Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CHANGE MANAGEMENT AND ERP POST-IMPLEMENTATION: A CASE
STUDY OF A MULTINATIONAL COMPANY IN NIGERIA
A study submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in Information Systems
at
THE UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD
by
CHUKWUEMEKA PETER IBEKWE
September 2012
ii
ABSTRACT
Background. Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems are business applications
which organizations utilize to integrate their business processes and improve their
business performance. In the post-implementation stage of ERP life cycle,
organisations seek to maximize their benefits from ERP. During this period,
organisations initially experience a drop in performance levels. As a result, several
business process, technological and human changes are implemented in order to
return to normal performance levels and improve their business operations.
Aims. The study aimed to investigate the business process, technological and human
changes implemented during ERP post-implementation in a multinational company,
and the barriers to the implementation of these changes.
Methods: The study used an inductive research approach and qualitative research
strategy. Using the case study strategy, six in-depth semi-structured interviews were
conducted with experienced and knowledgeable employees of a multinational
company in Nigeria. The data was analyzed using narrative analysis.
Findings. The results of the study indicated that business processes including
invoice management processes, authorization and approval processes and partner
accounting processes had experienced changes during ERP post-implementation.
The addition of add-ons and new modules were the technological changes
experienced in the organisation. With regards to the human changes, an organisation-
wide functional support structure and ERP module-specific roles were integrated
within the organisation’s structure in the post-implementation stage. Barriers to the
implementation of these changes included: lack of change readiness, internal policies
and procedures, and budgetary constraints.
Conclusion. It is concluded that the findings of this study corroborated the outcomes
of previous studies which suggested that several business process, technological and
human changes are implemented during ERP post-implementation, each of which
can be impacted by several barriers. It is recommended that further work could
include the validation and generalization of the findings of this study, and the
prioritization of the barriers identified in this study.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I wish to appreciate Mr Alex GC Peng for his valued support throughout the period
of undergoing this project. I also wish to express my gratitude to my parents Mr and
Mrs Ibekwe for the rendering all the support they could possibly muster. Also, I wish
to thank Mr Shaibu Ali for his assistance in securing participants for the study.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................. ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ......................................................................................... iii
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... 8
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... 8
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 9
1.1 RESEARCH BACKGROUND ..................................................................... 9
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ............................................................ 9
1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ......................................................................... 10
1.4 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ......................................................................... 10
1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY ............................................................ 11
1.6 ORGANISATION OF STUDY .................................................................. 11
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................... 13
2.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 13
2.2 THE CONCEPT OF ERP SYSTEMS ......................................................... 13
2.3 ERP HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ........................................................ 15
2.4 ERP LIFE CYCLE ...................................................................................... 16
2.5 ERP POST-IMPLEMENTATION .............................................................. 18
2.6 CHANGE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT ........................................... 20
2.7 CHANGES TRIGGERED BY ERP POST-IMPLEMENTATION ............ 22
2.8 CHANGE BARRIERS IN ERP POST-IMPLEMENTATION ....................... 24
2.9 ERP IN THE CONTEXT OF NIGERIA .................................................... 25
2.10 SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 26
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ....................................................................... 27
3.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 27
3.2 RESEARCH APPROACH .......................................................................... 27
3.3 RESEARCH STRATEGY .......................................................................... 29
5
3.3.1 CASE STUDY RESEARCH STRATEGY ............................................... 30
3.3.2 CASE COMPANY .............................................................................. 31
3.4 DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................ 32
3.4.1 INTERVIEW........................................................................................ 32
3.4.2 THE USE OF SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWING ................... 32
3.4.3 INTERVIEWEES ................................................................................ 33
3.4.4 INTERVIEW DESIGN ........................................................................ 34
3.4.5 INTERVIEW ADMINISTRATION .................................................... 35
3.5 DATA ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 36
3.5 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................ 38
3.6 SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 38
4. RESEARCH FINDINGS .................................................................................... 39
4.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 39
4.2 INTERVIEWEE A ...................................................................................... 39
4.2.1 BUSINESS PROCESS CHANGES AND CHANGE BARRIERS ..... 39
4.2.2 TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE AND CHANGE BARRIERS .......... 40
4.2.3 HUMAN CHANGE AND CHANGE BARRIERS ............................. 41
4.2.4 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................. 41
4.3 INTERVIEWEE B ...................................................................................... 42
4.3.1 BUSINESS PROCESS CHANGES AND CHANGE BARRIERS ..... 42
4.3.2 TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE AND CHANGE BARRIERS .......... 42
4.3.3 HUMAN CHANGES AND CHANGE BARRIERS ........................... 43
4.3.4 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................. 43
4.4 INTERVIEWEE C ...................................................................................... 44
4.4.1 BUSINESS PROCESS CHANGES AND CHANGE BARRIERS ..... 44
4.4.2 TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGES AND CHANGE BARRIERS ........ 44
4.4.3 HUMAN CHANGES AND CHANGE BARRIERS ........................... 44
6
4.4.4 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................. 44
4.5 INTERVIEWEE D ...................................................................................... 45
4.5.1 BUSINESS PROCESS CHANGES AND CHANGE BARRIERS .... 45
4.5.2 TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGES AND CHANGE BARRIERS ........ 45
4.5.3 HUMAN CHANGES AND CHANGE BARRIERS ........................... 45
4.5.4 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................. 46
4.6 INTERVIEWEE E ...................................................................................... 46
4.6.1 BUSINESS PROCESS CHANGES AND CHANGE BARRIERS ..... 46
4.6.2 TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGES AND CHANGE BARRIERS ........ 46
4.6.3 HUMAN CHANGES ANC CHANGE BARRIERS ........................... 47
4.6.4 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................. 47
4.7 INTERVIEWEE F ....................................................................................... 47
4.7.1 BUSINESS PROCESS CHANGES AND CHANGE BARRIERS ..... 47
4.7.2 TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGES AND CHANGE BARRIERS ........ 47
4.7.3 HUMAN CHANGES AND CHANGE BARRIERS ........................... 48
4.7.4 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................. 48
5. DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................... 49
5.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 49
5.2 TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE AND CHANGE BARRIERS .................. 49
5.3 BUSINESS PROCESS CHANGE AND CHANGE BARRIERS .............. 51
5.4 HUMAN CHANGE AND CHANGE BARRIERS .................................... 53
5.5 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................... 55
6. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................ 56
6.1 IMPLICATIONS ......................................................................................... 57
6.2 LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................... 57
6.3 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................ 57
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 58
7
APPENDIX I: A SYNTHESIS OF THE TECHNOLOGICAL, BUSINESS
PROCESS AND HUMAN CHANGES AND CHANGE BARRIERS IDENTIFIED
IN THE STUDY ........................................................................................................ 74
APPENDIX II: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ............................................................. 76
APPENDIX III: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS ....................................................... 78
APPENDIX IV: INTRODUCTORY LETTER ....................................................... 103
APPENDIX V: INFORMATION SHEET .............................................................. 105
APPENDIX VI: PARCIPANT CONSENT FORM ................................................. 110
APPENDIX VII: CONFIRMATION OF ADDRESS ............................................. 113
APPENDIX VIII: FIRST EMPLOYMENT DESTINATION FOR SCHOOL
RECORDS ............................................................................................................... 115
APPENDIX IX: ACCESS TO DISSERTATION ................................................... 116
APPENDIX X: RESEARCH ETHICS PROPOSAL ............................................... 118
8
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Enterprise Resource Planning modules (Career Bright, 2011)……... 13
Figure 2.2: Performance trend for ERP implementation (Willis and Willis,
2002)……………………………………………………………………………..
