ERP system with other
information systems due to its inadequacy to the current needs of the organization or
availability of new technologies.

2.1.8. Risks in ERP Implementation

There are unique challenges and risks involved in ERP implementation projects. Sumner
(2005) lists four different categories of risks that pose a threat to successful implementation
project. These four risk categories are: technology, organization, people and project size. The
common risks associated with ERP projects are discussed in this section in accordance with
Sumner‟s categories. Technology risks vary according to how well the new system fits with the
current corporate technology infrastructure and operating system environment.

When a company implements a technology that is inconsistent with current operating

system, database and network environments, the system implementation will require
fundamental changes in technology infrastructure. Changing the technology infrastructure will
raise the technology risk and might lead to a situation where the company‟s internal technical
expertise is inconsistent with the new infrastructure. To keep the technology risks low, the
technical requirements for the chosen ERP system should be consistent with the company‟s
technical know-how and the technology infrastructure.

Despite the efforts to mitigate these risks, technological bottlenecks often occur when
implementing a new ERP software package, especially when attempting to build bridges to
legacy applications. These issues pose risks to the project and can result in lack of integration.
Technological issues must be taken into account when selecting the ERP software package in
order to avoid unnecessary exposure to technology risks (Sumner, M. 1999).

The organizational risks deal with company‟s business processes and organizational
factors (Sumner, M. 1999). When the features of the ERP software do not fit the company‟s
business requirements there are two possible strategies in implementing the software. First

17
option is to re-design the business processes (reform) to fit the software with minimal tailoring
and the second possibility is to modify the software to fit the processes.

The first option should reduce errors and help to take advantage of newer versions and
updates of the system. On the other hand, changing business processes to fit the system could
mean changes in established ways of doing business, which can lead to worker resistance and
even to loss of competitive advantage.

The second option includes modification of the software, which slows down the project
and raises implementation costs, could affect the stability of the system, and make managing
future releases more difficult. On the other hand, modifying the software implies less
organizational changes. (Themistocleous 2005) For the success of ERP implementation project,
in terms of project constraints, the less modifying needed, the lower the risk of budget overrun
and schedule delays.

The organizational risks also vary according to the amount of business processes that the
ERP implementation project affects. If the scope of the project affects nearly all the company‟s
business processes, the risk is greater than if it affects only 25% of the processes, for example.
(Sumner, M. 1999).

The third area of risk is associated with people resources. If the company‟s IT
professionals are familiar with the application-specific ERP modules, then the probability of
successful implementation is enhanced. Insufficient training and re-skilling of the staff and
failure to efficiently mix internal and external expertise raise the risks of project failure.

People factors that affect the level of risk also include the know-how of the ERP user
staff and their involvement in the project. Inadequate training of end-users, ineffective project
communications and lack of sensitivity to user resistance all lower the chances of success. Risk
of failure raises significantly if the users are not fully committed to completing their activities in
the implementation project (Sumner, M. 1999) .

The fourth source of risk deals with project size. As an ERP implementation project can
be the largest single investment in corporate technology for many organizations, the sheer size of
the project poses considerable risk. Any project, that is as large and important as an ERP

18
implementation project, needs senior management support, a proper management control
structure and effective communications in order to be successful (Sumner, M. 1999).

2.1.9. Critical Success Factors (CSFs) in ERP implementation

According to Li & Sylvia (2005) CSFs are defined as “those few critical areas where
things must go right for the business to flourish”. Understanding the critical success factors in
ERP implementation would give some guidelines on what factors that should be given more
attention in order to bring the implementation process into success. The CSFs could either be a
risk or opportunities, depends on how the organizations handle them.

Critical success factors in ERP implementation is the most reheard area, one of the first
researches about CSF in ERP implementation is accomplished by Holland in 1999 titled “A
Critical Success Factors Model for ERP Implementation. He divided CSF in two dimensions
including of strategic and technical then he classified legacy system, business vision, ERP
strategy, top management support and project schedule and plans under strategic dimension and
client consultation, personal, software configuration, client acceptance, monitoring and feedback,
communication and trouble shouting under technical dimension (Holland & Light, 1999).

After investigating critical success factors in ERP implementation in Malaysia, Jafari,

Osman & Tang concluded that there are 10 critical factors that contributed for successful ERP
implementation. These are top management support, clear goals and objectives, communication,
effective project management, business process reengineering, data accuracy and integrity,
suitability of software and hardware, vendor support, education and training, and user
involvement are critical in Malaysia (Jafari, Osman, & Tang, 2006).

CSFs for ERP projects have been studied from a number of different perspectives.
Elisabeth et al. (2003) emphasized social enablers such as strong commitment by top
management, a great implementation team, extensive education and training, clear understanding
of strategic goals and empowered implementation team as necessary qualifications to a
successful implementation.

The success or failure of ERP implementation is closely related to how the companies
handle the process. The ERP implementation process could differ in every company. The
differences might concern to the implementation goals, the scope, or the available resources. But

19
among all the differences in every implementation process there are some general points that are
important in the process and would strongly result in the success or failure in the implementation
of ERP. Those important points were identified as critical success factors (Li & Sylvia 2005).

In this study, the student researcher has examined the effects of seven key CSFs on the
ERP‟s successful implementation. These CSFs are top management support, project
management, use of consultants, business process reengineering, project team competence,
change management and communication. The selected CSFs are among those that are widely
cited as having a notable impact on the implementation success of the ERP systems (e.g.,
Ağaoğlu, Yurtkoru, & Ekmekçi, 2015; Ahmad & Cuenca, 2013; Dezdar & Sulaiman, 2009;
Jahangir et al., 2007; Leyh, 2016; Ngai, Law, & Wat, 2008).

A. Top Management Support

Top management support was supposed by many articles to be one of the top critical factors
in a successful ERP implementation. Top management support, plays a significant role in the
ERP implementation success because ERP are normally large-scale and require extensive
resources. According to Zhang et al. (2005), top management support has two major aspects in
ERP implementation projects: providing the necessary resources and providing leadership. The
responsibilities of top management in ERP implementation include communicating the company
strategy to all members of the organization, developing an understanding of the restrictions and
abilities, demonstrating commitment, and establishing rational objectives for the ERP
implementation (Umble et al., 2003).

Top management must take a dynamic role in leading the ERP implementation. The success
of a main project like an ERP implementation totally depends on the strong, sustained
commitment of top management. This obligation when transferred down through the
organizational levels results in an overall organizational commitment (Bingi, 1999).

Top management must be involved in every step of the ERP implementation. Some
companies make the serious mistake of handing over the responsibility of ERP implementations
to the technology department. This risks the entire company‟s existence because of the ERP
system‟s profound business implications. An overall organizational commitment that is very
noticeable, well-defined, and felt is a sure way to ensure a successful implementation (Umble,
2002).

20
 Top management support and commitment is needed throughout the ERP implementation
process because the project must receive approval and align with strategic business goals. Top
managers must commit themselves to involve in the project for allocating the required personnel
resource for implementation and giving appropriate time to finish the job. A share vision of the
company and the role of the new system and structures should be communicated between
managers and employees. Moreover, top managers should be the persons to harmonize any
conflicts between internal and external parties (Nah et al., 2001)

Many studies provided evidences that top management support is essential during the entire
ERP implementation process and how it remained critical in order to reap the benefits (Bradford
and Florin, 2003). Willcocks and Sykes (2000) noted that senior-level sponsorship,
championship, support, and participation are one aspect of organizational factor that influences
ERP success. Implementing ERP does not only involve changes in software systems usage rather
it involves the repositioning of a company and transformation of all business practices.
Therefore, as Somers and Nelson, (2004) said top management should publicly, explicitly, and
sincerely show their support (financial and non-financial) to emphasize the precedence of the
ERP implementation.

H1: Top management support has a positive impact on ERP implementation success

B. Business Process Reengineering (BPR)

An ERP project pushes organizations to revisit their business processes and scrutinizes the
ways of doing things relative to the best practices already embedded in the system. According to
Bingi, (1999) implementing an ERP system requires reengineering the existing business process
to the greatest business process standard. ERP systems are constructed on best practices that are
followed in the industry. According to Umble, (2002) automating existing redundant or non-
value-added processes in the new system can cause an implementation to fail. The combined
environment of the new ERP system will require the organization to conduct business in a
dissimilar way. The proper implementation of an ERP system should force key business
processes to be reengineered and cause a consistent rearrangement in organizational control to
tolerate the effectiveness of the reengineering efforts.

An ERP system will clearly change the normal style of operation within and between
functions, but it will also change many social systems throughout the organization.

21
 When organization implements ERP a certain level of BPR (reform) should be involved, as
the packaged software may be incompatible with the needs and business processes of the
organization. In order to improve the functionality of the software in accordance with the needs
of the organization, an organization should reengineer business processes to fit the software
instead of trying to modify the software to fit the organization‟s current business processes Ngai,
(2008). To achieve the greatest benefits provided by an ERP system, it is authoritative that the
business processes are aligned with the ERP system. According to Somers T.M., (2001) both the
reengineering literature and the ERP literature suggest that an ERP system alone cannot improve
organizational performance unless an organization restructures its business processes.

H2: Business Process Reengineering (BPR) has a positive impact on ERP implementation
success

C. Change Management

Change management is another crucial and important critical success factor of ERP project
implementation. To introduce ERP project in a company, change management is an important
factor for successful implementation to structure the change management strategies and business
process methodology to accomplish its goal (Jarrar. Y. F., 2000).

Change management is vital, starting at the project phase and continuing throughout the
entire life cycle. Enterprise wide culture and structure change should be managed (Falkowski et
al., 1998), which include people; organization and culture change (Rosario, 2000).
Unpredictably, the most common failure factor reported was that of readiness for change.
Implementing ERP system completely changes the culture of the organization (Gargeya, 2005).

Many companies make simplicity assumption of how an implementation will affect the
culture within the organization. All changes like cultural and perception change should handle
utmost care (Davenport, 2000). If people are not ready or willing to change, change simply will
not occur. All managers must be charged with the responsibility of controlling worker anxiety
and resistance to the ERP system (Aladwani, 2001). Organizations should have a strong
corporate identity that is open to change.

Change management system believes on changing the business process for an organization,
so careful attention must be given to change management system. Organizational change refers

22
to the body of knowledge that is used to ensure the complex change. The change management
approach will try to ensure the acceptance and readiness of the new system, allowing the
organization to get the benefits of its use. A successful organizational change approach relies in a
proper integration of people, process and technology.

H3: Change Management has a positive impact on ERP implementation success

D. Use of Consultants

In the review by Dezdar and Sulaiman (2009), the CSF referred as “Use of consultants”
were considered to have been one of the less frequently cited CSF. Welti, (1999) argues that the
success of a project depends on the capabilities of the consultants, because they have in-depth
knowledge of the project. ERP consultants can play a major part in the implementation process.
This is because they have the required knowledge and expertise to assist the adopting
organizations in the effective use of the system and realize both managerial and operational
benefits. It was indicated that the consulting process is a necessary step for organizations that are
willing to implement such system (Maditinos, Chatzoudes, & Tsairidis, 2011; Zhu et al., 2010).
This necessity originated from the ERP‟s integrative nature, which makes its implementation
more complex than that of traditional systems (Wang & Chen, 2006). ERP complexity comes in
many facets including difficulties in configuring a large number of modules and coordination of
operations (Jahangir et al., 2007), thus the increased failure rates. Consequently, lack of
consultant support might make the implementation process quite hard for the adopting
organizations and could be a success inhibitor (Schniederjans & Yadav, 2013).

Consultants can be involved in several stages of the implementation process, including

performing requirements analysis, recommending suitable solutions, configuring modules, and
managing the implementation process (Somers & Nelson, 2001). Thus, they should be carefully
selected by considering their experience in the technical aspects and business processes
conducted in the adopting organization.

H4: Consultant support has a positive impact on ERP implementation success

E. Project team competency

Project management requires efforts and it is certainly not an easy job. It involves several
steps; from the initiation, planning, executing, and controlling to the closing of a project. The

23
most challenging part is that the project is delegated to a team with specific goals to achieve over
a defined timeline for a determined budget. A successful and effective project manager is one
who can keep projects and the team on track. This normally takes more than just technical know-
how. The key, of course, is being able to manage a project on time and on budget, by gaining the
confidence of all stakeholders and leading a highly motivated team to a successful outcome.

Project implementation team should incorporate all competences and skills that are
expected to be necessary during the project. This might imply that the project team is composed
of people with various education backgrounds, skills and professional experiences. ERP projects
typically require some combination of members from business, information technology, vendor
and consulting support. The ERP team should be balance and cross functional. The structure of
the project team has a strong impact in the implementation process.

H5: Project team competency has a positive impact on ERP implementation success

F. Project management

Project management for ERP implementations includes aspects pertaining to

identification of a clear scope and plan for the implementation process, setting a realistic time
frame, having an effective project leader, and tracking the project progress (Nah et al., 2003;
Umble et al. 2003; Zhang et al., 2003). Effective project management has been considered in a
large number of studies as a significant factor for the successful implementation of the ERP
systems (e.g., Ngai et al., 2008; Tsai et al, 2011; Zhang et al., 2003). A typical reason is that the
implementation of such systems is a complex process due to many issues, including their
complex configurations and difficulties in making the required changes in the organization‟s
processes and environment to fit the system. Thus, effective project management is imperative
for the success of the implementation process. It enables organizations to plan, coordinate, and
monitor various implementation activities (Ngai et al., 2008). Additionally, Zhu, Li, Wang, and
Chen (2010) indicated that effective project management ensures the successful automation of
many routine operations by the system, which leads to many operational benefits, including high
processing speed and productivity.

H6: Project Management has a positive impact on ERP implementation success

24
 G. Communication

Strong communication within the entire organization during the implementation process
increases success for ERP implementation. It allows the organization‟s stakeholders to
understand the goal and the expected benefits of the project as well as to share the progress of the
project. An “open information policy” protects the various communication failures for the
project. (Al-Mashari, Al-Mudimigh, and Zairi, 2003).

For successful implementation of ERP systems, communication across the various

functions and levels of a company is needed. Since the communication assists the ERP adopting
company to minimize user resistance, it is critical from the initiation to the system acceptance
phases Somers and Nelson, (2004). Esteves-Sousa and Pastor-Collado (2000) stated that both
internal communication among ERP project team members and outward communication to the
entire company are very essential. communication among different levels and functions of ERP
implementation projects needs a communication plan to guarantee that open communication
happens in the whole organization and with customers and suppliers Kumar et al., (2003).

Communication is one of most challenging and difficult tasks in any ERP implementation
project. Nah et al., (2007) argued that it is important that ERP project team and employees are
informed about the scope, objectives, activities and updates in advance to make ERP
implementation more efficient. In ERP system implementations, communication among
stakeholders to report project progress and user input and communicating project expectations to
all stakeholders are important Sedera and Dey, (2006).

According to Nah and Delgado (2006), communication should start early, be consistent
and continuous, and include an overview of the system, the reasons for implementing it, and a
vision on how the business will change and how the system will support these. The effective
communication CSF in an ERP implementation includes the communication between
departments in the organization Al-Mashari, Al-Mudimigh, & Zairi, (2003) and between the
implementation parties. Chang et al. (2008) also suggested, close cooperation between different
parties among the project and different departments within the company can effectively increase
employees‟ system using, as the employees can receive expectations and pressures from those
parties whom they are interacting with in daily work.

