Lee, S (2014) Re-examination of the enterprise resource planning success model in cross industry sectors: New statistical findings. PhD thesis, George Washington University, USA.
Abstract
This dissertation sought to answer the question of why and how organizations succeed or fail in their implementation of the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system. To accomplish this goal, reexamining and recalibrating the Chung (2007) ERP Success Model with the data from various industry sectors was performed since Chung validated the model only within the construction industry. The objective of this research was to fill the scholarly gap in predicting the success of the ERP model as well as identifying the factors and issues that contribute to the success or failure of such an implementation. Five hypotheses were tested to see if the Chung model could be applicable outside the construction industry. In order to achieve this, the relationship between the ERP success indicators and the critical success factors defined by Chung were investigated. In addition, to find the relationship between the industry sector and ERP success, the success indicators of Perceived Usefulness, Intention to Use, ERP Benefits, Project Success - Progress, and Project Success - Quality were thoroughly examined across the industry sectors. This research project used a mixed method research approach that combined collection of data through a survey instrument, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), and open ended interviews/discussion with industry experts. The data collection was made on a sample population of 231 ERP users in 10 different industry sectors using the Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS), which were culled from 1,045 respondents. Then, the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) technique was performed for data analysis and these procedures were validated by industry experts. Overall, this study investigated the applicability of the Chung model in various industry sectors and how the industry sector itself affects the success of an ERP system implementation. The research found that the impact of success factors defined by Chung on the success of an ERP system implementation varied across industry sectors. This means that the success of ERP system implementation can be industry-specific. Thus, industry sector needs to be considered as another factor to provide top-management or IT management insights to help them avoid ERP system failure when they plan to implement a new ERP system. Redefining what constitutes a successful ERP system and posing new questions about the nature of the ERP system are discussed in conclusion in order to assist future research in this field.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Ryan, J J C H and Mazzuchi, T A |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | enterprise resource planning; failure; population; project success |
| Index terms: | survey, success factor, perceived usefulness, structural equation modelling, data analysis, industry sector, interview, critical success factor, population, mixed method research, project success, enterprise resource planning, dissertation, implementation, construction industry |
| Subjects: | contractual arrangements, research dissemination and communication, demography, behavioral psychology, research methods, health monitoring assessment and metrics, data analysis and analytics, data collection methods, control systems, statistical analysis, computer science, industry analysis, project management theory and practice |
| Topics: | Urban Studies, Research Practice, Information Management, Health and Safety, Project Management, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here