22
Figure 3.1: A graphic illustration of inductive and deductive research
approaches (Matthews and Ross, 2010: 37) ……………………………………..
27
Figure 3.2: Narrative analysis framework used for the study…………………… 37
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Table showing job roles and departments of interviewees…………... 34
9
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 RESEARCH BACKGROUND
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems, the commercial application packages
which facilitate the integration of transaction-oriented data and business processes
across an organization and its supply chain (Markus and Tanis, 2000), have been
widely adopted by organizations across many industrial sectors in both advanced and
emergent countries (Zhu et al, 2010). The systems provide organisations with
operational, managerial, strategic and IT infrastructural benefits (Shang and Seddon,
2004). For many multinational companies, ERP is considered an indispensable
system which can improve their competitiveness in the increasingly globalized
market place (Sheu et al, 2004, Abdinnour-Helm et al, 2003).
As a result of this growing globalization, Nigeria has attracted many multinational
companies, most of which are large-scale ERP users. With a population of over 150
million, Nigeria (GDP $202.5bn) is considered to be the world’s most populous
black nation and a lower middle income nation (World Bank, 2010; Mursu et al,
2000). As its crude oil production averages 2.2 million barrels per day, and with oil
reserves estimated at 35.3 billion barrels, Nigeria is the tenth most petroleum-rich
nation in the world and the most affluent country in Africa (Wikipedia, 2012). The
country’s projected 5.4% real GDP growth rate and its openness to foreign equity
makes it an attractive market for multinational companies (The Nation, 2012).
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Prior studies have empirically demonstrated that change management can be critical
to ERP success in the post-implementation stage. This is because, in this stage,
organisations engage in several activities to stabilize and continually improve their
systems (Markus and Tanis, 2000). However, organisations also initially experience
a drop in performance resulting from unresolved issues from the implementation
phase or their efforts in reengineering processes and cleaning-up their data for their
new environment (Markus and Tannis, 2000; Ross and Vitale, 2000). As a result,
several changes are implemented in order to return to normal operations and
optimum performance levels.
10
So far, the majority of the existing research in ERP has focused on aspects of the
implementation phase in the context of developed countries. More precisely, some
studies have examined the critical success factors for ERP implementation (Holland
and Light, 1999; Somers and Nelson, 2004), change management (Aldwani, 2001),
maintenance (Ng et al, 2002) and business process re-engineering (Siringidi, 2000).
Also, some prior studies have also attempted to examine the activities carried out in
the post-implementation stage of ERP (Ross and Vitale, 2000; Willis and Willis-
Brown, 2002; Markus and Tanis, 2000). These studies revealed that organisations
implement a number of changes in the post-implementation stage to leverage the
capabilities offered by ERP. However, only few investigations have been carried out
on change management and ERP post-implementation, especially in the context of a
developing country such as Nigeria.
1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
In addressing the existing gap in the literature, this study aims to answer the
following research questions:
- What are the business process, technological, and human changes
implemented in the post-implementation stage of ERP lifecycle in
multinational companies in Nigeria
- What are the barriers that can hinder the implementation of these changes?
1.4 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate the business process, technical and
human changes caused by the post-implementation phase of ERP system lifecycle in
multinational companies. A further aim is to investigate the barriers which affect the
implementation of such changes.
The objectives of this study are:
- To undertake a comprehensive review of the literature on change
management in multinational organisations.
- To undertake a comprehensive review of the literature on the ERP life
cycle, with particular emphasis on the post-implementation stage, and on
ERP-related change issues in this stage.
11
- To undertake a comprehensive review of the literature on ERP post-
implementation in the context of Nigeria.
- To investigate the business process, technological and human changes
caused by the post-implementation phase of the ERP lifecycle in a
multinational company in Nigeria.
- To determine the barriers to the implementation of these changes.
1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
Due to its aims and objectives, this study is significant in three major ways. First, as
a result of the expectations of companies investing in ERP technology to use and
benefit from the system during the post-implementation stage (Rosemann, 2000), the
study of the change management and the post-implementation stage of ERP is thus
an important area of ERP research. It is in this stage that organisations begin to
realize the benefits of the system (Yu, 2005), in terms of improved effectiveness,
better competitive advantage and cost reduction.
Second, as mentioned in section 1.2, it has been established that organisations are
required to implement several inevitable changes in their ERP systems in the post-
implementation stage. Therefore, the understanding of these changes and the barriers
to their implementation can be crucial to ensuring that organisations can maximize
their benefits from ERP.
Third, the study of the ERP in the context of a multinational company operating in
Nigeria is poorly understood. It can thus be important to investigate this area because
of Nigeria’s position as one of the major and most attractive markets for
multinational companies in the region (The Nation, 2012), most of which are ERP
users.
1.6 ORGANISATION OF STUDY
In order to achieve the research aims and objectives, this dissertation is structured
into six chapters.
In chapter two, the literature on change and change management, and ERP post-
implementation are thoroughly reviewed. In this chapter, the most relevant studies in
the fields of ERP life cycle, ERP post-implementation and changes in ERP post-
implementation are presented and critically analysed.
12
In chapter three, the research methodology used in the study is discussed. In the
research approach, the research methodology, the data collection tools and
techniques chosen for the study and the case organization are presented, discussed
and critically analysed.
In chapter four, the results of the data collection and the significant findings of the
study are clearly presented. The relationship between the solutions obtained and the
research questions are also demonstrated in this chapter.
In chapter five, the findings of the data collection are critically discussed, in view of
the current and emerging findings, theories and issues in the literature. The
relationship between the research findings and the research aims are established here.
In addition, this chapter demonstrates how the study corroborates, contradicts and
reconceptualises the present issues in the field.
In chapter six, a summary of the aims, objectives, the main chapters and the most
significant findings of the dissertation are discussed. The limitations of the study are
noted and recommendations for further research are present.
13
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The literature review forms a critical component of a research endeavour as it
presents a historical perspective of similar investigations conducted in the past
(McMillan and Schumacher, 2001). In accordance with the research objectives
mentioned in the introduction chapter, this chapter aims to thoroughly review the
most relevant literature on change management and ERP post-implementation in
order to present the current state of knowledge of the subject domain. The literature
review places particular emphasis on the research on ERP systems post-
implementation and ERP post-implementation-related changes since these aspects
form the core of the present research. Its importance lies in establishing a
comprehensive understanding of the changes encountered in post-implementation
phase of the ERP life cycle, in the context of a Nigerian multinational organisation.
Additionally, the outcomes of the literature review inform the research methodology
adopted for the study.
The literature review chapter is organized as follows. First, the studies of the concept
of ERP systems and historical background are explored. The various existing
research on ERP life cycle and ERP post-implementation are also presented and
critically examined in this chapter. Thereafter, the literature on ERP-related change
management, post-implementation issues and the influence of the Nigerian context
on ERP post-implementation is comprehensively reviewed.
2.2 THE CONCEPT OF ERP SYSTEMS
In the current literature, most academic and industry-based scholars tend to offer a
range of views which attempt to explain the concept of ERP. According to Shanks et
al (2000), ERP systems are integrated software solutions that provide automated
support for many business processes within organisations. ERP systems have been
considered to be highly unified complex business systems which are crucial to
successful information management within an organisation (Koch, 1996), and central
to effective (Wier et al., 2007) and long-term business strategies (Nash, 2000). The
functional areas supported by ERP systems may include procurement, production,
manufacturing service, supply chain, materials management, financial accounting,
sales and distribution and human resources (Rosemann, 2000; Holland and Light,
14
1999; Gartner, 2012). ERP systems have also been referred to as enterprise systems,
enterprise-wise systems, integrated vendor software, integrated standard software
package, and enterprise application systems in various studies and texts (Rosemann,
2000).