25
 For the interdepartmental communication, Stefanou (1999) argued that creating
collaborations among the departments and a close work relationship between them can be
effective for some technical issue resolutions, and can further facilitate the overall project
success. For the way to achieve such communication the researcher considered the trust and
willingness about information sharing is a matter of the organizational culture that cannot be
resolved by any form of technologically support Stefanou, (1999).

On the other hand, among the communication between implementation parties in the
project, a case study by Sumner (1999) indicated the project team should let everyone in the
enterprise be aware of the meaning of the project, as well as the scope and schedule of it Sumner,
(1999). For the difficult and tough issues that existed in one party or between a few parties in the
preparation phase of the project, they should be addressed directly and in time, to prevent more
issues emerged and even harder to resolved in later phases Sumner, (1999).

Despite the meaning of communicating among social groups, the effective

communication can also represent broadcasting the meanings and benefits of ERP adoption to
employees, as suggested by Aladwani (2001). The researcher proposed that communication is an
effective strategy to affect users‟ attitudes toward the new system and further improve the
situation of user resistance. The researcher also believed the awareness of knowledge about ERP
and how it operates can build anticipation and virtuous expectation for employees. To achieve
this, management can play the role of explaining how ERP system will work, whereas reputable
individuals and opinion leaders are also effective for spreading the spirit of supporting the
project activities (Aladwani, 2001).

Under the setting of the project team members are representatives from business
functional departments, Akkermans and van Helden (2002) concluded that the interdepartmental
communication and collaboration is the core process for ERP project progress, while the key
stakeholders (top management, project champion, and ERP vendor) were identified to be the root
causes for the performance of this core process.

H7: Communication has a positive impact on ERP implementation success

26
2.2. Conceptual Framework

A conceptual framework is an analytical tool with many variations and contexts. It is

used to make conceptual distinctions and organize ideas by using diagrams or charts and the like.
Hence, the student researcher tries to see the relationship between Independent variables (top
management support, Project management, business process reengineering, consultant, change
management, communication and project team competency) and Dependent variable (successful
implementation of ERP). The student researcher tool these variables due to the fact that previous
researchers which are discussed in the literature review section identified that these variables are
the critical success factors that affect ERP implementation moreover these variables are the ones
that captures the crux of the study.

Independent variables Dependent variable

Key CSFs For ERP Implementation

Top management support H1

Business process H2
reengineering

Change Management H3

Use of Consultants H4 ERP Implementation Success

Project team competency H5

Project Management H6

Communication H7

Fig 2.2: Conceptual Framework Developed for the research

2.3. Summary of the Literature Review

The literature review above has highlighted what a project is and different
characteristics, benefits, implementation, role of the project manager, critical success factors

27
of ERP systems and their implementations. To ensure and fulfill the benefits of the ERP
systems, it would be significant to understand the factors that hinder the system
implementation so as to ensure that they are avoided or create risk management plans that
can act as buffers in case a failure is convened upon, unexpectedly. Understanding what the
critical success factors are can assist implementers in paving the way for a successful ERP
system implementation. Understanding the success factors and negating them is a method
that can be used to ensure that most factors that lead to successful implementations could also
lead to failure implementations if not considered during the planning phase of the project.

28
 CHAPTER THREE:
Research Design and Methodology

In this chapter the practical method used in order to answer the research questions and
fulfill the purpose of the research are presented. In addition, the research approach, research
design, sampling design, instrument used for data gathering, target population, source of data,
method of data analysis, presentation and interpretation are discussed in detail.

3.1. Research approach

As stated by Paul. D, Leedy (1993), quantitative research as a formal, objective,

systematic process is used to describe and test relationships and examine cause and effect
interactions among variables. It is a kind of research used to answer questions on relationships
within measurable variables with an intention to explain, predict and control phenomena Paul. D,
Leedy (1993). Quantitative research deals with numerical data or data that can be transformed
into numbers. It shows the relationship of variables involved in the research through cause-and-
effect fashion. On the other hand, the qualitative method presents a descriptive and non-
numerical approach to collect the information in order to present understanding of the
phenomenon Brue‟s, L. Berg, (2004). In this research, quantitative data was collected, thus
quantitative approaches was used to address the main objectives of the study and to deal with all
research questions and hypothesis.

3.2. Research Design

Polity and Beck (2003) describe a research design as the overall plan for obtaining
answers to the questions being studied and for handling some of the difficulties encountered
during the research process. In this study, the research design is mixed between explanatory,
exploratory and descriptive methods. The purpose of the study was exploratory since the study is
to assess ERP implementation in light of CSFs and understand what is happening in ERP
implementation case through use of questioner and document review. The study is partly
descriptive since it tries to measure the extent of ERP implementation success. And it is
explanatory, because the study examines the relationships between seven independent variables,

29
which are top management support, project management, business process reengineering, use of
consultants, change management, communication and project team competency.

3.2.1. Sampling Frame

A sampling frame has all the sampling components from which a sample is obtained
Kombo and Tromp, (2006). The sampling frame for this study were the list of 20 top
management of the organization, 13 department team leaders, 7 human resource domain experts,
10 finance domain experts,5 material management domain experts, 9 members of ERP project
office ,15 change management team and 9 IT experts is purposively included in the population.
Therefore the total number of target population of the study was 86. These are employees of
Ethiopian Postal Service enterprise that are directly or indirectly involved in financial reform and
ERP project in various hierarchical levels.

3.2.1.1. Sampling technique (Census)

Cooper and Schindler (2003), argues that population units from where the sample is
obtained is found in a sampling frame. Sampling techniques provide a range of methods that
facilitate to reduce the amount of data need to collect by considering only data from a sub-group
rather than all possible cases or elements. But if it is possible, practical, and not too expensive to
collect data from all the potential units‟ elements and if the unit of population is manageable
size, we can use the population frame as the required respondents or elements of subjects for the
study. As it is supported by Kothari (2004), this technique is a non-probability sampling method
and basically it is purposive sampling where the student researcher will purposively select those
groups in the scope of the study who are directly or indirectly involved in financial reform and
ERP project. Therefore, for the study all the population participated in the study.

3.2.1.2. Total population as a sample size

Since the number of target population stated above is manageable, the sample size will be
taken to be the total population. Therefore, the study will take all the 86 respondents from top
management of the organization, department team leaders, human resource domain experts,

30
finance domain experts, material management domain experts, and members of ERP project
office, change management team and IT experts.

Based on this, the total numbers of respondents and their related departments are listed in Table
3.1 below:

Table 3. 1 : Target Population which was used as a sample size

Number of
No Target populations Remark
population
1 Top management of the organization 20
Finance, HR and IT department Team
2 8
leaders
3 ERP project team 18
4 HR domain experts 7
5 Finance domain experts 8
6 Material management domain experts 5
9 Change management team 11
10 IT experts 9
TOTAL 86

Source; Financial reform and ERP project office and Human Resource department of the
organization.

3.3. Data source and Type

The necessary data for this study was collected from both primary and secondary sources.
The reason for this is because of its advantage as it is stated by O'Leary, (2009). As he advocates
in its theory, the major advantages of questionnaires are that they can be administered to groups
of people simultaneously, and they are less costly and less time-consuming than other measuring
instruments. The primary data was collected through questionnaires which contained closed
ended questions related to the subject matter. The secondary data was collected from the
company„s work processes, policies, procedures, forms and other documents which are linked
with the ERP implementation and also different literatures on the area.

31
3.4. Data collection Procedures

Data collection refers to the procedure through which a student researcher collects
information to be used for a study. A survey was a major method of collecting data in which
people are asked to answer a number of questions (usually in the form of a questionnaire). This
information can either be primary or secondary. In this research project, both primary and
secondary data was considered. Only close ended questions were used to test different attributes
in the questionnaire.

3.5. Measurement Instruments

A questionnaire was develops for this study to test the research model and its related
hypotheses. It included two parts. The first part encompasses the basic information of the
respondent, such as age, gender, qualification, job category, and experiences. The second part
comprised the measurement items, which were grouped by the model constructs. The
questionnaire included 47 items to measure the model constructs. The measurement items were
selected based on conducting an extensive review of the ERP literature to determine the most
valid and relevant items. Minor adaptations were made on these items to fit the context of this
research. Table 3.2 lists the sources of the items that were adapted from the literature or
developed based on it. A five point Likert scale was used to collect participant responses with the
following values: 1 = strongly disagree; 2= Disagree; 3= Neutral; 4= Agree; 5= strongly agree.

32
Table 3 2: The references of the measurement items
Variables Reference Remark
Bradford and Florin (2003), Adapted
Top Management Support Rajan and Baral (2015), Xu,
(TMS) Ou, and Fan (2017), Ahmed
Abed El-Raziq El-Kurd, (2016)
Bradford and Florin (2003), Adapted
Business Process
Ram et al (2013), Ahmed Abed
Reengineering (BPR)
El-Raziq El-Kurd, (2016)
Schniedrjan and yadv (2013), Adapted
Use Of Consultant (UC) Zhu et al (2010), Ahmed Abed
El-Raziq El-Kurd, (2016)
Ahmed Abed El-Raziq El- Adapted
Communication
Kurd, (2016)
Ahmed Abed El-Raziq El- Adapted
Team Competency ( C )
Kurd, (2016)
Adapted
Change Management Miguel Maldonado (2009)
Somers and Nelson (2003), Adapted
Project Management Zhang et al, (2003), Zhu et al
(2010)
Ahmed Abed El-Raziq El- Developed Based on it
ERP implementation
Kurd, (2016)

3.6.Data Analysis and Presentation Techniques

The analysis part starts from simple description statistics and proceed to inferential
statistical techniques like; correlation test and multiple regressions and IBM SPSS statistics
(statistical Package for social scientists) software version 20 is used to process the data. Once the
data was collected, verification was conducted and complete questionnaires were identified.
Then the data is coded in to SPSS according to the variables selected and the questions asked. In
general, the data were presented and analyzed in a way that can produce important information
which answers the basic research questions and ensures the objective of the study to be achieved.

3.6.1. Descriptive statistical Analysis

The final report of the relevant demographic variables was produced through central
tendency measurements (frequency and frequency distribution, valid and cumulative percentage
and comparison of mean). The data then presented in form of figures, tables, graphs and charts.

33
Pie and bar charts and graphs were also the methods used to present the result with the help of
SPSS.

3.6.2. Inferential statistical Analysis

In inferential statistical analysis, correlation and multiple linear regression methods were
utilized using SPSS software. The use of these statistical tools and methods of presentation are
described below.

A. Model Specification

Multiple linear regression models are reasonably the most important and extensively used
multivariate statistical techniques in most relationship studies that involve ratio/interval
variables. This model uses when there will be two or more independent variables to predict the
value of one dependent variable. The model is chosen to be used in this study owing to its
suitability to analyze the causal relationship between dependent and independent variables. The
model can be specified as:

Model (1) y = β0 + β1x1 + β2x2 + β3x3 + β4 x4 + β5 x5 + β6 x6 + β7 x7 (second order linear

model)

The multiple linear regression models have two orders. However, because of its
simplicity and suitability with the empirical data that will be collected, the study adopted to use
the second order model.

Where:
y = the dependent variable
β0= the constant term/intercept
x1, x2,…x7 = the independent variables
β1, β2…. β 7 = the slope coefficient of continuous variable
e= Random error/ residual term
B. Correlation (r)

Correlation (r) is used to describe the strength and direction of relationship between two
variables. Since all variables are measured as an interval level, Pearson product moment

34
correlation was used. Correlation “r” output always lies between -1.0 and +1.0 and if “r” is
positive, there exists a positive relationship between the variables. If it's negative, the
relationship between the variables is negative. While computing a correlation, the significance
level shall be set at 99 % and 95% with alpha value of 0.01 and 0.05 or a chance of occurrence of
odd correlation is 5 out of 100 observations.

C. Multiple Regression Analysis

Multiple Regression Analysis is a major statistical tool for predicting the unknown value
of a variable from the known value of variables. And it is about finding a relationship between
variables and forming a model. The Model for this study was developed using seven independent
factors or predictors which have influences on the implementation of the ERP project.
𝑌 = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1𝑋1 + 𝛽2𝑋2 + 𝛽3𝑋3 + 𝛽4𝑋4 + 𝛽5𝑋5+ 𝛽6𝑋6+ 𝛽6𝑋7 +𝜀

Where Y is the dependent variable, β0 is the constant term/intercept, x1, x2,…x7 are the
independent variables, β1, β2…. β 7 are the slope coefficient of continuous variable and
Random error/ residual term.
Table 3 3: Model Specification of Variables

S.№ Predictor Variable (X) Beta Coefficient (𝞫) Predictor X-Value

1 Top Management Support β1 AssignedX1
2 Business Process Reengineering β2 X2
3 Consultant β3 X3
4 Project management β4 X4
5 Team Competency β5 X5
6 Change Management β6 X6
7 Communication Β7 X7
8 ERP Implementation Constant Y

3.7.Validity and Reliability

3.7.1. Validity
Although, most of the measurement items used in the questioner was validated in prior
studies, a further evaluation was conducted in this study for the validity in terms of content

35
validity and construct validity. All possible efforts were exerted to make the data collection
instruments easily understandable by the respondents so that the intended information can be
collected thereby increasing trustworthiness of the ultimate findings. After the questionnaire was
constructed, pre-testing was done with individuals who have knowledge of the area by allowing
them to read and comment on it. Constructive comments were collected from the individuals and
the questionnaire was adjusted accordingly. Then, validation of the instrument was given by
academic advisor prior to the data collection

3.7.2. Reliability

Reliability is an indicator of a measure‟s internal consistency. Consistency is the key to

understanding reliability (Zikmund, 2013). A measure is reliable when different attempts at
measuring something converge on the same result. Among the models of reliability, Alpha
(Cronbach) was used in this study to estimate the consistency /uniformity of the measurement of
collected data.
Generally speaking, scales with a coefficient (α) between 0.80 and 0.95 are considered to
have very good reliability. Scales with a coefficient (α) between 0.70 and 0.80 are considered to
have good reliability, and when the coefficient (α) is below 0.7, the scale has poor reliability. A
coefficient alpha of 0.7 percent and above implies that the data is reliable and can be used for
analysis. So, based on this theory, Alpha (Cronbach) was calculated for the dependent variable of
ERPI and the result is 0.956. This result was within the acceptable range of reliability coefficient.
The scale consistency of the independent variables are described in Table 3.3

36
Table 3 4: Reliability Statistics/Cronbach's Alpha

NO of Alpha
No Independent Variable
Items Value
1 TMS 7 .878 Very good
2 3 .712 Good
BPR
3 UC 3 .777 Good
4 PM 4 .801 Very good
5 TC 7 .859 Very good
6 10 .874 Very good
CM
7 6 .877 Very good
C
8 ERPI 7 .956 Very good
Total Cronbach's alpha 47 .959 Very good

Source: Respondents Survey Test Result, 2019.

3.8.Ethical Considerations

In this research study, the source of data for the study was questionnaire from employees
of Ethiopian postal service enterprise. Issues relating to the ethical conduct of research such as
informed consent, confidentiality and privacy was upheld. The respondents were assured that the
information provided by them is confidential and used exclusively for academic purpose. In
addition, respondents were informed not to include any identity detail and personal reference in
the questionnaire. This minimized the baseness of the response collected from the respondents.

37
 CHAPTER FOUR:
Results and Findings
This chapter discusses the interpretation and presentation of the findings obtained from
the analysis of data on the case company. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to
analyze the data. The target sample size was, in this case, which was a population, made up of 86
respondents and from which a total of 78 of them filled and returned the given questionnaires.
This response rate represented 90.69 % of the total target sample size. This is shown in figure 4.1
below. This response rate was representative and satisfactory enough to draw conclusions for the
study. Mugenda and Mugenda (1999), explain that a 50% response rate is adequate for reporting
and analyzing the results; a response rate of 60% is said to be good while a response rate of 70%
and above is said to be excellent which is a case for this research.

Questionnaires Proportion
Unreturned
Questionnaire

Filed and
Returned
9% Questionnaire

91%

Fig 4. 1: Response Rate

Source: SPSS output of the survey, 2019
4.1. Demographics Information

4.1.1. Gender of the Respondents

From the finding, the studies revealed, majority of the respondents were males (69.2 %)
whereas 30.8 % of the respondent indicated that they were female. This is an indication that the
study involves more males. However, since both genders are represented in the sample, the study
will not suffer from gender biases.

38
 Gender of the Respondents

24, 31%

Male
Female

54, 69%

Fig 4. 2: Gender of the Respondents

Source: SPSS output of the survey, 2019
4.1.2. Age of the Respondents
The response shows that 60% of the respondents were aged between 20 to 30 years, 16%
were aged between 31 to 35 years, 4% of the respondent indicated that their age was above 41
years, and those respondents who indicated their age between 36 to 40 were 20%. This implies
that respondents of the different age categories were engaged in this study and especially the
majority of age group was between 20 to 30, which indicates young respondents who actually
participate in ERP implementation were targeted for the study.

Age of Respondent’s
60 45
40
12 15
20 3 Frequency
0
20-30 31-35 36-40 above 41
YEARS YEARS

Fig 4. 3: Age of the Respondents

Source: SPSS output of the survey, 2019

39
4.1.3. Education Level of the Respondents
As shown by Fig 4.4, from the research findings, majority of the respondents (65.4%)
hold bachelor‟s degree, diploma level with 11.5%, 3.8% of the respondents indicated their
highest level of education as other, whereas 19.2% of the respondents indicated their level of
education as masters and above. This indicates that the respondents were educated well enough
to understand the questions and thus would give credible results.

Respondent's Educational Level

3, 4%

9, 12%

15, 19% Diploma

Degree
Masters
other
51, 65%

Fig 4. 4: Educational Level of the Respondents

Source: SPSS output of the survey, 2019

4.1.4. Employee’s Job Experience

As shown by Fig 4.5, 4.1,36 % have served the organization for 6 to 10 years, 32 % of the
respondents indicated that they have served the company for less than five years, 20 % indicated
to have served in the organization for eleven to fifteen years, 8 % indicated to have served in the
organization for sixteen to twenty years, whereas 4 % of the respondents indicated to have served
for greater than twenty-one years. This implies that the majority of the respondents in Ethiopian
Postal Service Enterprise, had worked for a considerable period of time and therefore they were
in a position to give credible information relating to this study.

40
 Respondent's Work Experiance

above 41 YEARS 3

36-40 15

Frequency
31-35 12

20-30 YEARS 45

0 10 20 30 40 50

Fig 4. 5: Work Experience of the Respondents

Source: SPSS output of the survey, 2019
4.1.5. Respondent’s Department
From the study findings shown in Fig 4.6, 4.1, 30.8% of the respondents were from other
departments (project team), 21.8% of the respondents were from Sourcing and facilities
departments, also 21.8 % of the respondents were from information technology department,
14.1% were from finance and 11.5% of the respondents were from Human resource department.
These findings depict that all concerned departments have participated in this research, and this
shows the research targeted the user department where first hand and credible information about
the project current status is obtained.

Respondent's Work Department

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Finance Sourcing & Human Resources IT other
Facilities

Fig 4. 6: Department of the Respondents

Source: SPSS output of the survey, 2019

41
4.1.6. Respondent’s Position
As it can be seen from the Fig 4.7, 38.5 % of the respondents are experts (staff), 19.2% of
the respondents were officers, 11.5 % of the respondents were (chef officers, Supervisors and
domain experts) and 7.7% of the respondents were supervisors since these are the peoples who
actually involved in ERP project implementation, they are expected to give the reality in the
current status of ERP project. So, we can conclude that the responses were worthwhile since all
the relevant respondents are involved in this study.

Respondent's Postion

Other 9

Chef Officer 9

Officer 15
Frequency
Manager 9

Supervisor 6

Staff 30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Fig 4. 7: Position of the Respondents

Source: SPSS output of the survey, 2019
4.2. Descriptive Analysis
This section tries to assess the relationship between each of the independent variables
(Top Management Support, Business Process Reengineering, Use of Consultant, Project
management, Team Competency, Change Management, and communication) to the dependent
variable of ERP Implementation. To do so, the section will look at the independent variables one
by one and finally all in one. Picking each independent variable at once, it first assessed the
status of the project in relation to independent variables, and then it has tried to assess the effect
of the variable ERP Implementation.

42
4.2.1. Top Management Support
For the aim of this research, the top management support refers to the provision of
necessary financial and other resources, establishing policies and procedures, delegating
implementation authority, taking risk and responsibilities during implementation. Top
management support is one of the CSFs that expected to be a major factor to examine the
implementation of ERP. Seven statements were presented for respondents to rate them on a
Likert scale. The following table presents the responses in each statement and the average
reaction of respondents in all of the statements. The average result is found by computing the
responses in each statement.

43
 Table 4. 1 Responses Related to Top Management Support

Deviation
Disagree;
Disagree
Strongly

Strongly
Neutral

Agree

Agree

Mean

Std.

N
The organization top management has 11 6 29 28 4 3.10 1.100 78
provided the necessary financial and
N
other resources to design and
14.1 7.7 37.2 35.9 5.1
implement the ERP system %
The organization top management 9 18 24 22 5 2.95 1.115 78
establishes policies and procedures to
monitor the implementation of the ERP N
system % 11.5 23.1 30.8 28.2 6.4
The organization Top management has N 8 14 23 33 3.04 1.012 78
delegated implementation authority for 10.3 17.9 29.5 42.3
project managers. %
The organization Top management has 10 16 31 17 4 2.86 1.066 78
N
taken a self-motivated role in leading
12.8 20.5 39.7 21.8 5.1
the ERP implementation. %
The organization Top management has 5 17 32 16 8 3.06 1.049 78
taken all the necessary risks and
responsibilities during ERP N
implementation. % 6.4 21.8 41.0 20.5 10.3
The top management intervenes when 9 21 11 32 5 3.04 1.189 78
needed, to resolve disputes between
interest groups (consultant, project
team and departments), willing to N
provide the necessary resources and 11.5 26.9 14.1 41.0 6.4
follow the implementation. %
The organization top management 8 21 27 18 4 2.86 1.053 78
always supports and encourages the
use of the ERP system for job-related N
work % 10.3 26.9 34.6 23.1 5.1
* Source: SPSS output of the survey, 2019

As we can see from table 4.1, all of the respondents were neutral responses for the seven
different questions in relation to top management support. The respondents were asked about the
organization top management has provided the necessary financial and other resources to design
and implement the ERP system 37.2% of the respondents with the mean average result of 3.10
were neither agree nor disagree, when asked the organization top management establishes
policies and procedures to monitor the implementation of the ERP system 30.8% of the
respondents with the mean average result of 2.95 were neither agreed nor disagree, when asked

44
the organization top management has delegated implementation authority for project managers.
42.3% of the respondents with the mean average result of 3.04 were agree, when asked the
organization top management has taken a self-motivated role in leading the ERP implementation
39.7% of the respondents with the mean average result of 2.86 were neither agreed nor disagree,
when asked the organization‟s top management has taken all the necessary risk and
responsibilities during ERP implementation. 41.0% of the respondents with the mean average
result of 3.06 were neither agree nor disagree, when asked the organization top management has
delegated implementation authority for project managers 41.0% of the respondents with the
mean average result of 3.04 were agree, when finally the respondent asked that the organization
top management always supports and encourages the use of the ERP system for job-related work
34.6% of the respondents with the mean average result of 2.86 were neither agreed nor disagree.
Even though the top management support is important in ERP implementation, the average
responses of the respondent shows neutral level of agreement, this implies that the majority of
the respondent indifference on top management support. This means that the top management
has not played an instrumental role in the implementation process. Thus the organization should
pay more attention to top management support in order to realize the benefits after the
implementation of the ERP project.

4.2.2. Business Process Reengineering

The same way as it is done to top management support three statements that can measure
business process engineering issues were posed to the respondents. The first question was about
the organization in redesigning business processes before adopting the ERP system, the second
question was about the changes in business processes to fit the ERP system and the third was
about the ability and willingness to change procedures to fit any new services provided by the
ERP system. Almost all statements provided to each respondent being responded as a
neutral/moderate level of agreement, but it was expected that this variable as being a major factor
in examining the implementation of ERP. The results of the respondents‟ responses were
compiled and presented in the following table. The table presents the responses in each statement
and the average reaction of respondents in all of the statements.

45
 Table 4. 2: Responses Business Process Reengineering

Deviation
Disagree;
Disagree
Strongly

Strongly
Neutral

Agree

Agree

Mean

Std.

N
The organization spent 12 12 24 24 6 3.04 1.191 75
much time in redesigning
business processes before N
adopting the ERP system % 15.4 15.4 30.8 30.8 7.7
The organization performed 27 27 21 2.92 .801 75
the required changes in its
business processes to fit the N
ERP system to these 36.0 36.0 28.0
processes %
The organization has the 3 21 33 21 2.92 .850 75
ability and willingness to
change its procedures to fit
any new services provided N
by the ERP system % 3.8 26.9 42.3 26.9
* Source: SPSS output of the survey, 2019
As we can see from table 4.2, majority of the respondents selected neutral as their
responses for the three different questions in relation to business process reengineering. The
respondents were asked about the organization spent much time in redesigning business
processes before adopting the ERP system 30.8% of the respondents with the mean average
result of 3.04 were neither agree nor disagree, when asked if the organization performed the
required changes in its business processes to fit the ERP system to these processes 36.0% of the
respondents with the mean average result of 2.92 were neither agree nor disagree, when finally
the respondent asked that the organization has the ability and willingness to change its
procedures to fit any new services provided by the ERP system 42.3% of the respondents with
the mean average result of 2.92 were neither agreed nor disagree. Even though the execution of
BPR in terms of business process modification and organizational structure change was
important in ERP implementation, the average responses of the respondents‟ neutral level of
agreement, this implies that majority of the respondents‟ indifference with business process
reengineering. This means that the organization did not made appropriate change in the existing
business processes before adopting the system. Thus the organization should pay more attention
to business process reengineering in order to realize the benefits after the implementation of the
ERP project.

46
 4.2.3. Use of Consultant
Three questions were presented to the respondents to assess their level of agreement
towards the consultant involvement in the project. The first question was about obtaining advice
and support from consultants to effectively implement the ERP, the second question was about
the selection and experience of the consultant and the third question was about the support
obtained from the consultants. The following table presents the summarized result of the
questions.

Table 4. 3: Responses Related to Consultant

Deviation
Disagree;
Disagree
Strongly

Strongly

Mean

Std.
Neutral

N
Agree

Agree
6 18 42 12 3.77 .805 78
The organization obtained advice and N
support from consultants to 7.7 23.1 53.8 15.4
effectively implement the ERP system
%
The organization selected the 6 15 48 9 3.77 .755 78
consultants carefully based on their N
experience in the technical aspects 7.7 19.2 61.5 11.5
and business processes conducted in
the organization environment %
Without the help of the consultants, N 3 9 9 42 15 3.73 1.028 78
operating the ERP system in the 3.8 11.5 11.5 53.8 19.2
organization could be troublesome
and might be a success inhibitor %
* Source: SPSS output of the survey, 2019

As we can see from table 4.3, all of the respondents were satisfied with questions related
to the use of a consultant. The respondents were asked about the organization obtained advice
and support from consultants to effectively implement the ERP system, 53.8% Agreed, when
asked if the organization selected the consultants carefully based on their experience in the
technical aspects and business processes conducted in the organization environment 61.5%
Agreed, when finally the respondent were asked without the help of the consultants, operating
the ERP project in the organization could be troublesome and might be a success inhibitor 53.8%
Agreed. From the response, it can be seen that the respondents believe that use of a consultant
(consultant involvement) as the crucial factor while implementing ERP.

47
 4.2.4. Project Management
Effective project management is one of the factors which is very critical in successfully
implementing an ERP project. To assess the level of agreement towards the project management,
four statements were posed for respondents to rate them on a Likert scale. Table 4.5 below
outlines the responses in each statement and the average reaction of respondents in all of the
statements. The average result is found by computing the responses in each statement.

Table 4. 4: Responses Related to project management

Deviation
Disagree;
Disagree

Mean
Strongly

Strongly

Std.
Neutral

N
Agree

Agree
A clear scope and plan for N 10 36 15 17 2.50 .977 78
implementing the ERP project were
established by the organization % 12.8 46.2 19.2 21.8

The implementation of the ERP N 8 33 23 9 5 2.62 1.035 78

project was managed by an effective
leader selected from the organization 10.3 42.3 29.5 11.5 6.4
%

A realistic time frame was set for the N 11 32 23 11 1 2.47 .950 78

different stages of the
implementation process of the ERP 14.1 41.0 29.5 14.1 1.3
system %

The organization is having periodic N 22 28 12 16 2.28 1.092 78

meetings for evaluating the progress
of the ERP implementation % 28.2 35.9 15.4 20.5

* Source: SPSS output of the survey, 2019

As it can be seen from the above table, 46.2 % of the respondents with the mean average
result of 2.5 disagree with a clear scope and plan for implementing the ERP project were
established by the organization which is a clear indication for the organization to have a clear
scope and well-prepared plan for the project in advance. 42.3 % of the respondents with the
mean average result of 2.62 disagree with the implementation of the ERP project was managed
by an effective leader selected from the organization, which is a clear indication for the
organization that the project was managed by ineffective project manager, in order to
successfully implement the project an effective project manager or leader has to select. 41.0 % of
the respondents with the mean average result of 2.47 disagree with a realistic time frame was set

48
for the different stages of the implementation process of the ERP project, which is a clear
indication for the organization to set a realistic time frame for the different stages of the
implementation process in advance. 35.9 % of the respondents with the mean average result of
2.28 disagree with statement that says the organization is having periodic meetings for evaluating
the progress of the ERP implementation, which is a clear indication for the organization that to
successfully implement the project the organization must have a regular periodic meeting with
the stakeholders to evaluate the progress of the project. Even though the project management is
important in ERP implementation, the average responses of the respondent shows low level of
agreement, this implies that the majority of the respondents disagree on project management
process. This means that the organization shouldn‟t pay more attention to the project
management process in the implementation process. Thus the organization should pay more
attention to the project management process in order to finish the project on time, within budget
and with the expected functionalities.