Some of the typical modules which are featured in ERP packages are graphically
illustrated in Figure 1. The figure highlights the typical modules featured in ERP
systems such as customer relationship management systems, financial management
systems, supply chain management systems, human resource management, and
manufacturing resource planning. Each of these modules can be dropped or extended
according to the business needs of the adopting organisation.
-
Figure 2.1: Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) modules (Career Bright, 2011)
Although organisations have been motivated to adopt ERP for various reasons, some
common motivating factors strongly resonate among these organisations. In one
study of fifteen ERP adopting organisations, Ross and Vitale (2000) concluded that
the most common reasons for ERP implementation were the need for a common
platform, process improvement, data visibility, cost reduction, increased customer
15
responsiveness, and improved strategic decision making. More recent studies concur
that organisations have been motivated to adopt ERP systems in order to consolidate
multiple systems and enable application cross-functionality (Markus and Tanis,
2000), integrate business processes (Stapleton and Rezak, 2004), support strategic
initiatives and improve competiveness (Sand et al, 2001), increase responsiveness to
customer demands (Ross and Vitale, 2000), and to generate and access business
information in real-time (Willis and Willis-Brown, 2002).
Notwithstanding the extensive nature of the ERP subject area, many researchers have
attempted to investigate the different aspects of ERP, mostly in the context of multi-
national companies in developed countries. So far, much of the literature has tended
to focus on critical success factors (CSF) for ERP systems implementation (e.g.
Holland and Light, 1999; Gargay and Brady, 2005; Umble and Umble, 2001;
Thermoistocleous et al, 2001; Somers and Nelson, 2001; Nah et al. 2001). Other
publications have investigated the maintenance (Ng et al, 2002), pre-implementation
(Abdinnour-Helm et al, 2003), change management (Aldwani, 2001), business
process reengineering (Siringidi, 2000; Chang, 2004), maximization of benefits and
ongoing improvement of active systems (Yu, 2005; Seddon et al., 2010).
2.3 ERP HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The understanding of the history and evolution of ERP can be critical to the
appreciation of the importance of such systems (Abdinnour-Helm et al, 2003). ERP
systems originally evolved from the need for many organizations to manage their
inventory, the primary focus of manufacturing firms in the 1960s (Umble et al,
2002). In the 1970s, a vision of an enterprise integrated information systems (or
‘one-company, one-system’) remained unrealized due to the tendency for many
organizations to adopt functional management approaches, and the limited capacities
of computers and programming languages of that era (Markus and Tannis, 2000). In
addition, business applications were usually function-specific, loosely integrated,
largely error-prone, and therefore negatively impacted corporate restructuring efforts
during this era (Markus and Tannis, 2000).
In this period, material requirements planning (MRP) systems were then developed
and implemented in manufacturing firms in order to efficiently manage the materials
associated with the production process (Umble et al, 2010), and to plan and control
16
production schedules (Abdinnour-Helm et al, 2003). Subsequently, the
functionalities of the original MRP systems were extended to include tools for
capacity planning, sales and operations planning, production scheduling, and demand
management (Umble et al, 2002). Despite the capabilities of these systems, many
companies encountered difficulties in the implementation of MRPs and the systems,
therefore, failed to realize expected benefits (Abdinnour-Helm et al, 2003).
In response to the deficiencies of the MRP systems, software entrepreneurs began
developing integrated software systems in which multiple functional application
modules shared a single database throughout the 1980s and 1990s (Markus and
Tannis, 2000; Abdinnour-Helm et al, 2003). These systems, initially referred to as
Manufacturing Resource Planning (MRP II), added financial accounting and
management systems to the existing manufacturing and material management
systems (Umble et al, 2002), and allowed organisations to effectively price their
products, generate financial statements, and manage their human, material and
financial resources (Markus et al, 2000).
Thereafter, the MRP II systems where expanded to integrate other areas such as
product design, information warehousing, materials planning, capacity planning,
communication systems, human resources, finance, and project management (Umble
et al, 2010). These integrated software systems would later be termed enterprise
resource planning systems (ERP) systems (Markus and Tannis, 2000), by the Gartner
Group in 1990 (Yu, 2005). In 1987, Siemens became the first company to implement
an enterprise-wide ERP system (ibid).
2.4 ERP LIFE CYCLE
Due the relative lack of study of the management of ERP systems, the conception of
the pre-implementation, implementation and post-implementation stages of the ERP
systems lifecycle remains varied among researchers (Rosemann, 2000). Rosemann
(2000) points out that although various models have been constructed for traditional
systems development (e.g. waterfall model, spiral model), corresponding ERP life
cycle models remains lacking. In this respect, Yu (2005) and Ifinedo et al. (2010)
argue that the lack of a generally accepted ERP life cycle model is attributable to the
tendency for ERP implementations to differ significantly from traditional IS
implementation. Unlike traditional IS, ERP implementations result in business
17
process engineering and is often a complex activity (Ifinedo et al, 2010), since it
takes technological, operational, managerial, strategic and organizational dimensions
into consideration (Al Mashari et al, 2003). It can thus be inferred that the need for
the consideration of these dimensions explains the absence of a generally accepted
ERP life cycle model.
Nevertheless, several academic and industry-based studies have attempted to
identify, distinguish and examine the individual phases that constitute the ERP
lifecycle, and the activities which define these phases. Of particular relevance to this
study are the works of Ross and Vitale (2000), SAP (2000), Willis and Willis-Brown
(2002), and Markus and Tanis (2000).
- Based on fifteen ERP implementation case studies of large organisations,
Ross and Vitale (2000) developed a five-phase implementation process
model comprising design, implementation, stabilization, continuous
improvements and stabilization. Ross and Vitale further notes that
different cycles may be required in extensive ERP systems
implementations for the individual modules within the system (ibid). In
my view, the industry-based methodology adopted by Ross and Vitale in
their study justifies the validity of the model.
- SAP (2001) developed a four-stage ERP lifecycle framework for its ERP
solutions, comprising discovery and evaluation, implementation, and
operations and continuous improvements. However, it can be argued that
the framework is largely vendor-specific and may not be valid for ERP
solutions developed by competitor vendors.
- According to Willis and Willis-Brown (2002), the ERP ‘transformation
journey’ involves a ‘first wave’ (pre-implementation and implementation)
and a ‘second wave’ (post-implementation). In this model, the first wave
is primarily aimed at ‘going live’ and involves securing the required ERP
tools and systems implementation, while the second wave consists of the
maintenance, monitoring and control activities. The main weakness of
18
Willis and Willis-Brown’s (2002) conception of the ERP life cycle is that
it is largely theoretical and is not based on any empirical studies.
- Markus and Tanis (2000) identified four phases of an ERP ‘experiential’
lifecycle, comprising chartering, project, shakedown and ‘onward and
upward’ phases’. The model developed by Markus and Tanis can be
considered valid because it has been widely acknowledged by
contemporary ERP researchers and has formed the basis of numerous
ERP life cycle-related research (Chang, 2004).
- Other authors have developed conceptions of the phases of the ERP
lifecycle by synthesizing some of the models constructed by past
researchers. Rosemann (2000), for example, consolidated the ERP
lifecycles developed by Ross and Vitale (2000), ValueSAP (SAP, 2001),
Shanks et al (2000) and Gable et al (1998) into a four-phase model:
business engineering, system selection, system implementation, and
system use and change. Similarly, Shanks et al (2000) synthesized the
ERP lifecycle phases developed by Ross and Vitale (2000) and Markus
and Tanis (2000) into four phases: planning, implementation,
stabilization and improvement.
2.5 ERP POST-IMPLEMENTATION
It is generally acknowledged that the success of the post-implementation phase of the
ERP life cycle can be critical to the success of the entire ERP initiative (Nicolau,
2004; Yu, 2005; Ross and Vitale, 2000; Zhu et al, 2009). This position is valid
because it is in the post-implementation phase that the ERP contributes to the overall
performance of the adopting organisation (Shanks et al, 2000), in terms of user
information satisfaction, return on investments and organizational cost savings
(Saarinen, 1996). In this stage, success tends to be more related to the benefits
organizations derive from the ERP system (ibid). It is thus argued here that it would
be more valid to consider ERP post-implementation as an on-going process which
should be viewed as important as ERP implementation. With regards to this point,
many researchers such as Caldwell and Stein (1998), Wagner et al (2011), Chang
19
(2004) and Willis and Willis-Brown (2002) make a valid point in that they have
cautioned against the tendency to erroneously view ERP implementation or ‘going
live’ as the end of the ERP project, rather than a milestone.
Consequently,a large and growing body of literature has investigated the activities
which define the post-implementation phase of ERP. According to Willis and Willis-
Brown (2002), the ERP post-implementation phase consists of the activities which
enable the organisation to fully realise the capabilities and benefits of the ERP
system. In the literature, the most relevant perspectives tend to highlight ERP post-
implementation activities such as stabilization and continuous improvement (Shanks
et al, 2000; SAP, 2001), post implementation benefit assessment (Markus and Tanis,
2000), ‘housekeeping’, continual management and support for the system (Chang,
2004), addition of functionality and process reengineering (Ross and Vitale, 2000),
and extension and integration (Willis and Willis-Brown, 2002).
In another major study, Deloitte (Caldwell and Stein, 1998) categorized the ‘post-
ERP’ activities into three stages. According to their report, the first stage involves
ERP fine-tuning, establishment of new business processes, and taking ownership of
new information streams. The second stage involves user training, structural
adjustments, process integration and ERP extension. In the third stage, the people,
processes, and technology are synergized to generate a transformation. In my
opinion, these observations are particularly useful as they holistically provide the
best explanation of the on-going, progressive and dynamic nature of ERP post-
implementation.
In the past decade, the different aspects of the ERP post-implementation phase have
been much examined from various theoretical perspectives. Researchers have
investigated the causes influencing the effectiveness (Yu, 2005), financial impacts
(Poston and Grabski, 2001), quality of post-implementation review (Nicolau, 2004),
socio-metrics (impact of post-implementation review (Nicolaou and Bhattacharya,
2006), management and support (Chang, 2004), success factors (Nicolau, 2004; Zhu
et al, 2010; Federici, 2009) and the relationships among these success factors
(Ifindedo et al, 2010). Other researchers have investigated the factors influencing
ERP outcomes post-introduction (Federici, 2009), maintenance (Ng, et al, 2002),
20
post-implementation changes (Nicolau and Bhattacharya, 2006), and the extension of
the value of ERP systems (Willis and Willis-Brown, 2002).
However, none of these studies, except for Nicolau and Bhattacharya (2006) and
Federici (2009), attempted to examine the change-related issues in the post
implementation stage of the ERP life cycle. In their study, Nicolau and Bhattacharya
(2006) concluded that subsequent changes in ERP systems tend to address or present
implementation-related issues which affect the subsequent usage and the success
from the usage of such systems in the post-implementation stage (ibid). On the other
hand, Federici’s (2009) findings provides convincing evidence to suggest that the
extent of organisational change or degree of company transformation, in terms of
local modifications, process integration and business process re-engineering, during
ERP post-implementation are capable of influencing the benefits of ERP systems.
Despite the validity of these findings, much of Federici’s conclusions emerged from
a study of small and medium scale enterprises and may not apply to their
multinational counterparts. Thus, it this area of change in ERP post-implementation
that the present study aims to explore further. Further discussions about the changes
which occur in this stage are given in sections 2.10.
2.6 CHANGE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT
Prior to a discussion of ERP-related change issues, it is necessary to thoroughly
examine the current understanding of the concepts of change and change
management, especially in the context of this study. Change has been defined as ‘an
empirical observation of difference in form, quality, or state overtime in an
organisational entity’ (Ven and Poole, 1995:512) It is considered to be a perpetual,
dynamic and contested process which tends to occur in an unpredictable manner
(Burnes, 2004). It is widely agreed that change, whether human, cultural, structural,
procedural or IT infrastructural, can enable organisations to become more adaptable
and help underpin their long-term survival (Hayes, 2002; Worren et al. 1999).
A number of similar definitions for the concept of change management have
emerged from a range of influential researchers. Moran and Brightman (2000: 111)
defined change management as ‘the process of continually renewing an
21
organization’s direction, structure, and capabilities to serve the ever-changing needs
of external and internal customers’ while Kotter (2011) considered change
management to be the exercise of basic structures and tools to execute organizational
changes. In combination with technological innovation, appropriate change
management can sustain the competitiveness of organisations during periods of rapid
change and heightened competition (McAdam and Galloway, 2005). Also, effective
change management often necessitates the integration and alignment between
strategic, social and technical dimensions (Warren et al, 1999).
A survey of the literature indicates the main theoretical developments in the area of
change and change management. Specifically, Ven and Poole (1995), Burnes (2004)
and Lewin (1952) provide a number of theoretical frameworks which can help
explain the conceptions of change and change management in organisations. The
first systematic study of organisational change management was reported by Lewin
(1952) and it proposed field theory, group dynamics, action research and a three step
model as explanations for the concept of change management. In subsequent studies,
Ven and Pool (1995) proposed the life-cycle, teleological, dialectical and
evolutionary perspectives of change while Burnes (2004) summarized the main
theoretical schools of thought on change management as individualist perspective,
group dynamics school, and open system school. One question that needs to be
asked, however, is whether either of these highly academic theories can be of
practical value in the management of changes in today’s complex, hierarchical and
politically-charged multinational organisations.
In the field of information systems, the subject of change management has been
extensively studied from different perspectives, including technological (Orlikowski
and Hofman, 1997; Kramer and Magee, 1990; Aldwani, 2001; Tidd et al, 2005),
place identity (Rooney et al, 2010), change drivers (Whelan-Berry and Sommerville,
2010), strategic management (Dunphy and Stace, 1993), business process (Kettinger
and Grover, 1995), power and politics (Buchanan and Badham, 2003), management
communication (Klein, 1996) and resistance (Waddell and Sohal, 1998). As noted in
section 2.5, few studies have concentrated on change-related issues in ERP post-
implementation and the present study is focused in this area.
22
2.7 CHANGES TRIGGERED BY ERP POST-IMPLEMENTATION
During ERP post-implementation, organizations are required to implement inevitable
changes of various types, scales and scopes in order take full advantage of the
capabilities offered by ERP (Aladwani, 2001). There is convincing evidence to
demonstrate that at the start of the post-implementation stage of the ERP lifecycle,
organisations tend to experience less-than-optimal performances, and certain
organisational changes are required to return to normalcy (Markus and Tanis, 2000;
Willis and Willis-Brown, 2002; Ross and Vitale, 2000). This performance trend is
graphically illustrated in Figure 2. According to the figure, it can be seen that the
system performance is relatively stable until the period between ERP implementation
and go-live, during which performance levels drop significangly. Thereafter, critical
changes are implemented which increases the organisation’s performance levels.