49
 4.2.5. Project Team competency
Seven questions were presented to the respondents to assess project team competency.
The following table presents the summarized result of the questions related to project team
competency.

Table 4. 5: Responses Related to project team competency

Deviatio
Disagree

Disagree
Strongly

Strongly

Mean
Neutral

Std.
Agree

Agree

N
n
The ERP project team has a 5 40 11 21 1 2.65 .991 78
specific goal which is achievable N
over the defined timeline % 6.4 51.3 14.1 26.9 1.3
The ERP project team has a 4 34 22 13 5 2.76 1.009 78
project manager who is capable N
of managing a project on time 5.1 43.6 28.2 16.7 6.4
and on budget. %
15 29 15 16 3 2.53 1.136 78
The ERP project has been the top
and only priority for the team. N
% 19.2 37.2 19.2 20.5 3.8
8 40 19 11 2.42 .861 78
The ERP team members had
knowledge of the key issues
N
relating to ERP implementation.
% 10.3 51.3 24.4 14.1
The ERP team members have 5 30 24 16 3 2.77 .979 78
carefully been selected based on
their skill or qualification, N
knowledge and ability to accept 6.4 38.5 30.8 20.5 3.8
change. %
The project team had 18 39 14 6 1 2.14 .908 78
experienced in previous ERP N
Implementations. % 23.1 50.0 17.9 7.7 1.3
2 32 22 20 2 2.85 .927 78
The team members had business
and technical knowledge N
% 2.6 41.0 28.2 25.6 2.6
*Source: SPSS output of the survey, 2019
From the above table, we can see that the majority of the respondents were neutral with
the questions related to project team competency. The respondents were asked if the ERP project
team has a specific goal which is achievable over the defined timeline, and 51.3% of them
disagreed to the statement. The respondents were asked the extent of their agreement on the

50
statement that says the ERP project team has a project manager who is capable of managing a
project on time and on budget 43.6% of the respondents with the mean average result of 2.76
disagreed. The respondent also asked if the ERP project has been the top and only priority for the
team 37.2 % of the respondents with the mean average result of 2.53 disagreed, the respondent
further asked that if the team members had a knowledge of the key issues relating to ERP
implementation 51.3% of the respondents with the mean average result of 2.42 disagreed. When
asked if the team members have carefully been selected based on their knowledge and ability to
accept change 38.5% of the respondents with the mean average result of 2.77 disagreed. When
asked if the project team had experienced in previous ERP implementations 50.0% of the
respondents with the mean average result of 2.14 disagreed, when finally asked if the team
members had a business and technical knowledge 41.0% of the respondents with the mean
average result of 2.85 disagreed. The overall responses of the respondent shows the project team
was not capable to manage the project implementation process. Thus the organization should
incorporate more skilled, qualified and experienced people who had a good knowledge in
business and technical aspects in the project team.

4.2.6. Change Management

Ten statements were presented to respondents to look at the change management related
issues. The issues were related to the existence of appropriate organizational culture,
communication systems, standards, and regulations. The following table presents the
summarized result of the responses.

51
 Table 4. 6: Responses Related to Change Management

Deviation
Disagree;

Mean
Disagree
Strongly

Strongly

Std.
Neutral

N
Agree

Agree
The organization tries to establish an 27 18 33 3.12 .869 75
appropriate organizational culture for N
the ERP project % 34.6 23.1 42.3
9 39 24 6 3.40 .753 75
The organization made the members
N
recognize the necessity of the ERP
% 11.5 50.0 30.8 7.7
The organization has an established 6 21 27 18 6 3.00 1.065 75
N
communication system related to the
7.7 26.9 34.6 23.1 7.7
ERP. %
The organization carried out sufficient 24 30 15 9 3.08 .983 75
education and training related to ERP N
for the members % 30.8 38.5 19.2 11.5
3 33 30 12 2.68 .791 75
The organization has established
standards and regulations for the ERP N
% 3.8 42.3 38.5 15.4
The organization held a working-level 3 33 39 3.48 .578 75
N
meeting for change management % 4.0 44.0 52.0
Management approach to change was 6 9 30 33 3.24 .819 75
successful in managing the transition N
to ERP % 7.7 11.5 38.5 42.3
The organization/management N 6 9 48 15 3.00 .697 75
recognized employee for contribution 7.7 11.5 61.5 19.2
to change Initiative %
Management asked the employee N 9 21 30 18 2.80 .900 75
what should change more than they 11.5 26.9 38.5 23.1
told employees what will %
The organization/management 3 18 18 39 3.28 .831 75
N
allocate adequate resource for change 3.8 23.1 23.1 50.0
%
* Source: SPSS output of the survey, 2019
As it is shown in table 4.6, the average mean score of responses 3.12 and about 42.3% of
the respondent response for this specific statement either agree or disagree (neutral) to the
organization tries to establish an appropriate organizational culture for the ERP project which
directly affects the successful implementation of the project. About 61.5% of the respondents
disagreed and strongly disagreed with an average mean of 3.4 does not believe and their level of
agreement were neutral to the organization has not made the members being recognizing the

52
necessity of the ERP system, 34.6% of the respondents disagreed with an average mean of 3.00
are either agree or disagree (neutral) to the organization has an established communication
system related to the ERP, 38.5 % of the respondents with an average (mean of 3.08) are either
agree or disagree (neutral) that the organization carried out sufficient education and training
related for ERP members, 42.3 % of the respondents with an average (mean of 2.68) does not
believe (disagree) that the organization has established standards and regulations for the ERP
project, 52.0% of the respondents with an average (mean of 3.48) believe (strongly agree) that
the organization held a working-level meeting for change management, 42.3% of the respondents
with an average (mean of 3.24) believe (strongly agree) that the management approach to change
was successful in managing the transition to ERP, 61.5 % of the respondents with an average
(mean of 3.00) believe (agree) that the organization/management recognized employee for
contribution to change initiative, 38.5 % of the respondents with an average (mean of 2.8) agree
that the organization or the management asked employee what should change more than they
told employees what will, and 50% of the respondents an average (mean of 3.28) strongly agree
that the organization or management allocate adequate resource for change. Although the
organization allocates adequate resource, participating employees and recognized an employee
for contribution to change, the organization have to establish an appropriate organizational
culture, must create awareness of the change and establish communication system for the success
of ERP implementation.

4.2.7. Communication
Establishing an effective communication system is one of the factors which is very
critical in successfully implementing an ERP project and to assess the level of agreement
towards the communication, six statements were presented for respondents to rate them on a
Likert scale. Table 4.8 below outlines the responses in each statement and the average reaction of
respondents in all of the statements. The average result is found by computing the responses in
each statement.

53
 Table 4. 7: Responses Related to Communication

Deviation
Disagree;
Disagree
Strongly

Strongly

Mean

Std.
Neutral

N
Agree

Agree
There were regular 3 30 18 24 2.79 .918 72
N
communications among the
3.8 38.5 23.1 30.8
different departments %
There were regular cross- N 6 18 18 36 3.00 1.007 72
functional meetings to discuss 7.7 23.1 23.1 46.2
the ERP. %
There were regular internal 9 18 24 24 2.79 1.006 72
N
group meeting to share a new 11.5 23.1 30.8 30.8
method of using ERP. %
ERP improvement suggestions N 3 30 30 9 6 2.83 .993 72
had been regularly collected 3.8 38.5 38.5 11.5 7.7
from multiple employees levels %
Information technology (IT) N 27 9 33 9 3.29 1.106 72
staff fully supports all 34.6 11.5 42.3 11.5
functional users during ERP
Implementation. %
Communication team was set to 6 15 21 30 6 3.21 1.087 72
solve the departmental conflicts N
that arise during the 7.7 19.2 26.9 38.5 7.7
implementation. %
* Source: SPSS output of the survey, 2019

As Table 4.7 shows most of the respondent‟s levels of agreement were neutral respect to
the specific questions provided to the communication success factor. 42.3% of the respondents
with an average mean of 2.79 asked if there were regular communications among the different
departments, 30.8% of the respondents with average mean of 2.79 asked if there were regular
cross-functional meeting to discuss about the ERP, 34.6% of the respondents with an average
mean of 2.79 when asked if there were regular internal group meeting to share new method of
using ERP ,42.3% of the respondents with average mean of 2.79 asked if ERP improvement
suggestions had been regularly collected from multiple employees levels , 34.6% of the
respondents with average mean of 3.29 asked if IT staff fully support all functional users during
ERP and 26.9 % of the respondents with average mean of 2.79 asked if communication team was
set to solve the departmental conflicts that arise during the implementation and level of
agreement respectively for all statements as disagree and strongly disagree level. In general when

54
we investigating that for all statements respondent‟s mean score were as a neutral level of
agreement based on this result communication dimensions/ factors of ERP implementation in
average for all six statements 25.65% has got a neutral level of agreement and this implies that
communication barriers to successful ERP implementation respondents are biased or indifference
to answer those statements as agree or disagree level of agreement. This means that there were
no regular and proper communications among different departments in the implementation
process. Thus the organization should pay more attention to communication in order to realize
the benefits after the implementation of the ERP project.

55
 4.2.8. Summary of survey results for the dependent variable.
Seven statements were presented to respondents to look at different issues that can
measure the dependent variable ERP implementation success. The following table summarizes
the views of respondents with regard to ERP implementation success.

Table 4. 8: Responses related to ERP implementation success.

Strongly Agree

Std. Deviation
Mean
Disagree;
Disagree

N
Strongly

Neutral

Agree
N 21 27 15 15 2.69 1.523 78
Overall, ERP implementation was
successful.
% 26.9 34.6 19.2 19.2

N 9 21 6 18 24 3.35 1.449 78
ERP implementation has realized the
expected benefits to the business.
% 11.5 26.9 7.7 23.1 30.8

The planned objectives of ERP were N 12 27 9 15 15 2.92 1.394 78

successfully achieved % 15.4 34.6 11.5 19.2 19.2

N 21 27 18 12 2.27 1.028 78
ERP was completed at its expected
completion time
% 26.9 34.6 23.1 15.4

N 18 24 15 21 2.50 1.125 78
ERP was completed within planned
budget
% 23.1 30.8 19.2 26.9

All the quality standards expected by N 12 27 12 21 6 2.77 1.227 78

Ethiopian Postal service from the
project were successfully delivered. % 15.4 34.6 15.4 26.9 7.7

N 12 24 9 21 12 2.96 1.353 78
ERP was completed in a way that
can contribute to its designed goal
% 15.4 30.8 11.5 26.9 15.4

* Source: SPSS output of the survey, 2019

As Table 4.8 shows the majority of the respondents were unsatisfied with questions
related to ERP implementation evaluation. When the respondent asked that overall ERP
implementation was successful 34.6% and 26.9% of the respondents with an average mean of
2.69 were in agreement level of disagree and strongly disagree respectively, when asked ERP

56
implementation has realized the expected benefits to the business 30.8% and 23.1% of the
respondent with an average mean of 3.35 were in agreement level of strongly agree and agree
respectively, when asked the planed objective of ERP were successfully achieved half of (50%)
the respondent with an average mean of 2.92 were in agreement level of disagree and strongly
disagree, when asked ERP was completed at its expected completion time 34.6% and 26.9% of
the respondent with an average mean of 2.27 disagree and strongly disagree level of agreement,
when asked ERP was completed within planned budget 30.8% and 23.1% of the respondent with
an average mean of 2.5 were in agreement level of disagree and strongly disagree respectively ,
when asked all the quality standards expected by Ethiopian Postal service from the project were
successfully delivered 34.6% of the respondent with an average mean of 2.77 were in agreement
level of disagree, when finally asked ERP was completed in a way that can contribute to its
designed goal 30.8% of the respondent with an average mean of 2.96 were in agreement level of
disagree. from the response, it can be seen that the respondent disagreed that the overall ERP
implementation were successful and effectively implemented. From all response we can
conclude that majority of the respondent believe the ERP project not successful. Thus the
organization should pay more attention to the project in order to realize the benefits after the
implementation of the project.

4.2.9. Summary of frequency results of each variable and Mean Score for dependent and
independent variables
As it is known, the mean value or score of a certain set of data is equal to the sum of all
the values in the data set divided by the total number of values. In this context, the mean of the
response and score of all statements for each independent variables and dependent variable is
calculated and the meaning of the score is interpreted accordingly. In this research Top
Management Support, Business Process Reengineering, Use of Consultant, Project management,
Team Competency, Change Management, and Communication were the independent variables
and ERP implementation as dependent variable. Statements under this variables are scaled 1 to 5
with a meaning of 1= strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree, and 5=strongly agree.
To match the result of the mean score of each variable with the respondent level agreement in
Likert scale and to summarize the narrative outcomes; the researcher used criterion-referenced
definitions for rating scales to describe the collected data. Unlike norm-referenced scales,
criterion-referenced scale measure response scores against a fixed set of criteria.

57
Table 4. 9: Frequency of respondents for each level of agreement

Deviation
Disagree;
Disagree
Strongly

Strongly
Neutral

Agree

Agree

Mean

Std.

N
TMS N 11 6 29 28 4 3.10 1.10 78
% 14.1 7.7 37.2 35.9 5.1
BPR N 21 36 21 3.00 0.74 78
% 26.9 46.2 26.9
UC N 6 15 48 9 3.77 0.75 78
% 7.7 19.2 61.5 11.5
PM N 3 44 13 18 2.59 0.89 78
% 3.8 56.4 16.7 23.1
TC N 45 22 10 1 2.58 0.76
% 57.7 28.2 12.8 1.3 78
CM N 9 48 21 3.15 0.60 78
% 11.5 61.5 26.9
C N 3 12 42 15 6 3.12 0.90 78
% 3.8 15.4 53.8 19.2 7.7
ERP N 9 33 9 27 2.69 1.07 78
% 11.5 42.3 11.5 34.6
* Source: SPSS output of the survey, 2019
As the percentage of each level of agreement shows in the above table, except for the
variable UC almost all the respondents are moderate or neutral with the statements given to them
to rate it on the Likert scale.

Table 4. 10: Criterion – referenced scale definitions

Mean rating Respondents level of Description of respond

1.00 - 1.49 agreement
Strongly disagree = SD agreement
Very low= VL level
1.50 - 2.49 Disagree = D Low = L
2.50 - 3.49 Neutral = N Medium =M
3.50 - 4.49 Agree = A High =H
4.50 - 5.00 Strongly agree = SA Very high =VH
Source; (MacEachron, 1982)

Based on the Likret scale “3" means “neither agree nor disagree, while value “4” means
“agree”, etc. Here in criterion-referenced scale, if value of 3 is recorded as any of the subsequent

58
measurement, it means that level is neither high nor low, or in other words, it is in “average or
medium level”. If a value of (4) is obtained, it means s “high” level. Similarly, value one (1) and
five (5) mean “very low” level and “very high” level respectively while value two (2) means
“low” level.

Therefore, based on the above criterion-referenced scale definition table, the researcher
discussed the findings of the descriptive statistics of each independent variables mean score and
its impact on the dependent variable ERP implementation success by providing criterion-
referenced definitions of each scale.

Table 4. 11: Mean score result summary according to Criterion–referenced scale

Variables TMS BPR UC PM TC CM C ERPI

Mean Score 3.10 3.00 3.77 2.59 2.58 3.15 3.12 2.69

Degree/level of agreement N N A N N N N N
Description M M H M M M M M
*Source: SPSS output of the survey, 2019
As it is shown in the Table 4.11, the average mean score of the respondents for TMS,
BPR, UC, PM, TC, CM, C is 3.10, 3.00, 3.77, 2.59, 2.58,3.15, and 3.12 respectively towards “
ERPI implementation success .”

Based on criterion- referred definitions of Table 4.10,the mean of TMS, BPR PM, TC,
CM and C shown as medium, this implies that the response for those individual question to those
independent variables were neutral level of agreement, this implies the respondents opinion on
CSFs impact for the success of ERP implementation is moderate. Respondents opinion on
consultant support shown as high; this implies that the response for individual questions to this
independent variable was respond to an agreed level and those respondents have high scored
relative to this independent variable.

The grand or cumulative mean score of the dependent variable ERP implementation is
2.69. This implies that all and nearly all have got a neutral level of agreement which indicates
that the status of ERP implementation in mind of employees has moderate success.

59
 4.3. Correlation analysis

Research often uses inferential statistics (correlation and regression) to determine if there
is a relationship between an independent and an outcome variable as well as the strength of that
relationship. So, inferential statistics are used to reach on conclusion about associations between
the variables of the study and is designed to test hypotheses that states about relationship
between predictor(s) and an outcome(s) variables.

The objective of this research is to explore whether the seven CSFs namely; top
management support, business process reengineering, use of consultant, project management,
team competency, change management, and communication can significantly determine the
successful implementation of the ERP project. To do so, the researcher undertook hypothesis
testing using correlation and regression analysis to illustrate the conclusion in the study area.

Correlation is one of the inferential statistics methods for assessing the relationship
between variables. To be more precise, it measures the extent of association between the
ordering of two random variables (Leech, Barrett and Morgan, 2008). As a rule, we can
categorize the type of correlation by considering as one variable increases what happens to the
other variable. That is, we can say there is a positive correlation if the increase in the
independent variable will result in a tendency to increase the other variable. We can say there is a
negative correlation, if the increase in independent may result in the other variable to decrease;
No correlation means the increase or decrease in independent variable does not affect the other
variables.

In measuring correlation and to express the strength of the relationship, we make use of
the linear product-moment correlation coefficient, also known as Pearson‟s correlation
coefficient; this coefficient is generally used when variables are of quantitative nature, that is,
ratio or interval scale variables. Pearson‟s correlation coefficient is denoted by r. Pearson
moment correlation Chen (1998) (Li, Feng and Chen, 1999) provides the following guidelines on
the strength of the relationship of variables.

60
Table 4. 12: Measures of Associations and Descriptive Adjectives

Measure of Association Descriptive Adjective

> 0.00 to 0.20 ; < -0.00 to – 0.20 Very weak or very low

> 0.20 to 0.40; < -0.20 to – 0.40 Weak or low

> 0.40 to 0.60; < -0.40 to – 0.60 Moderate
> 0.60 to 0.80; < -0.60 to – 0.80 Strong or high
> 0.80 to 1.0; < -0.80 to – 1.0 Very high or very strong

Source: This table is from MacEachron, (1982) Basic Statistics in the Human Services: An
Applied Approach, page 132.

4.3.1. Correlation analysis between independent and dependent variables

The following correlation tests are made to assertion whether or not a relationship exists
between independent variables (top management support, business process reengineering, use of
consultant, project management, team competency, change management, and communication)
and dependent variables ERP implementation. Then, the correlation output of each dependent
variable with the independent variables is interpreted based on the following tables.

Table 4. 13: Correlation between independent variables and dependent variable

Correlations
ERPI
Pearson Correlation 0.204
UC
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.073
Pearson Correlation .566**
CM
Sig. (2-tailed) 0
**
Pearson Correlation .603
C
Sig. (2-tailed) 0
**
Pearson Correlation .514
TMS
Sig. (2-tailed) 0
**
Pearson Correlation .709
TC
Sig. (2-tailed) 0
Pearson Correlation .833**
PM
Sig. (2-tailed) 0
BPR Pearson Correlation Weak or low -.300**
Sig. (2-tailed) .008
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Source: SPSS output of the survey, 2019

61
 Based on the guideline (Table 4.12) of degree of correlation, Weak and positive
correlation is found between use of consultant (consultant support) with ERP implementation
success, with (R = 0.204), with calculated p – value (0.073) which is statistically insignificant
value for use of consultant > 0.01 level of P value and similarly Weak or smaller/low and a
negative correlation is found between BPR with ERP implementation success, with (R = -0.300),
with calculated P – value (.008) which is statistically significant value for BPR > 0.01 level of P
value. And also correlation between change management, top management support with ERP
implementation success found, moderate and statistically significant positive correlation with (R
= 0.566, 0.514), with calculated P – values 0.000, and 0.000 respectively which is < 0.01 level of
P value, Strong or high statistically significant positive correlation is found between
communication and team competency with ERP implementation success with (R = 0.603,
0.709), with calculated P – values 0.000, and 0.000 respectively which is < 0.01 level of P value
lastly Very high or very strong positive correlation is found between project management with
ERP implementation success, with (R = 0.833), with calculated P – values 0.00 which is
statistically significant value for project management < 0.01 level of P value, Hence the value of
correlation coefficients of consultant support, BPR with ERP implementation success fell in a
weak or smaller degree of relationship. Meaning ERP implementation dimensions of the use of a
consultant, and business process reengineering result in or contribute a less significant impact on
ERP implementation success, given that the correlation between the two independent variables
change management and top management support with dependent variable ERP implementation
is moderate. This implies that, if different positive support is given by EPSE top management
there will be a positive impact / outcome in the successful implementation of ERP project.
Similarly if the organization establishes an effective change management strategy, there will be a
positive impact/outcome to the successful implementation of the project. As the correlation result
found on the communication and team competence with ERP implementation have got a
correlation of strong or high this implies that these two variables have a great impact or effect on
the success of ERP implementation. Finally, the degree of association project management with
ERP implementation has a very high or very strong correlation this depicts that having effective
project management process will result in the success of ERP implementation based on this
descriptive data analysis.

62
 4.3.2. Correlation matrix analysis between independent variables
5.

Table 4. 14: Correlation Matrix within dependent variables

BPR UC CM C TMS TC PM
BPR Pearson 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-
tailed)
UC Pearson .290* 1
Correlation
Sig. (2- .010
tailed)
CM Pearson .301** .415** 1
Correlation
Sig. (2- .007 .000
tailed)
C Pearson .241* .384** .823** 1
Correlation
Sig. (2- .034 .001 .000
tailed)
TMS Pearson .232* .456** .422** .447** 1
Correlation
Sig. (2- .041 .000 .000 .000
tailed)
TC Pearson .150 .276* .659** .623** .510** 1
Correlation
Sig. (2- .190 .014 .000 .000 .000
tailed)
PM Pearson -.170 .303** .562** .544** .486** .638** 1
Correlation
Sig. (2- .136 .007 .000 .000 .000 .000
tailed)
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Source: SPSS output of survey questionnaire, 2019
In the above inter-correlation matrix table (Table 4.14), association among seven
independent variables (top management support, business process reengineering, use of
consultant, project management, team competency, change management, and communication)
was tested and found to be positive and they are significantly correlated, to each other at the
given level of significance.

63
4.4. Multiple Linear Regression Analysis

Before running multiple linear regression analysis, the researcher has conducted basic
assumption tests for the model. These are normality of the distribution, the linearity of the
relationship between the independent and dependent variables and multicollinearity tests. Each
test is explained below.

4.4.1. Assumptions of Multiple Regressions

Assumption 1 - Normality Distribution Test

Multiple regressions require the independent variables to be normally distributed.

Skewness and kurtosis are statistical tools that enable the researcher to check if the data is
normally distributed or not. According to Smith and Wells (2006), kurtosis is defined as
“property of a distribution that describes the thickness of the tails. The thickness of the tail
comes from the number of scores falling at the extremes relative to the Gaussian/normal
distribution” Skewness is a measure of symmetry. A distribution or data set is symmetric if it
looks the same to the left and right of the center point.
If the skewness and kurtosis test results of the data are within the acceptable range (-1.0 to +1.0),
it can be concluded that the data is normally distributed. For this purpose and taste of normal
distribution, the kurtosis and skewness results are shown in table 4.15

64
Table 4. 15: Normality of data distribution
Descriptive Statistics
Std.
N Mean Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Statisti
Statistic Statistic Statistic c Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
TMS 78 3.1026 1.10006 -.628 .272 -.303 .538
BPR 78 3.0000 .73855 .000 .272 -1.139 .538
UC 78 3.7692 .75461 -.704 .272 .552 .538
MC 78 3.1538 .60468 -.077 .272 -.312 .538
C 78 3.1154 .89705 .100 .272 .425 .538
ERPI 78 2.6923 1.07278 .066 .272 -1.420 .538
TC 78 2.5769 .76480 1.075 .272 .211 .538
PM 78 2.5897 .88912 .575 .272 -.963 .538
Valid N 78
(listwis
e)
Source: SPSS output of survey questionnaire, 2019
The acceptable range for normality for both statistics is between -1.0 and + 1.0. as shown
in table 4.15, all variables for both skewenss and kurtosis statistics are fall in the acceptable
standard of normality (-1.0 -, +01.0) except the variable TC is not fallen in the region of
skewness and variable ERPI and BPR is not fall in the region of kurtosis. Graphically this
normality assumption distribution is shown below.

65
Fig 4. 8: Normality distribution taste figure
Source: SPSS output of survey questionnaire, 2019

Assumption 2 - Linearity of the Relationship Test

The second assumption for computing multiple regressions is the test of the linearity of
the relationships between dependent and the independent variables. As depicted below, the
visual inspections of the scatter plot shows there exists a linear relationship between the
dependent variable (ERPI) and independents variables.

66
Fig 4. 9: linear relationship test figure.
Source: SPSS output of survey questionnaire, 2019

Fig 4. 10: Scatter plot for linearity test

Source: SPSS output of survey questionnaire, 2019

67
Assumption 3 - Multicollinearity Test
Multicollinearity refers to the situation in which the independent/predictor variables are
highly correlated. When independent variables are multicollinear, there is “overlap” or sharing
of predictive power. This may lead to the paradoxical effect, whereby the regression model fits
the data well, but none of the predictor variables has a significant impact in predicting the
dependent variable. This is because when the predictor variables are highly correlated, they share
essentially the same information. Thus, together, they may explain a great deal of the dependent
variables, but may not individually contribute significantly to the model. Meaning, they can be
considered as one variable than two separate variables. The existence of multicollinearity can be
checked using “Tolerance” and “VIF” values for each predictor variable. Tolerance values less
than 0.10 and VIF (variance inflation factor) greater than 10 indicates the existence of
multicollinearity (Robert, 2006). As can be seen from the table below, multicollinearity is not an
issue for this current data.

Table 4. 16: Multicollinearity Test Table

Coefficientsa

Collinearity
Statistics
Model Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant)

BPR .643 1.556

UC .695 1.439

CM .256 3.906
C .303 3.304
TMS .574 1.743
TC .421 2.378
PM .392 2.551
Source: SPSS output of survey questionnaire, 2019

As it is stated above for the assumption to be met values of Variance Inflation Factor
(VIF) scores must be below 10, and tolerance scores to be above 0.1; which is the case in as
shown in table 4.16, the tolerance and VIF of top management support, business process
reengineering, use of consultant, project management, team competency, change management

68
and communication are .574, .643, .695, .392, .421, .256 and .303 respectively. For this reason,
this research model fits the requirement and colinearity is not a problem.
Summing up: the three assumptions of multiple regressions are met and the next step is
processing the regression analysis to determine the values of the model summary (R and R2), the
model fit (ANOVA) and the beta coefficients. With the aid of multiple linear regression analysis,
model summary, ANOVA and Beta coefficient were determined and the regression model is
developed. In view of that, the qualified effect of independent variables on ERP implementation
is identified.

4.4.2. Model Summary

According to Ho (2006), a measure of strength of the computed prediction equation is R-

square, sometimes called the coefficient of determination. In the regression model, R-square is
the square of the correlation coefficient between the observed and predicated value of dependent
variable. If R-square is 1(100%), there exists a perfect linear relationship between the
predicators (x i ‟s) and dependent variable (y). An R-square of 0 indicates no linear relationship.

Table 4. 17: Model Summery Table

Model Summaryb
Std.
Adjusted Error of
R R the
Model R Square Square Estimate
1 .929a .863 .849 .45253
a. Predictors: (Constant), PM, BPR, UC, TMS, C,
TC, CM
b. Dependent Variable: ERPI
Source: SPSS output of survey questionnaire, 2019
R is the multiple correlation coefficients that show the relationship between the study
variables. From the findings shown in Table 4.17, there is a positive relationship of .929 between
ERP implementation and the seven independent variables.

R-Square is the proportion of variance in the dependent variable (ERP implementation)

which can be predicted from the independent variables (top management support, business
process reengineering, and use of consultant, project management, team competency, change

69
management and communication and ERP implementation). Analysis shows a value that
indicates 86.3% of the variance in ERP implementation. This can be predicted from the
variables top management support, business process reengineering, use of consultant, project
management, team competency, change management, and communication. Note that this is an
overall measure of the strength of association, and does not reflect the extent to which any
particular independent variable is associated with the dependent variable.

R2 = .863 shows that the model accounts for 86.3% of the variation in the ERP
implementation is explained by the linear combination of all the independent variables. And the
remaining 13.7% of the variation is not explained by these factors in this research.

Adjusted R squared is the coefficient of determination which tells us the variation in the
dependent variable due to changes in the independent variable. From the findings in the table
4.18 since adjusted R-square of all the seven variables is 0.849, we can say that 84.9% of the
variability in the level of ERP implementation is accounted for by determinants or factors of
ERP implementation. In other words, the value of adjusted R squared was 0.849 and this is an
indication that there was a variation of 84.9% of the success in ERP implementation is due to the
independent variables, at 95 percent confidence interval. This shows that 84.9 percent of changes
in ERP implementation could be accounted for by the combination of all the independent
variables.

4.4.3. ANOVA Model Fit

The regression model overall fit can be examined with the help of ANOVA (analysis of
variance) which provides F value. As per the approval standard rule, the significance (P-value)
has to be < 0.05 and table 4.19 below showed that F is 62.799. This means the F Statistics is
significant at 0.000 levels which show the fitness of the model. This indicates that the model is
fitted for this study. Therefore, it can be said that there is a relationship between ERP
implementation and the predictors (the different seven independent factors).