This period of performance improvement is characterized by key activities including
ERP stabilization, functionality addition, re-engineering, addition and integration.
Findings from past ERP literature indicate that ERP post-implementation triggered
organisational changes are necessitated by a number of factors. First is the lack of
compatibility of the existing organizational structures and processes with the
solution offered by the ERP system (Umble et al, 2003). Second, organisational
change may be necessary to resolve ERP ‘misfit’ – ‘the discrepancy between what
the ERP package offers and the requirement of the organization’ – issues (Soh et al,
2000). In other words, such changes ensure that the ERP solution adequately meets
the requirements of the organisation. Third, prior studies such as Tidd et al. (2006)
have established that the implementation of new technologies, such as ERP, are
likely to be even more successful when supported by corresponding changes in
organisational policies, structure and culture. Unfortunately, most managers consider
ERP as primarily a software system and the adoption process of ERP as purely a
technological change, thereby overlooking other critical organisational change
aspects (Umble et al, 2003). As a result, these managers tend to overly emphasize
technical and structural solutions over cultural issues when managing change
(Warren et al, 1999).
Furthermore, the different dimensions of these changes experienced during ERP
post-implementation have been identified in various publications. Of particular
23
relevance to this study are the works of Ross and Vitale (2000), Willis and Willis-
Brown (2002), Markus and Tannis (2000), which concluded that organizations tend
to experience changes in terms of business process, technological, human and
cultural changes during ERP post-implementation. Ross and Vitale (2000)
empirically demonstrated that organisations may integrate bolt-ons or add new
modules to their existing system, reengineer business processes and add new ERP
related roles to the organisational structure. Willis and Willis-Brown (2002)
summarized how organisations tend to extend the functionalities of their ERP and
integrate industry-specific modules. More significantly, Umble et al (2003) indicated
these changes are likely to impact organizational structures, policies, processes, and
employees.
Figure 2.2: Performance trend for ERP implementation (Willis and Willis-Brown,
2002).
The issue of the need for changes in terms of business process reengineering – the
alignment of business processes with an ERP model –during ERP post-
implementation has been a dominant theme among ERP-related change management
literature (Al-Mashari et al, 2003; Siringidi, 2000; Chang, 2004; Venkatraman, 1994;
Gargay and Brady, 2005; Wagner et al, 2001; Orlikiowski and Hofman, 1996;
Somers and Nelson, 2004). The issue is an important one because additions or
modifications to existing systems tend to occur during post-implementation and
organisations are often required to unify their ‘legacy’ business processes with the
system on a continuous basis. With regards to this, Wagner et al (2001) argues that
24
technology cannot independently advance business process change, especially when
its best practise design and the legacy practise logic of the organisation are
misaligned. Similarly, Orlikowski and Hofman (1996) maintain that such
technologies tend to redefine and integrate tasks previously performed
independently, and the intricacies of the interconnectedness among these tasks are
manifested as the changes are implemented. However, Somers and Nelson (2004)
point out that business process reengineering is more relevant in the post-
implementation stage than in the implementation stage.
Moreover, past research overwhelmingly concur that change management (i.e. the
management of the above changes) is critical to ERP success (Umble and Umble,
2001Holland et al, 1999; Nat et al, 2001; Stratman and Roth, 2002; Gargey and
Brady, 2005; Somers and Nelson, 2001). This is because change management is
considered to be an important and ongoing process throughout the ERP life cycle
(Nat et al, 2001), especially ERP post-implementation.
Effective change management strategies can thus help users to learn, use and accept
ERP (Seddon et al, 2010), and enable organisations to derive maximum benefits
from their system (Umble et al, 2003). However, evidence from recent ERP-related
change management publications indicates that effecting ERP-related organisational
changes can be a difficult undertaking (Aladwani, 2001; Markus and Tannis, 2000;
Lapointe and Rivard, 2005; Ko et al, 2005).
2.8 CHANGE BARRIERS IN ERP POST-IMPLEMENTATION
As earlier noted, organisations are required to effect certain changes of various
dimensions to fully realise the benefits of ERP in the post implementation stage.
Although very few studies have identified the barriers to the implementation of these
changes, evidence from the literature suggests certain factors which are likely to be
change barriers.
Markus and Tanis (2000) discussed factors such as the unwillingness to implement
technology upgrades, turnover of IT staff, absence of organisational learning about
enterprise systems, maintenance of former work processes and poor ease of use as
the key issues often encounter after ERP is implemented. These factors are likely to
be experienced in the onward and upward, and the shakedown phases of the ERP
lifecycle and thus hinder the implementation of changes in this phase. In another
25
study, Zhu et al (2010) noted that users are likely to resist the changes introduced by
ERP, and stressed the need for management commitment in the management of
ERP-post implementation changes.
Lastly, findings from a study conducted by Yu (2005) indicate that CEO
commitment, professional management knowledge of MIS leaders, and top-and-
middle management commitment and involvement can influence the effectiveness of
ERP post-implementation. It is thus valid to infer that these factors can be barriers to
the implementation of change initiatives introduced during ERP post-
implementation.
2.9 ERP IN THE CONTEXT OF NIGERIA
Although studies of ERP systems post-implementation in multinational companies in
Nigeria remains lacking, there is evidence to suggest that ERP systems have been
implemented extensively in Nigeria (Fipp, 2009) and that the country remains a
target market for ERP vendors (Microsoft, 2012). At present, the majority ERP
systems are originally developed under European or U.S industrial contexts (Soh et
al, 2000). It is argued here that the post-implementation phase of ERP systems in
Nigeria – a typical developing country by contrast – is likely to be impacted by this
difference in cultural context. The following studies can be considered the most
useful and pertinent to the investigation of the impact of these cultural issues on
change initiatives during ERP post-implementation in Nigeria.
In a highly influential study, Hofstede (1980) concluded that the culture of countries
in Sub-Saharan African differs from that of Western countries in terms of power
distance and individualization/collectivism. Unlike Western countries, the Nigerian
society is characterized by high power distance and collectivism. These peculiar
characteristics present two distinct implications for managing changes in ERP post-
implementation in Nigerian companies. First, the tendency for employees in
Nigerian companies to be largely submissive to their superiors and the managers to
adopt a paternalistic or autocratic change management style (Hofstede, 1980).
Second, ‘the likelihood for these employees to have a sense of collective, rather than
individual, identity’ (ibid). Hofstede’s conclusions find support from Bochner and
Hesketh (1994), and form the framework for further investigations of organisational
culture (Hui and Villareal, 1989; Leung and Iwawaki, 1988; Schwartz, 1990;
26
Schwartz and Bilsky, 1990). However, the specific impacts of these factors on the
implementation of changes in ERP post-implementation in Nigeria has not been
empirically demonstrated and thus requires further investigation.
Furthermore, one important study has attempted to investigate the factors which can
impact information systems in the Nigerian business context. In their study of
technology acceptance in the Nigerian banking industry, Anandarajan et al (2000)
concluded that perceived ease of use and social pressure can impact system usage in
the country. These conclusions suggest that in Nigeria, the changes introduced by
ERP post-implementation are likely to be smoothly implemented if the users
perceive the system to be easily usable and are placed under considerable pressure
from their managers and co-workers.