70
Table 4. 18: Anova Model Fit

ANOVAa
Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 90.02 7 12.86 62.799 .000b

Residual 14.335 70 0.205

Total 104.355 77
a. Dependent Variable: ERPI
b. Predictors: (Constant), PM, BPR, UC, TMS, C, TC, CM
Source: SPSS output of survey questionnaire, 2019

The F Value is the Mean Square Regression (90.020) divided by the Mean Square
Residual (14.335), yielding F = 62.799 the p-value associated with this F value is very small
(0.000). These values are used to answer the question do the independent variables top
management support, business process reengineering, use of consultant, project management,
team competency, change management, and communication reliably predict the dependent
variable (ERP implementation). P value is compared to alpha level (typically 0.05) and, if
smaller, we can conclude “Yes, the independent variables reliably predict the dependent
variable” and the model is fitted. We could say that the group of variables can be used to reliably
predict ERP implementation. If the P value were greater than 0.05, we would say that the group
of independent variables does not show a significant relationship with the dependent variable, or
that the group (joint) of independent variables do not reliably predict the dependent
variable. This is an overall significance test assessing whether the group of independent variables
when used together (jointly) reliably predict the dependent variable, and does not address the
ability of any of the particular (single) independent variables to predict the dependent
variables. Here we can see that the ability of each individual independent variable to predict the
dependent variable (ERP implementation) is addressed in the table below where each of the
individual variables is listed.

4.4.4. Beta Coefficient

Standardized Beta Coefficient; the standardized coefficients are the coefficients that can
explain the relative importance of explanatory variables. These coefficients are obtained from
regression analysis after all the explanatory variables are standardized. These are the values for a

71
regression equation if all of the variables are standardized to have a mean of zero and a standard
deviation of one. Because the standardized variables are all expressed in the same units, the
magnitudes of the standardized coefficients indicate which variables have the greatest effects on
the predicted value. This is not necessarily true of the unstandardized coefficients.

Table 4. 19: Beta Coefficient

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized Collinearity

Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
Std.
Model B Error Beta t Sig. Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) .389 .337 1.152 .253

BPR -.570 .085 -.371 -6.705 .000 .643 1.556

UC -.113 .085 -.070 -1.327 .189 .695 1.439
CM .119 .164 .063 .724 .471 .256 3.906
C .307 .120 .206 2.561 .013 .303 3.304
TMS .231 .071 .191 3.259 .002 .574 1.743
TC .450 .111 .278 4.073 .000 .421 2.378
PM .540 .103 .373 5.270 .000 .392 2.551
a. Dependent Variable: ERPI
Source: SPSS output of survey questionnaire, 2019

Predicating the success level of ERP implementation from the seven factors; Table 4.19
coefficient‟s table values of standardized beta coefficients state that how intensely/strongly/
those seven independent variables namely; top management support, business process
reengineering, use of consultant, project management, team competency, change management,
and communication predict the successes of ERP implementation. Meaning, the significance
tests of the seven explanatory variables indicate that five of the explanatory variables are
significant with p-value (P < 0.05) for predicting on ERP implementation. The rest two factors
have a p-value > 0 .05 (P > ∂), and these factors are statistically insignificant to predict ERP
implementation.

As it can be seen from the Table 4.19, the standardized coefficient of project management
is the largest value, followed by team competency, communication, top management support,
change management, use of consultant and business process reengineering respectively. The

72
larger the standardized coefficient, the higher is the relative effect of the factors (have the
greatest effects on the predicted value) to ERP implementation. Another interpretation would be
that ERP implementation (y) is not "statistically" dependent on the rest of the two insignificant
independent variables. Meaning, this research could prevail that ERP implementation is known
to depend on those five independent variables only.

4.4.5. Relationship of the variables

Unstandardized Beta Coefficient; these are the values for the regression equation for
predicting the dependent variable from the independent variables. The regression equation is
presented in many different ways, By refereeing to this respondent‟s analysis, the equation for
ERP implementation with only significant β coefficients „of the studied organization is:

Yep (predicted) = β0 + β1x1 + β2x2 +…+ βkxk + E

Yep = β0 + β1 BPR + β2 C + β3 TMS+ β4 TC + β5 PM + e
Yep = - 0.389 - 0.57 BPR + 0.307 C + 0.231 TMS + 0.450 TC + 0.540 PM
Where;
Yep (predicted) = Success level of ERP implementation
E = Std. Error of the Estimate (disturbance)
BPR = Business Process Reengineering, C = Communication, TMS= Top Management Support,
TC = Team Competency, PM= Project management.
From the above estimates, we can talk about the relationship between the independent
variables and the dependent variable. These estimates tell us the amount of increase/decrease in
the success level of ERP implementation that would be predicted by a one unit increase in the
predictor.

The intercept (β0) is the point on the vertical axis where the regression line crosses the Y-
axis. The value of β0 is 0.389 which means the expected value of ERP implementation is 0.389
when all the five variables assume zero value.

For the independent variables which are not significant, the coefficients are not
significantly affected ERP implementation, and we don‟t incorporate those insignificant
variables into the model.

73
Table 4. 20: Summary of Hypothesis Testing Results from Regression Analysis Coefficients.

Hypothesis Result Reason

1 Business Process Reengineering Supported Beta = -.570, at .sig.0.000

2 Communication Supported Beta=.0.307., at sig. 0.013

3 Top Management Support Supported Beta= 0.231., ,at .sig. 0.002

4 Use of Consultant Not Supported Beta= -0.113, ,at .sig. 0.189

5 Change Management Not Supported Beta= 0.119., ,at .sig. 0.471

6 Team Competency Supported Beta=0.450, at .sig.0.000

7 Project management Supported Beta= 0.540., at. sig. 0.000

Source: SPSS output of survey questionnaire, 2019

4.5. Discussion of the Results

In this part, the main findings of the data presented in the previous sections were
discussed in detail. Some of the key findings of the research were presented and have augmented
with results of similar research endeavors in other settings.

4.5.1. Hypotheses test and findings

This research addresses issues related to implementation dimensions of EPR, for this, the
researcher tried to identify the main factors affecting the success of ERP implementation, and
examines the causal effects relationships of these factors.

Formulated or stated hypotheses were tested and the results are summarized in Table 4.19
and 4.20. The results from beta coefficient confirm that only five of the seven hypotheses are
supported. These are business process reengineering, communication, top Management support,
team competency, and project management. Majority of the CSFs affect ERP implementation
positively except BPR. On contrary Use of Consultant and Change Management are not
statistically significant predictors of ERP implementation. In general, from those significant

74
factors, four of them have a positive impact and one factor has a negative impact on the success
of ERP project implementation in EPSE.

4.5.2. Effect of Business Process Reengineering on ERP implementation

The study established that business process reengineering related (in terms of redesigning
business processes before adopting the ERP, changes in business processes to fit the ERP system
and ability and willingness to change procedures to fit any new services) has a negative effect on
ERP implementation.

When looking at their descriptive means relative to these three questions and calculating
the average means is 2.96 (36.36%) of respondents and have a level of agreement as neutral with
the effect of business process reengineering on ERP implementation project.

In this study finds, based on the mean score comparison of the seven ERP
implementation factors (CSFs), business process reengineering is ranked third with a mean score
value of (2.99) 3.00 and it is a moderate level of agreement. On average for all statements under
this variable 32.4% of the respondents rated as disagree and strongly disagree and the
respondents 31.13% have a positive answer as agree and strongly agree level of agreement as a
factor of ERP implementation. From the above statements, the majority of the respondents
impartial with BPR have absolutely impact on the implementation of ERP. This shows that this
independent variable is not as such clearly important to affect ERP implementation based on this
descriptive result. This variable is also negatively correlated with ERP implementation with R =
-0. 300 (P < 0.01). This means there is a negative weak correlation or relationship between BPR
and ERP implementation. So, the increase or decrease in business processes reengineering
dimensions or factors there will be opposite in magnitude in the result of ERP implementation.
But this factor is a statistically significant predictor of ERP implementation since its significance
level of at 0.000 with a beta coefficient - 0.57. This means BPR is statistically significant
determinant of ERPI(y) having inverse relationship. In general the regression analysis result was
found to be inconsistent with hypothesis H2: that states business process reengineering (BPR)
has a positive impact on ERP implementation success.

Literature and empirical researches also indicate that business process reengineering is
influential in the implementation of ERP N Gai, (2008). This finding could imply that business

75
process reengineering is one of the critical success factors for the successful implementation of
ERP in Ethiopian postal service enterprise. Business Process Reengineering which is strongly
related with identifying the existing business structure, process at the beginning of ERP project
and relates this to the business process contained within ERP system helps the company to
simplify the process, eliminate redundant activities and use all of the functionalities of ERP.

4.5.3. Effect of Communication on ERP implementation

The study established that Communication (in terms of or relative to statements provided
to respondents) positively affects the ERP implementation of EPSE.

Similarly, based on the mean score comparison of the seven ERP implementation factors
(CSFs), Communication is ranked first with a mean score value of (3.115) 3.12 and it is 25.65 %
of the respondents as a moderate level of agreement. On average for all statements under this
variable 35.25 % of the respondents rated as disagree and strongly disagree and the respondents
37.83% have a positive answer as agree and strongly agree level of agreement as a factor of ERP
implementation. From the above discussion, the majority of the respondents have answers
communication has an impact on the implementation of ERP saying that they have a positive
opinion on those statements they were provided to respond. This shows that this independent
variable is clearly important to have an impact on ERP implementation. This variable is also
positively correlated with ERP implementation with R= 0.603 (P < 0.01). This means there is a
strong positive relationship between this independent variable and ERP implementation where
the increase (good condition) in communication there will be a similar increase in ERP
implementation successes. Also, this factor is statistically significant predictor of ERP
implementation since its significance level 0.013 with a beta coefficient 0.307 this means; ERPI
(y) is statistically dependent on this significant independent variable. But based on the result of
the mean score communication moderately affects ERP implementation even though the
majority of the respondents (37.83%) agreed to regular communications among the different
departments, regular cross-functional meetings to discuss the ERP, regular internal group
meeting to share a new method of using ERP, improvement suggestions had been regularly
collected from multiple employees levels, IT staff fully supports all functional users during ERP
Implementation, and communication team was set to solve the departmental conflicts that arise
during the implementation. In general, the results of the regression analysis conforms the

76
established hypothesis H7: that states communication has a positive impact on ERP
implementation success.

It is also identified in the literature with empirical evidence that communication is

influential in the implementation of ERP (Al-Mashari, Al-Mudimigh, and Zairi, 2003). This
finding implies that communication is one of the critical success factors for the successful
implementation of ERP in Ethiopian Postal service enterprise. Effective communication allows
the organization‟s stakeholders to understand the goal and the expected benefits of the project as
well as to share the progress of the project. As a result, all organization‟s stakeholders would be
able to be informed and know what is expected from them and be committed to it.

4.5.4. Effects of Top Management Support on ERP implementation

The study established that top management support (in terms of or relative to statements
provided to respondents) positively affect the ERP implementation project.

Similarly, based on the mean score comparison of the seven ERP implementation factors,
top management support is ranked second with a mean score value of (2.99) 3.10 and it is
37.82% of the respondents as a moderate level of agreement. On average for all statements under
this variable 36.95 % of respondents rated as disagree and strongly disagree, 37.17% of
respondents have a positive answer as agree and strongly agree level of agreement as a factor of
ERP implementation. From the above discussion, the majority of the respondents have answers
Top Management Support has not clearly impact on the implementation of ERP saying that they
have indifference opinion on those statements they were provided to respond. This shows that
this independent variable has not prevailed clear decision of the respondent‟s opinion neither or
not Top Management Support affects ERP implementation based on this descriptive result. This
variable is also correlated with ERP implementation with R = 0.514 (P < 0.01). This means there
is a moderate positive correlation or relationship between this independent variable and ERP
implementation where the increase in top management support may bring about a moderate
change in the success of ERP project implementation. Also, this factor is statistically significant
predictor of ERP implementation since its significance level of at 0.002 with a beta coefficient of
0.231. This means ERPI (y) is statistically dependent on this significant independent variable
Top Management Support. But based on the result of the mean score, Top Management Support

77
moderately affects ERP implementation even though the majority of the respondents (37.83%)
respond to agreed. In general, with the regression result test the variable is consistence with the
established hypothesis H1 that states top management support has a positive impact on ERP
implementation success.

This is also supported by literature and empirical evidence that confirms top management
support is one of the critical success factors for the successful implementation ERP project.
Having top management support ensures the success of ERP implementation by providing
leadership and necessary resources and making relevant decisions. (Bingi, 1999).

4.5.5. Effects of Team Competency on ERP implementation

The study established that Project Team Competency (in terms of or relative to
statements provided to respondents) positively affect the ERP implementation project.

Here, based on the mean score comparison of the seven ERP implementation factors,
Team Competency is ranked fifth with a mean score value of (2.58) 2.59 and it is 23.26% of the
respondents as a moderate level of agreement. on average for all statements under this variable
55.14 % of respondents rated as disagree and strongly disagree, 17.57% of respondents have a
positive answer as agree and strongly agree level of agreement as a factor of ERP
implementation. This result shows that, the majority of the respondents have negative answers
team competency is not well functioning for the successful implementation of ERP saying that
they disagree with the statements related to team competence they were provided to respond to.
This shows that this independent variable prevailed more respondent‟s opinion were disagree
Team Competency affect ERP implementation based on this descriptive result. This variable is
also positively correlated with ERPI with R = 0.709 (P < 0.01). This means there is a strong
positive relationship between team competency and ERP implementation where increase (good
condition) in team competency could also result in an increase in the success of ERP project
implementation. Also, this factor is statistically significant predictor of ERP implementation
since its significance level of at 0.000 with a beta coefficient 0.450 this means; ERPI (y) is
statistically dependent on this significant independent variable (Team Competency). But based
on the result of the mean score, it is found that team competency moderately affects ERP
implementation even though the majority of the respondents (55.14 %) respond to disagreed. In

78
general the regression analysis result was found to be consistence with hypothesis H5 that states
project team competency has a positive impact on ERP implementation success.

Literature and empirical researches also indicate that project team competency is
influential in the implementation of ERP. This finding implies that project team competency is
one of the critical success factors for the successful implementation of ERP in Ethiopian Postal
service enterprise. An effective competent project team commits personnel that only focuses on
the project and promotes organizational support by organizing the implementation process. In
addition, effective project team also monitors activities to ensure that the stated objectives of
ERP implementation projects are achieved.

4.5.6. Effects of Project management on ERP implementation

The study established that Project management (in terms of or relative to statements
provided to respondents) positively affect ERP implementation project.

Here, based on the mean score comparison of the seven ERP implementation factors,
project management is ranked fourth with a mean score value of (2.59) 2.47 and it is 23.40% of
the respondents as a moderate level of agreement. On average for all statements under this
variable 57.7 % of respondents rated as disagree and strongly disagree, 18.90% of respondents
have a positive answer as agree and strongly agree level of agreement as a factor of ERP
implementation. This result shows that the majority of the respondents have negative answers
that project management is not well functioning for the successful implementation of ERP saying
that they disagree with the statements related to project management they were provided to
respond to. This shows that this independent variable prevailed more respondent‟s opinion were
disagree on project management degree off affecting ERP implementation based on this
descriptive result. This factor is also positively correlated with ERPI with R = 0.833 (P < 0.01).
This means there is a very high relationship between project management and ERP
implementation where the increase (good condition) in project management process could also
result in an increase in the success of ERP implementation. Also, this factor is statistically
significant predictor of ERPI since its significance level of at 0.000 with beta coefficient 0.540
this means; ERPI (y) is statistically dependent on this significant independent variable project
management. But based on the result of mean score, it is found that project management

79
moderately affects ERP implementation even though the majority of the respondents (57.7%)
disagreed. In general the regression analysis result was found to be consistence with hypothesis
H6 that states project management has a positive impact on ERP implementation success

This is also supported by literature and empirical evidence that confirms project
management is influential in the implementation of ERP (Ngai et al., 2008; Tsai et al, 2011;
Zhang et al., 2003). This finding implies that project management is one of the critical success
factors for the successful implementation of ERP in Ethiopian Postal service enterprise. Having
effective project management enables organizations to plan, coordinate, and monitor various
implementation activities. In addition, it also monitors activities to ensure that the stated
objectives of ERP implementation projects are achieved.

80
 CHAPTER FIVE:
Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

5.1. Introduction

The motivating force behind this research with the subject matter of “Examining Factors
that affecting ERP implementation success” taking EPSE as a case company stems from my
vested interest in the topic because I have been working in this organization as head of in house
application and customization which is ERP implementation directly related, ERP
implementation success is a concern and point of discussion that comes to my consideration
frequently. So, the concern of investigating this research was to find out the factors that affect
ERP implementation success and how could EPSE take appropriate and strategic actions to the
success of ERP implementation project.

Therefore, this chapter presents the data findings, the conclusions that are drawn from
these findings and the recommendations that can be made from these conclusions. The
conclusions and recommendations discussed in this chapter look to meet the main objective of
the study.

5.2.Summary of the Findings

The totals of 86 questionnaires were distributed to the respondents out of which, 78

questionnaires were returned with a response rate of 90.69%. The sum of the independent
variables average Cronbach‟s alpha value is (α = 0.959) and the reliability test of the study is
located on the “Acceptable” range. Out of 78 respondents, 69.2% (54) of the respondents were
male and the remaining 30.8% (24) were Female. 84.6% (66) of the respondents have
educational level of first and second degree and 15.3% (12) of the respondents have education
level of diploma and other. 68% (51) of the respondents have company experience of more than
five years while 32% (24) of them have less than five years of company experience. These all
indicate that the respondents were educated well enough to understand the questions and thus
would give credible results, since the majority of the respondents had worked for a considerable
period of time in Ethiopian Postal Service Enterprise, therefore they were in a position to give
credible information relating to this study, since all the relevant positions were part of the

81
respondents this research response were valuable, the research targeted the user departments
specifically directly or indirectly involved in the project implementation process where first hand
and credible information about the ERP project current status is obtained. Therefore, it is
concluded that the result were all worthwhile and praiseworthy.

The research is designed according to the structure of the sub-questions. Therefore, based
on these sub-questions, the key findings and relevant implications derived from this thesis are
summarized and presented in response to each sub-question respectively.

The first established hypothesis of the study was top management support has a positive
impact on ERP implementation success in EPSE. Based on the mean comparison of the seven
ERP implementation success factors, top management support is ranked second with a mean
value of 3.1. The correlation analysis also discovered that this variable has a positive, moderate,
and significant correlation with ERP implementation at R = 0.566 (P < 0.01). The output from
regression analysis also indicated that top management support is statistically significant
predictor of ERP implementation with a beta coefficient of 0.231 at significance level of 0.002.
This means ERP implementation (y) is statistically dependent on this significant independent
variable. Therefore, the study findings proved that this factor positively affects the project
success.

The second established hypothesis of the study was business process reengineering has a
positive impact on ERP implementation success in EPSE. Based on the mean comparison of the
seven ERP implementation success factors (CSFs), business process reengineering is ranked
third with a mean value of 3.00. The correlation analysis also revealed BPR has a negative,
weak, but significant correlation with ERP implementation at R = -0.300 (P < 0.01). The output
from regression analysis also indicated that BRR is statistically significant predictor of
successful implementation of ERP with a beta coefficient of - 0.57 at significance level of 0.000.
This means, ERP implementation (y) is statistically dependent on BPR. Therefore, the study
findings proved that this factor negatively affects project success of ERP.

The fifth established hypothesis of the study was team competency has a positive impact
on ERP implementation success in EPSE. Based on the mean comparison of the seven ERP
implementation success factors, team competency is ranked fifth with a mean value of 2.58 The

82
correlation analysis also revealed that this variable has a positive, strong, and significant
correlation with ERP implementation at R = 0.709 (P < 0.01). The output from regression
analysis also indicated that team competency is statistically significant predictor of ERP
implementation with a beta coefficient of 0.450 at significance level of 0.000. This means ERP
implementation (y) is statistically dependent to team competency. Therefore, the study findings
proved that this factor positively affects project success.

The sixth established hypothesis of the study was project management has a positive
impact on ERP implementation success in EPSE. Based on the mean comparison of the seven
ERP implementation success factors (CSFs), project management is ranked fourth with a mean
value of 2.59. The correlation analysis also discovered that this variable has a strong, significant
and positive correlation with ERP implementation at R = 0.833 (P < 0.01). The output from
regression analysis also indicated that project management is statistically significant predictor of
ERP implementation with a beta coefficient of 0.540 at significance level of 0.000. This means,
ERP implementation (y) is statistically dependent to project management. Therefore, the study
findings proved that this factor positively affects the project success.

The seven established hypothesis of the study was communication has a positive impact
on ERP implementation success in EPSE. Based on the mean comparison of the seven ERP
implementation success factors (CSFs), communication is ranked first with a mean value of 3.12.
The correlation analysis also discovered that this variable has a significant, strong, and positive
correlation with ERP implementation at R = 0.603 (P < 0.01). The output from regression
analysis also indicated that communication is statistically significant predictor of ERP
implementation with a beta coefficient of 0.307 at a significance level of 0.013. This means ERP
implementation (y) is statistically dependent on this significant independent variable. Therefore,
the study findings proved that this factor positively affects the project success.

Based on the regression result, the regression model overall fit can be examined by
ANOVA (analysis of variance) which provides F of 62.799. This means, the F Statistics is
significant at 0.000 levels of significance which show the fitness of the model. This indicates that
in general the model is fitted for this study. Therefore, it can be said that there is a relationship
between ERP implementation and the predictors (the different five independent factors).

83
 Based on model summary, R which show the relationship between the study variables,
there is a positive relationship of 0.929 between ERP implementation and the five independent
variables, R2 (which measure of strength or coefficient of determination of the computed
predication) = 0.863 shows that the model accounts for 86.3% of the variation in the project
success of ERP implementation is explained by the linear combination of all the independent
variables. And the remaining 13.7 % of the variation is not explained by these factors.

5.3.Conclusion.

The main purpose of this study was to analyze the factors affecting the successful
implementation of ERP project in the case company and based on the findings presented in the
previous section, the following conclusions are drawn.

From the five factors, this study confirmed that Business Process Reengineering has a
negative significant effect on ERP implementation and identified as one of the important CSFs
for ERP project success. Meaning, based on the result, Business Process Reengineering in terms
of redesigning business processes (before adopting the ERP system), changes its business
processes (in order to fit the ERP system) and having ability and willingness ( to change its
procedures to fit any new services) is proved that negative significant effect in determine/
predicating ERP implementation. The study, therefore, concludes that Business Process
Reengineering affect negatively the successes of ERP implementation. This is important
observation for the company to focus and work on strengthening or improving the relationship
between these important factors in order to achieve a successful implementation of ERP.

Top management support was also proved as one of the most determining factors of ERP
implementation. As the result indicates, top management support has a positive and very strong
relation with ERP implementation. The regression shows this factor is a significant predictor and
positively affects ERP implementation. The study therefore concludes that, if different positive
support is given by the top management, through providing of necessary financial and other
resources, establishes policies and procedures to monitor ERP implementation, delegating
implementation authority, taking self-motivated role in leading and necessary risk and
responsibilities in the ERP implementation, intervening to resolve disputes and frequent support

84
and encourages use of ERP system this motivates directly and indirectly stakeholders of ERP
project and in return will increase the successful implementation of the project.

The study also shows project management is another important factor that is identified as
having great extent of effect on ERP implementation. Based on the regression result, project
management was found to be a significant predictor and positively affects ERP implementation.
The study, therefore, concludes that a positive performance change in project management
process will result in the better success of ERP implementation. This is valuable feedback to the
company to focus and work on adopting a clear scope, project plan, realistic time frame,
selecting or assigning effective project leader, and monitor and evaluate the progress
periodically.

Team Competency was also proved that the next factor which has a great extent effect in
determining of ERP implementation. As the result indicates, team competency has a positive and
strong or high relation with ERP implementation. The regression shows this factor is a
significant predictor and positively affects ERP implementation. The study, therefore, concludes
that the increase (good performance) in team competency can be through having specific and
achievable goal, a manager capable of managing the project, top and only priority for the team ,
knowledge of the key issues relating to ERP implementation and team members skill or
qualification, knowledge and ability to accept change. Existing of those competencies factors in
the project team will enhance in achieving the success of ERP implementation.

Communication was also confirmed that the third factor which has great extent effect in
determining of ERP implementation. As the result indicates, Communication has a positive and
strong or high relation with ERP implementation. The regression shows this factor is a
significant predictor and positively affects ERP implementation. The study, therefore, concludes
that, the increase (good performance) in communication, through existing of regular
communications, cross-functional meeting, internal group meeting to share new method of using
ERP, collection of suggestions from multiple employee‟s levels, and full supports from (IT) staff
to all functional users during ERP implementation. Accessible of those ways or strategies of
communication factors in the project team and with other stakeholders will intensify in achieving
the success of ERP implementation.

85
 Finally, from Descriptive statistics of this study result of mean scores and average means
of percentage response rate for each statement regarding a particular variable indicates all of the
responses (78 respondents) for the dependent and independent variable fall inside the medium or
moderately category. This illustrates the level of opinion employees of the company have to
those of CSFs of ERP implementation. This result enables us to conclude that the current
position or state of ERP project implementation at EPSE is moderately successful.

5.4.Recommendations

Based on the empirical findings of this study, the specific comments of the respondents
and the researcher‟s own observation working at the organization for more than a decade, the
following recommendations are provided. These recommendations are believed to help the
enterprise to fully succeed ERP implementation project and as a result increase organizational
performance in all functional units relative to this system. In order to improve the success of
upcoming projects, the researcher recommends the following points. The company:-

 Top management should strengthen supporting the project from the very
beginning and should inform and motivate employees of the company in all
stages of ERP implementation or any project implementation.
 Top management should have the ability and willingness to change its rules,
regulations and procedures to redesign the business processes before
adopting the system.
 Change management team to bring out a positive outcome and to reduce the
resistance from employees should give training and create other awareness
creation mechanism to the concerned employees.
 Should strengthen providing training to the project team in order to increase
their knowledge and expertise for the success of project implementation.
 Should have a professionally, socially and personally competent project
team.
 Should have a clear communication method and should improve both
horizontal and vertical transparent communications between project teams
and concerned departments.

86
5.5.Limitation and Suggestion for Future research

A limitation of this study is that not all CSFs identified in the previous studies were
considered in this study. In this regard, Ram, Wu, and Tagg (2014) pointed out that it is difficult
for a single study to actually assess the impacts of all possible CSFs or even most of them. This
indicates that additional empirical examinations are needed to investigate the effects of the rest
of the CSFs. This study was conducted based on seven CSFs and accounted for 86.3% of the
variation of the ERP implementation. Other researchers may consider other factors and study the
reason for the remaining variation (13.7%). Another limitation is that the study concentrated on
analysis of a single case company. Hence, the findings must be validated by further studies.
Moreover, the findings need to be confirmed in further studies using different data testing
techniques

87
 Reference

Adel, M. (2001), “Change Management Strategies for Successful ERP Implementation”

Department of QM and IS, College of Administrative Science, Kuwait University.

Aladwani, A. (2001). Change management strategies for successful ERP

implementation. Business Process Management Journal, 7(3), pp.266-275.

Aldammas, A., & Al-Mudimigh, S., (2005).Critical Success and Failure Factors of ERP
implementations. Journalof Theoretical and Applied Information Technology.Vol 28
No.2,pp. 73-82.

Ahmed, F. (2003), “Implementation of ERP System in SMEs” Cranfield university school of

applied sciences MSc thesis Cranfield university school of applied sciences MSc thesis
(modeling in ERP).

Akkermans, H. and van Helden, K. (2002). Vicious and virtuous cycles in ERP implementation:
a case study of interrelations between critical success factors. European Journal of
Information Systems, 11(1), pp.35-46.

Al-Mashari, M., Al-Mudimigh, A. and Zairi, M. (2003). Enterprise resource planning: A

taxonomy of critical factors. European Journal of Operational Research, 146(2), pp.352-
364.

APM, (2011). Directing Change, A guide to governance of project management, Princes

Risborough

APM, (2012). Body of knowleage,6th edn,high Wycombe: APM publication

Beheshti, H. M. (2006). What managers should know about ERP/ERP II. Management Research
News, 29(4), pp. 184-193

Belassi, W. and Tukel, O. (1996). A new framework for determining critical success/failure
factors in projects. International Journal of Project Management, 14(3), pp.141-151.

Bhatti, T.R. (2005). „Critical Success Factors for the implementation of Enterprise Resource
Planning (ERP): Empirical Validation‟. The Second International Conference on
Innovation in Information Technology (IIT‟05).

Bingi, P., Sharma, M. K., & Godla, J. K. (1999). Critical issues affecting an ERP
implementation. Information Systems Management, 16(3), 7-14.

Boersma, K., & Kingma, S. (2005). Developing a cultural perspective on ERP. Business Process
Management Journal.Vol11 No.2, pp.123-136

88
Bradford, M. and Florin, J. (2003), “Examining the role of innovation diffusion factors on the
implementation success of enterprise resource planning systems”, International journal
of Accounting Information Systems, Vol. 4, pp. 205-25

Brehm, L., Heinzl, A. and Markus, M. (2001). 'Tailoring ERP Systems: A Spectrum of Choices
and their Implications,' hicss, 8:8017, 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences (HICSS-34).

Brue‟s L. B. (2004) Quantitative research method for social science. Pearson custom library,
England.

Capaldo, G. and Rippa, P., (2009). „A planned-oriented approach for EPR implementation
strategy selection‟, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 22 (6): 642-659.

Chang, H.H., (2006). Technical and management perceptions of enterprise information system
importance, implementation and benefits. Information Systems Journal, 16, pp. 263-292.

Chang, M., Cheung, W., Cheng, C. and Yeung, J. (2008). Understanding ERP system adoption
from the user's perspective. International Journal of Production Economics, 113(2),
pp.928-942.

Collin, F. (2007). Researching and Writing a Dissertation: A Guidebook for Business Students
Pearson Education Limited Edinburgh Gate Harlow Essex CM20 2JE Englan.d

Cooper, D. R., &Schindler, P. S. (2003). Business Research Methods. 8th ed. Boston, Mass.:
McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Creswell J. W., (2003) Research design qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches
second edition.

Davenport, T. (2000). Mission Critical: Realizing the Value of Enterprise Systems. Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Davenport, T. H. (2000). Mission Critical. In Realizing the Promise of Enterprise Systems,

Harvard Business School Press. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press,.

Davenport, T.H. (1998). „Putting the Enterprise into the Enterprise System‟, Harvard Business
Review (July-August): 121 -131.

Dixit, A. K., & Prakash, O. (2011). A STUDY OF ISSUES AFFECTING ERP

IMPLEMENTATION IN SMEs.