2.10 SUMMARY
In summary, the literature review demonstrated that ERP systems are considered
important integrated systems for many multinational companies, necessary for the
support and improvement of the business activities of these companies. In the ERP
post-implementation stage of the life cycle, critical changes are implemented to
enable the adopting organisation return to optimal performance levels and maximize
their benefits from the system. However, evidence from prior studies indicate that
implementing these changes can be a challenging activity due to certain barriers,
given the inherent dynamics and complexities of multinational companies operating
in Nigeria.
In conclusion, it can be noted that each of the previous studies presented in this
chapter has researched only aspects of both ERP post implementation and change
management. First, none of the studies has examined ERP systems in the context of
a developing country such as Nigeria. Second, no studies can be found that examined
changes in the post implementation stage of the ERP lifecycle. The lack of extensive
investigations of these areas prompted the present study.
27
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Following the review of the literature, the research methodology chapter seeks to
present, discuss and justify the research approach, research strategy and the data
collection and analysis techniques adopted for the study. It is pertinent to note that
the research methodology and methods chosen for the study are important because
they influenced the choice of data collection and data analysis techniques used.
The chapter is structured as follows. First, the research approach and research
strategy used are first presented, discussed and justified. The use of case study as the
research strategy and the background of the case company are then discussed.
Thereafter, data collection techniques are presented. In this section, the use of
interviews, interview design, interview administration and interviewees used in the
study are discussed. Finally, the data analysis technique is then presented and
examined.
3.2 RESEARCH APPROACH
The research approach aimed to establish a relationship between theory and the
empirical data collected in the course of the research, as shown in Figure 3.1. The
data may initiate, refute or organize theory, and foster an understanding or
explanation of the observations of the researcher (May, 1997), while the theory may
influence the choice of research methodology and nature of data to be collected in
the course of the research (Matthews and Ross 2010). In social science research, the
research approach taken is either deductive or inductive.
28
THEORY
Deductive Inductive
DATA
Figure 3.1 A graphic illustration of inductive and deductive research approaches
(Matthews and Ross, 2010: 37)
The deductive approach seeks to generate empirical evidence in order to test or
refute existing theory or hypothesis (Matthews and Ross, 2010; May, 1997). As
indicated in Figure 3.1, theorizing precedes research in deductivism. However, the
deductive approach was abandoned for the study because of the nature of the
problem being investigated. As concluded from the literature review chapter, the
problem of change management in ERP post-implementation has not been
extensively studied in the past and, as a result, it lacks any widely agreed theories or
hypothesis to justify the use of a deductive approach. Moreover, the scope of the
research may be constrained by adopting any restrictive theoretical propositions
imposed by deductivism, which fail to capture the views and experience of the
participants in the study (Bryman, 1988).
The inductive approach, on the other hand, begins with a research question which is
addressed through the collection of data and corresponding explanations, or tentative
theories from the data (Matthews and Ross, 2010). According to Crotty (1998: 31),
the inductive approach is a process by which ‘particular instances of a phenomenon
are accumulated in order to establish a general law’. As indicated in Figure 3.1, the
research functions as a precursor to generation of theory in an inductive approach.
It was decided that the best research approach to adopt for this investigation was the
inductive approach because the research question requires the investigation of the
phenomenon of change through the analysis of empirical data. Also, since this area is
relatively unexplored and lacks a theoretical model, the deductive approach may
likely fail to address the research question. In this regard, as suggested by Saunders
et al (2003), the researcher developed prior understanding of the existing theories in
29
the research area in order to guide the inductive data collection and analysis
approaches used in the study. However, the weakness of this approach was the
tendency for the biases of the researcher to influence data collection and analysis, as
well as the generalizability of the findings.
3.3 RESEARCH STRATEGY
The choice of the research strategy was primarily influenced by ‘both the nature of
research question and the data to be collected and analysed in order to address the
research question’ (Matthews and Ross, 2010: 113). In social sciences, the
qualitative strategy and quantitative strategy are the main research strategies. Each
has its advantages and drawbacks.
Quantitative research refers to the methodology which ‘is associated with the use of
surveys to generate quantifiable data on large numbers of people who are known to
be representative of a wider population in order to test theories or hypotheses’
(Bryman, 1988:11). In quantitative research, data collection is through social survey
instruments, which are analysed to determine the presence or absence of the causal
linkages posited by the hypothesis. The resulting findings are then reabsorbed into
the initial theory (ibid).
However, quantitative research is disadvantageous for the study due to its
inappropriateness for the in-depth study of the phenomena of change, the people who
experience these changes and the context in which these changes are encountered.
This is because quantitative strategies are focused on the collection of numeric data
and producing findings by performing mathematical procedures on the data (Strauss
and Corbin, 1998), without considering the thoughts, perspectives or opinions of the
individuals that produced the data.
Qualitative research, on the other hand, is ‘is the study of the social world through
the description and analysis of the culture and behaviour of humans and their groups
from the perspectives of those being studied’ (Bryman, 1988:46). It is relevant for
the investigation of various aspects of social realities such as the lives, lived
expectations, behaviours, and feelings of individuals, as well as the functioning of
organisations (Strauss and Corbin, 1998), especially ‘within the political, social and
30
cultural context of the researchers, participants and reader of the study’ (Creswell,
2007).
The qualitative research strategy was chosen for the study because of the following
reasons. First, the study required an investigation of the opinions, beliefs,
perceptions and points of view of the individuals under study, rather than the
objective mathematical or statistical analysis of the data. Second, the research
question regarding change and change barrier was relatively complex and required a
detailed understanding of the issues and the environment in which the participants of
the study address these issues (Creswell, 2007).
Despite its suitability for the study, the researcher was aware of the drawbacks of
qualitative strategy. First, as with the inductive approach, the capability of the
researcher to objectively interpret the points of view of the participants of the study
could not be guaranteed (Bryman, 1988). This is because of the increased probability
of the presence of biases from both the participants and the researcher. Second, and
probably the most serious problem, is the limits to which findings of the research can
be generalized (ibid). The issue of generalizability of the study is discussed and
addressed further in Section 3.3.1.
3.3.1 CASE STUDY RESEARCH STRATEGY
The qualitative strategy adopted for the study is the case study, which has been
widely viewed as a common qualitative strategy (Eisenhardt, 1989). Case study
research entails the detailed study of one or more cases using an appropriate set of
methods, with the aim of developing a full understanding of the case or cases
(Punch, 1998: 50), especially if these ‘case or cases exhibits the features which the
research is focused on’ (Silverman, 2005: 129).
The decision to adopt the case study strategy for the study was prompted by the
ability of the strategy to enable the in-depth understanding of the phenomenon of
change and change barriers in the context of one multinational organization.
Secondly, literature on change management in ERP post-implementation is currently
lacking and theory building from case study research does not rely on previous
literature (Eisenhardt, 1989).
31
However, the weakness of the case study strategy is the extent to which the findings
from a single case can be generalized. In order to ensure the generalizability of the
findings of the study, the researcher adhered to two propositions suggested by
Silverman (1995). First, the case was purposively sampled in that the case was
chosen because it embodies all of the features of interest to the study. Second, the
case was theoretically sampled such that the participants selected for the study were
those who could provide the data which can aid a detailed understanding of the area
being studied. These measures taken by the researcher guaranteed that the
participants reflected the wider group to which the researcher aimed to generalize
(Williams, 2002).