Esteves-Sousa, j. and Pastor-Collado, j. (2000), “Towards the unification of critical success

factors for ERP implementation”, Proceedings of 10th Annual BIT (Business Information
Technology) Conference, Manchester, pp. 60-9.

89
Fionia Fui- Hoon Nah &Santiago Delegado (2006). Critical success factors of Enterprise
resource planning implementation and upgrade, Journal of Computer information systems
Special Issue 2006, Vol. 47, p99

Foziya. A(2017). Factors affecting the implementation of enterprise resource planning at

commercial bank of Ethiopia

Gargeya, V. B. (2005). Success and failure factors of adopting SAP in ERP system
implementation. Business Process Management Journal, 11 (9)

Gentile, S. (2012). Project Management in the Information Technology Industry Rabb School of
Continuing Studies Division of Graduate Professional Studies Brandeis University

Glaser, T. (1999). System selection strategies for county governments

Holland, C. P., & Light, B. (1999). A critical success factors model for ERP implementation.
IEEE Software, 16(3), (pp. 30-36).

Jafari, S. M., Osman, R. M., Tang, Y., & Tang, S. H. (2006). ERP Systems Implementation In
Malaysia: TheImportance Of Critical Success Factors. International Journal of
Engineering and Technology, 3(1), (pp.125-131).

Jarrar. Y. F., A.-M. A. (2000). ERP Implementation Critical Success Factors. In The Role And
Impact Of Business Process Management (pp. 122-127).

Jose M. Esteves, J. A. (1999). An ERP Life-cycle-based Research Agenda.

Kansal, V. (2007). „Systemic Analysis for Inter-Relation of Identified Critical Success Factors in
Enterprise Systems Projects‟, Contemporary Management Research, 3 (4):331-346.

Kerzner H. (2009). Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling and

Controlling, 10th ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

Kombo, K. D. and Tromp, L. A. D. (2006). Proposal and thesis writing ; an introduction.

Nairobi: Pauline Publications Africa.

Kumar, K. and Van Hillsgersberg, J. (2000). ERP experiences and evolution. Communications of
the ACM, 43(4), 23-26.

Kumar, V., Maheshwari, B. and Kumar, U. (2003), “An investigation of critical management
issues in ERP implementation: empirical evidence from Canadian organizations”,
Technovation, Vol. 23 No. 9, pp. 793-807.

Leech, N., Barrett, K. and Morgan, G. (2008). SPSS for intermediate statistics. New York:
Psychology Press.

90
Li Fang & Sylvia Patrecia(2005), Critical Success factor in ERP, Jönköping International
Business School.

Li, T., Feng, Y. and Chen, L. (1999). Temporal and Spectral Correlations of Cygnus X‐1. The
Astrophysical Journal, 521(2), pp.789-797.

Loizos, C. (1998). ERP: Is it the ultimate software solution, Industry Week 7 33

MacEachron. (1982). Basic Statistics in the Human Services: an Applied Approach.

Markus, M.L. (2004). „Technochange management: using IT to drive organizational change‟,

Journal of Information Technology, 19(1): 4-20.

Mohammad A. Rashid, Liaquat Hossain, Jon David Patrick (2002)” The Evolution of ERP
Systems: A Historical Perspective “

Monk, E.F., & Wagner, B.J.( 2006). Concepts in Enterprise Resource Planning. 2nd edn. Boston:
Thomson Course Technology.

Mugenda O.M & Mugenda A.G (1999). Research Methods.Quantitative and qualitative
Approaches. Nairobi. Acts press. Revised.2003.

Nah, F., &Delgado, S.(2006). Critical success factors for enterprise resource planning
implementation and upgrade .Journal of computer information systems, Special issue,
pp.99-113

Nah, F.H., Islam, Z. and Tan, M. (2007), “Empirical assessment of factors influencing success of
enterprise resource planning implementations”, Journal of Database Management, Vol.
18 No. 4, pp. 26-50.

Nah, J. F., Lau, L. & Kuang, J. (2001). Critical factors for successful implementation of
enterprise systems. Business Process Management Journal, 7(3), 285-296.

Ngai, E. W. (2008). Examining the critical success factors in the adoption of enterprise resource
planning. Computers in Industry, 548–564.

O‟Leary, D. E. (2001). Enterprise Resource Planning Systems: Systems, Life Cycle, Electronic
Commerce, and Risk. UK: Cambridge University Press

O'Leary, D.E (2004). „Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Systems: An Empirical Analysis of
Benefits‟, Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, Accounting & Tax
Periodicals, 1: 63-72.

O'Leary, T. J. Williams, B.K., & O'Leary, L. (2009).McGraw Hill Microcomputing. Annual

Edition McGraw-Hill.

91
Patric W, 2005), Effective project Governance , The tools for success, Project management
Institute of New Zealand

Patric, W. (2007). A brief History of project management. Is our profession 50 or 500 years
old?Project: Vol19 Issue

Paul D Leedy (1993) practical research: planning and design. New Jersey Pearson Education,
Inc.

Polit and Beck (2003) Nursing Research: Principles and Methods, New York Williams Book
Company

Ranganathan, C. and Brown, C. (2006) “ERP Investments and the Market Value of Firms:
Toward an understanding of Influential ERP Project Variables” Information Systems
Research

Rashid,et al. (2002); The Evolution of ERP Systems: A Historical Perspective Kuwait.

Roberts, H. a. (1992). MRP II implementation key factors for success. Computer Integrated
Manufacturing Systems, 31-8

Rosario, J. (2000). critical success factors in ERP implementation projects.

Saron,G. (2017) assessment of ERP implementation the case of Heineken breweries s.c Ethiopia.

Saunders, M. (2003) Research method for business students. March, 2015 secondary or primary
data collection

Sedera, D. and Dey, S. (2006), “Multi- stakeholder assessment of critical success factors:
insights from the world‟s fastest SAP R/3 implementation”, Proceedings of the Twelfth
Americas Conference on Information Systems, Acapulco.

Somers T.M., a. N. (2001). The Impact of Critical Success Factors across the Stages of
Enterprise Resource Planning Implementations. Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences.

Somers, T. and Nelson, K. (2004). A taxonomy of players and activities across the ERP project
life cycle. Information & Management, 41(3), pp.257-278.

Stefanou, C.J., (1999), “Supply chain management (SCM) and organizational key factors for
successful implementation of enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems”, Proceedings
of the Americas Conference on Information Systems(AMCIS), 800.

Sumner, M. (1999). Critical success factors in enterprise wide information management systems
projects. Proceedings of the 1999 ACM SIGCPR Conference on Computer Personnel
Research, 297-303.

92
Sumner, M. (1999). Critical success factors in enterprise wide information management systems
projects. Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS),
232-4.

Sumner, M. (2000). Risk factors in enterprise-wide/ERP projects. Journal of Information

Technology, 15(4), pp.317-327.

Themistocleous, M., Irani, Z. and O‟Keefe, R. (2001). ERP and application integration. Business
Process Management Journal, 7(3), pp.195-204.

Umble, E. J., & Umble, M. M. (2002). Avoiding ERP implementation failure. Industrial
Management, 44(1), 25-33.

Umble, E., Haft, R. and Umble, M. (2003). Enterprise resource planning: Implementation
procedures and critical success factors. European Journal of Operational Research,
146(2), pp.241-257.

Whang, J & Lee, S (2002). „A Study on the Implementation Strategy and Performance of
Enterprise Resource Planning System‟, Journal of Information Technology Applications
& Management, 9(3): 47-56.

Whang, J., Lee, M-B and Kim, K (2003). „A Case Study on the Successful Upgrade of ERP
System‟. 7th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, 10-13 July 2003,
Adelaide, South Australia.

Willcocks, L. and Sykes, R. (2000). Enterprise resource planning: the role of the CIO and it
function in ERP. Communications of the ACM, 43(4), pp.32-38.

Willis, T.H., Willis-Brown, A.H. and McMillan, A. (2001). „Cost containment strategies for ERP
system implementations‟, Production and Inventory Management Journal, 42 (2): 36-42.

Zhang, Z., Lee, M., Huang, P., Zhang, L. and Huang, X. (2005). A framework of ERP systems
implementation success in China: An empirical study. International Journal of
Production Economics, 98(1), pp.56-80.

Zikmund, WG 2013, Business research methods, 9th. edn, South-Western, Mason, OH.

93
 Appendices
Appendix: Questionnaire for Ethiopian Postal Service Enterprise Employees

Questionnaire

Addis Ababa University

School of Commerce, Department of project Management

Questionnaires to be filled by employees of Ethiopian Postal Service Enterprise

Dear respondents;

I am a post graduate student of Addis Ababa University, School of Commerce, who is

conducting a research on: “Factor Affecting Successful Implementation of enterprise resource
planning (ERP) Project: The Case of Ethiopian Postal Service Enterprise”. The research is
conducted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Masters of project Management. The
questioner contains 46 questions and will take long. You are kindly requested to complete this
questionnaire. Your responses will be kept confidential and used for academic purpose only.

I want to thank you in advance for your time, willingness and participation.

Direction; Please put a thick mark (√) in the box that corresponds to your response about your
profile.

Name (Optional): -------------------------------------- Telephone (Optional):----------------------------

Section 1: Background information:

1. Gender: Male Female

2. Age:
20-30 31-35 36-40 above 41
3. Qualification:

Certificate Diploma Degree Masters

94
 Other please specify ________________________
4. Your service year:
≤5 6 – 10 11 – 15 16 – 20
21 and above
5. In which office/department are you working?
Finance Sourcing & Facilities Human Resources IT other
6. The position you hold in the organization
Staff Supervisor Manager Officer
Chef Officer
Other _____________________________

Section 2: Issues related with the study area:

Please read each statement carefully and show the extent of your agreement on the statements by
circling the numbers in the column using a five-point Likert scale with the following values:
1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly Agree.

1- Top Management Support (TMS)

1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly Agree.
To what extent do you agree on the following statements regarding top management support?
# Item 1 2 3 4 5
The organization top management has provided the necessary
1 financial and other resources to design and implement the ERP 1 2 3 4 5
system
The organization top management establishes policies and
2 1 2 3 4 5
procedures to monitor the implementation of the ERP system
The organization Top management has delegated
3 1 2 3 4 5
implementation authority for project managers.
The organization Top management has taken a self-motivated
4 1 2 3 4 5
role in leading the ERP implementation.
The organization Top management has taken all the necessary
5 1 2 3 4 5
risk and responsibilities during ERP implementation.
The top management intervenes when needed, to resolve
disputes between interests groups (consultant, project team and
6 1 2 3 4 5
departments), willing to provide the necessary resources, and
follow the implementation.
The organization top management always supports and
7 encourages the use of the ERP system for job-related work 1 2 3 4 5

95
 2- Business Process Reengineering (Reform)
1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly Agree.
To what extent do you agree on the following statements regarding BPR?
# Item 1 2 3 4 5
The organization spent much time in redesigning business
1 1 2 3 4 5
processes before adopting the ERP system

The organization performed the required changes in its

2 1 2 3 4 5
business processes to fit the ERP system to these processes

The organization has the ability and willingness to change its

3 procedures to fit any new services provided by the ERP 1 2 3 4 5
system
3- Consultant
1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly Agree.
To what extent do you agree on the following statements regarding Consultant?
# Item 1 2 3 4 5
The organization obtained advice and support from
1 1 2 3 4 5
consultants to effectively implement the ERP system
The organization selected the consultants carefully based on
2 their experience in the technical aspects and business 1 2 3 4 5
processes conducted in the organization environment
Without the help of the consultants, operating the ERP system
3 in the organization could be troublesome and might be a 1 2 3 4 5
success inhibitor
4- Project management
1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly Agree.
To what extent do you agree on the following statements regarding project management
# Item 1 2 3 4 5
A clear scope and plan for implementing the ERP project
1 1 2 3 4 5
were established by the organization
The implementation of the ERP project was managed by an
2 1 2 3 4 5
effective leader selected from the organization
A realistic time frame was set for the different stages of the
3 1 2 3 4 5
implementation process of the ERP system
The organization is having periodic meetings for evaluating
4 1 2 3 4 5
the progress of the ERP implementation

96
 5- Team Competency (capability)
1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly Agree.
To what extent do you agree on the following statements regarding project team competences?
# Item 1 2 3 4 5
The ERP project team has a specific goal which is achievable
1 1 2 3 4 5
over the defined timeline
The ERP project team has a project manager who is capable of
2 1 2 3 4 5
managing project on time and on budget.
The ERP project has been the top and only priority for the
3 1 2 3 4 5
team.
The ERP team members had knowledge of the key issues
4 1 2 3 4 5
relating to ERP implementation.
The ERP team members have carefully been selected based on
5 their skill or qualification, knowledge and ability to accept 1 2 3 4 5
change.
The project team had experienced in previous ERP
6 1 2 3 4 5
Implementations.
7 The team members had business and technical knowledge 1 2 3 4 5
6- Change Management
1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly Agree.
To what extent do you agree on the following statements regarding change management?
# Item 1 2 3 4 5
The organization tries to establish an appropriate
1 organizational culture for the ERP project 1 2 3 4 5

The organization made the members recognize the necessity of

2 1 2 3 4 5
the ERP
The organization has an established communication system
3 related to the ERP. 1 2 3 4 5

The organization carried out sufficient education and training

4 related to the ERP for the members. 1 2 3 4 5

The organization has established standards and regulations for

5 the ERP 1 2 3 4 5

The organization held a working-level meeting for change

6 management 1 2 3 4 5

Management approach to change was successful in managing

7 the transition to ERP 1 2 3 4 5

97
 The organization/management recognized employee for
8 contribution to change Initiative 1 2 3 4 5

Management asked employee what should change more than

9 they told employees what will 1 2 3 4 5

The organization/management allocate adequate resource for

10 change 1 2 3 4 5

7- Communication
1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly Agree.
To what extent do you agree on the following statements regarding Communication?
# Item 1 2 3 4 5
There were regular communications among the different
1 1 2 3 4 5
departments
There were regular cross functional meeting to discuss about
2 1 2 3 4 5
the ERP.
There were regular internal group meeting to share new
3 1 2 3 4 5
method of using ERP.
ERP improvement suggestions had been regularly collected
4 1 2 3 4 5
from multiple employees levels
Information technology (IT) staff fully supports all functional
5 1 2 3 4 5
users during ERP Implementation.
Communication team was set to solve the departmental
6 1 2 3 4 5
conflicts that arise during the implementation.
8- ERP Implementation Evaluation
1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly Agree.
To what extent do you agree on the following statements regarding the evaluation of ERP Implementation?
# Item 1 2 3 4 5
1 Overall, ERP implementation was successful. 1 2 3 4 5
ERP implementation has realized the expected benefits to
2 1 2 3 4 5
the business.
3 The planned objectives of ERP were successfully achieved 1 2 3 4 5

4 ERP was completed at its expected completion time 1 2 3 4 5

5 ERP was completed within planned budget 1 2 3 4 5

All the quality standards expected by Ethiopian Postal

6 1 2 3 4 5
service from the project were successfully delivered.
ERP was completed in a way that can contribute to its
7 1 2 3 4 5
designed goal

98