3.3.2 CASE COMPANY
The case study organisation was TOTAL Exploration and Production Nigeria Ltd, a
leading multinational oil and gas company which operates in Nigeria. It is a
subsidiary of TOTAL, the world’s fourth largest oil and gas group with about 94,
000 employees in 130 countries, and annual sales of over €153.8 billion (TOTAL,
2012). Established in Nigeria in 1962, TOTAL currently employs about 1,400 staff
and is the country’s fourth largest oil and gas producer (ibid). Its businesses include
crude oil and natural gas exploration and production, petroleum product marketing
and chemicals manufacturing.
In 2004, an organisation-wide SAP ERP system was implemented for Finance and
Control, Plant Maintenance, Materials Management and Supply Chain Management
in a 3-year project, by a team of internal IT staff and external consultants. The
system was implemented to improve the efficiency and transparency of business
processes, to enhance customer service and comply with industry regulations1 and
policies.
The decision to embark on the study of the chosen company was prompted by the
following reasons: first, the company is presently in the post-implementation stage
of the ERP lifecycle, having used the system for 8 years. Second, the organisation
has experienced several business process, technological and human changes during
this period. In the post-implementation stage, several new business realities emerged
1 This industry regulation is the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 which is a US federal law that sets rules
for the accounting practices of US public companies. This regulation imposes segregation of duties
and delegation of authority principles.
32
which prompted corresponding changes in many existing business processes and the
ERP technology itself. In addition, several human changes were implemented across
the organisation. More significant for the study is the fact that these important
changes were not entirely problem-free as several barriers hindered their
implementation.
3.4 DATA COLLECTION
3.4.1 INTERVIEW
In this study, qualitative interview instruments were designed and used for the
collection of the primary data for analysis. Interviews were used because they are
best suited for the provision of indepth insight into the experiences, opinions,
aspirations, attitudes and feelings of individuals (May, 1997:109). As mentioned in
section 3.2, these are the kinds of data sought after in this study. For this reason, the
use of alternative data collection instruments such as questionnaires and surveys
were abandoned since the mathematical and statistical analyses of the data are not
required for the investigation of the research problem. Moreover, there is usually the
Not only is there a lack of opportunity to seek clarification with these instruments,
questionnaires and surveys also could not allow spontaneous responses (Kumar,
2011).
3.4.2 THE USE OF SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWING
This study adopted the use of semi-structured interviewing because it enabled the
researcher to effectively gather qualitative data from the interviewees in response to
a set of thematically guided questions, while creating allowance for elaboration and
clarification of their responses (May, 1997). As a result, the researcher was able to
follow up responses by asking open questions to encourage the interviewees to
expand on their narratives (Hopf, 2002). It also provided a more effective framework
for comparability, as compared with that of the unstructured interview (May, 1997).
The use of other interview designs namely structured, unstructured and group
interview were abandoned for several reasons. Structured interviews generally fail to
consider the perspectives of interviewees, while unstructured interviews neither
allow interviewees to respond according to the framework of the research topics nor
33
provide the researcher with control of the interview. Since the researcher was
interested in individual perspectives, group interviews were also not used.
3.4.3 INTERVIEWEES
As earlier mentioned in Section 3.2, the population used in the study was sampled
through purposive sampling and theoretical sampling in order to guarantee the
generalizability of the research findings. The interviewees were chosen based on
their experience and usage of the ERP system in the post-implementation stage in the
organisation. The researcher also ensured that these participants emerged from
various ranks in the organisation. In adopting this approach, this study seeks to meet
Motwani et al’s (2001) concern that researchers should obtain research samples from
various ranks within the case organisation in order to minimize bias and improve the
validity of the research outcomes.
In the recruitment of interviewees, a number of practical issues limited the number of
employees that participated in the study. First, the researcher’s contact in the
organisation was based in, and had access to, only one of the organisation’s three
country offices. Second, ERP had been implemented in specific departments and
potential participants for the interview had to be sourced from these departments.
Third, the contact was able to contact employees with whom he had already
established cordial personal or professional relationships. Fourth, these employees
were very busy people with little time to attend to non-work related matters.
In view of these practical considerations, 6 participants agreed to grant interviews for
the project, out of 25 that were initially contacted. The details of their job roles and
departments are given in Table 3.1 below. In order to ensure the anonymity of the
interviewees, their names have been substituted with alphabetical letters A to F. All
of these participants were current and experienced ERP users during ERP post-
implementation. An added advantage for the researcher was the fact that each of the
participants had been employed by the organisation for a minimum of 10 years.
These participants were therefore judged to have the right set knowledge, experience
and background of both the dynamics of change in the organization and ERP post-
implementation itself, to provide the relevant, authoritative and reliable data for the
research.
34
Interviewee Job Role Department
Interviewee A Manager Joint Venture Accounting
Interviewee B Head Finance Methods and
Systems
Interviewee C Manager Contracts and Procurements
Interviewee D Manager Stock Contracts and
Procurements
Interviewee E Process Officer Financial Control
Interviewee F Head Enterprises Administration
Table 3.1 : Table showing the job roles and departments of the interviewees
3.4.4 INTERVIEW DESIGN
As suggested by Turner (2010), the interview questions were constructed to enable
the researcher to obtain an in-depth insight into the experiences and knowledge of
the interviewees in order to maximize the data gained from them, bearing in mind
the research aims and objectives. The interview questions were structured into the
following two parts.
The first part enabled the researcher to use closed questions to collect factual data
about the participant’s job title, department and SAP modules used. In the second
part, the researcher used open questions to collect the data on the change and change
barriers in ERP post-implementation in the organisation. With guidance from
previous literature by Ross and Vitale (2000), Willis and Willis-Brown (2002) and
Markus and Tannis (2000) four core semi-structured interview questions were
developed to probe the business, human and technological changes which had
occurred in the departments of each of these participants, and the barriers to the
implementation of these changes during ERP post-implementation. More precisely,
the first two questions where designed to explore the technological changes and
change barriers which have occurred in the organisation during ERP post-
implementation. The third question probed the business process changes and change
barriers while the fourth focused on the human changes and change barriers.
A number of possible follow-up questions were also developed for each of the
leading questions, in order to further probe the responses of the interviewees and
seek clarification when necessary. However, it should be noted that both the main
35
interview and follow-up questions were not followed in a rigid manner. This was
because the interviewer took a flexible approach by the asking the most appropriate
question based on the responses and the thought flow of interviewees as well as the
general direction of the interview. Details of the interview questions can be found in
Appendix II.
3.4.5 INTERVIEW ADMINISTRATION
The interviews were administered by first sending the six participants emails that
briefly introduced the researcher and the research project, and requested their
participation in the research project. Information sheets and consent forms were
attached to the each email to provide the participants detailed information of the
research, address possible concerns, and to obtain their informed consent. This
helped them to understand the kinds of information they were expected to provide
and prepare for the interview. Thereafter, specific interview appointments were
negotiated, agreed and scheduled with each of the participants individually.
The interviews were then conducted using a mobile phone and each interview lasted
between 30 minutes and 1 hour. The interviews were recorded using a digital voice
recorder after prior permission was obtained from the interviewees. Subsequently,
the interviews were transcribed on the same day in which they were conducted, in
order to ensure the reliability and accuracy of the data. In order to minimize the
presence of bias or misinterpretation (Saunders et al, 2003), the researcher emailed
the interview transcripts to the respective interviewees for final proof reading.
The researcher conducted the interviews over the telephone due to cost and distance
reasons. During the period of the study, the researcher was in the UK and all of the
participants were based in the case organisation’s Nigeria offices. As a result,
conducting the interviews in Nigeria involved significant travel-related expenses
which were beyond the budget of the researcher. Consequently, conducting
interviews by telephone, in contrast to face-to-face, was challenging for the
researcher because the non-verbal communication cues normally available to a face-
to-face interviewer were absent, the telephone interviewees were more likely to be
engaged in other activities when answering the interview questions and establishing
rapport with them was more difficult (Jackle et al, 2006).
36
Despite these limitations, the use of the telephone interview was advantageous for
the researcher in many respects. First, the researcher was able to collect data from
some inaccessible, highly placed employees with very tight schedules outside work
hours such as evenings and weekends. Second, the telephone respondents reported
sensitive behaviours and attitudes more truthfully since they are relatively unaware
of the interviewer’s reaction (Jackle et al, 2006). Third, despite the absence of non-
verbal channels in the telephone interview setting, the interviewees provided verbal
cues such as hesitation and sighs, which were leveraged by the researcher to progress
with appropriate probing or clarification-seeking (Sturges and Hanrahan, 2004).
More importantly, similar to Alverez and Urla’s (2002) observations, the value of the
interviewee responses to such probing or clarification-seeking questions went
beyond simple correction mechanisms to a progressive construction of shared
meaning.
3.5 DATA ANALYSIS
Narrative analysis technique was used to analyse the interview data. According to
Wells (2011: 6), narrative analysis seeks to examine the content, structure,
performance or context of narratives holistically. It can be used to examine the
‘linkages, relationships and socially constructed explanations that naturally occur
within narrative accounts, where fragmentation of these into categories and themes
would therefore be rendered unnecessary’ (Saunders et al , 2009:505 ). The approach
also ‘permits a holistic approach to discourse that preserves context and
particularity’ (Reismann, 1993:327).
Narrative analysis was used to analyse the data because it allowed the holistic and in-
depth analysis of each interview, from the perspective of the individual interviewees.
As mentioned in section 3.4.3, the interviewees chosen for the study were important
management and operational staff with appropriate combination of skills, knowledge
and experience relevant to the area under investigation. Therefore, their narratives
provided important findings for the study. Moreover, the technique is the only one
that allowed the thorough analysis of the interview data, and the comparison and
synthesis of the topics of the various accounts, within the context of the
interviewees. Despite these, the drawback of the technique was the absence of a
37
generally accepted narrative analysis framework and the influence of the researcher’s
biases on the data collection and analysis.
Figure 3.2: Narrative analysis framework used for the study
Figure 3.2 shown above shows the narrative analysis framework used for the
analysis of the interview data. Based on this framework, the researcher first
familiarized himself with the data by repeatedly studying each interview transcript.
Then, the researcher constructed narratives from the excerpts of each of these
interviews and grouped them according to the topics of the research objectives.
Thereafter, final conclusions were synthesized from the summary of the narratives
for each topic and interviewee.
Nevertheless, the researcher realized the existence of other data analysis methods
such as thematic analysis and grounded theory. Grounded theory involves the
building of an explanation or generation of theory based on a core theme which
emerges from the data using specific analysis procedures while thematic analysis
involves the identification, analysis, and reporting of themes within the data
(Saunders et al, 2009; Braun and Clarke, 2006). However the use of these methods
were abandoned because the social and linguistic context of the interviewees may
38
fail to be considered using thematic analysis, while grounded theory does not offer
well-defined means of discovering patterns or structure in the interview data (Soton,
2012).
3.5 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The researcher took great care to adhere to the highest ethical standards in this study.
This research was classified as ‘low risk’ because it neither deals with sensitive
issues nor vulnerable individuals. In accordance with the University ethics policy,
informed consent was obtained from each participant using information sheets and
consent forms through email, prior to the interviews. Although no financial reward
was offered the interviewees, they were assured that their participation would be
valuable in the study of the problem domain. The data collected was made available
only to the researcher and handled anonymously. A copy of the introductory letter,
ethics form, information sheet and consent forms are included in Appendix VI to X.
3.6 SUMMARY
In summary, the research methodology chapter presented, discussed and justified the
use of the inductive approach and qualitative strategies for the study. The inductive
approach was chosen because the study aimed to establish theory from the analysis
of the data collected, and the research problem was poorly understood and lacked a
widely agreed theoretical framework. The choice of the qualitative strategy was
prompted by the fact that it could enable the researcher develop an in-depth
understanding of the research problem and the perspectives of the individuals being
studied. The qualitative research strategies adopted for the study was the case study
approach, while the data was collected using interviews and subsequently analysed
using narrative analysis.
39
4. RESEARCH FINDINGS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The findings from the data analysis are presented here in the form of six narratives,
constructed by the researcher from the semi-structured interviews. These narratives
are grouped according to the business process, technological and human changes and
change barriers.
4.2 INTERVIEWEE A
4.2.1 BUSINESS PROCESS CHANGES AND CHANGE BARRIERS
Since ERP went live in 2004, several business process changes have occurred in the
Joint Venture Accounts department. One of these changes was prompted by
government regulations in 2008, which required the department to change its
procurement accounting processes. The regulations required all procurements to be
done a specific ratio of US dollars and Naira. In order to implement this change in
this department, an add-on was developed and integrated with the Finance and
Control module of ERP. Unfortunately, the change could not be smoothly
implemented because application performed computations inaccurately. As a result,
it was dropped from the system in 2009 and replaced with another which
successfully facilitated the change.
Another business process change during this period was the invoice management
process. Top management wanted to improve the transparency of the invoice
management process and minimize costly, fraudulent transactions by leveraging the
existing controls provided by SAP. More precisely, the joint venture partners2
wanted invoices to be directly reflected into the cost object or expense accounts.
Consequently, an add-on was developed in-house and integrated with the existing
Finance and Control module. However, the invoice management process was not
changed as anticipated because the add-on calculated payables inaccurately. The
add-on was, therefore, dropped in 2008 and was replaced with a more effective
application.
2 The case company operates a joint venture with other oil and gas companies. These companies are
referred to as ‘joint venture partners’.
40
Another business change after ERP went live in 2004 was the authorization
processes. When ERP went live in 2004, the authorization processes for the Plant
Maintenance module lacked effective controls. Since such maintenances were
usually very costly, as high as $10 million, top management decided to review and
implemented some changes to the existing plant maintenance authorization
processes. In this case, another add-on was integrated with the Plant Maintenance
module and facilitated the implementation of the change. The change is narrated
below:
‘…and in plant maintenance, there was no way of controlling the amount of money
an individual can authorize. So we had to build a bespoke application and begin to
find way to structure to add in a way of authorization and we succeeded […]’
Nevertheless, some business processes are originally designed to be unchangeable in
the post-implementation stage because of the existing organisations policies. For
example, the policy on payment pass imposes strict rules on terms of payment.
Nevertheless, some staff often attempt to change and revert it through the
configurations on the system for selfish and political reasons, because ‘somebody is
happy with somebody else’.
4.2.2 TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE AND CHANGE BARRIERS
When discussing the technological changes, Interviewee A notes that there have
been no new ERP modules added in the Accounts department since the ERP was
originally implemented in 2004. Rather, there has been continuous improvements
(referred to as evolution) of the existing modules to meet the changing business
requirements. When asked about this issue, the interviewee notes the following:
‘Basically, there have been evolutions but nothing new[…] don’t forget evolution
does not mean you are adding new parts to the system’
As earlier mentioned in section 4.1.1., the narrative of Interviewee A indicates that
the improvements in the modules were implemented to support the business process
changes. In other words,add-ons were developed and integrated with the Finance and
Control Module and Plant Maintenance modules to drive the procurements account
processes, invoice management processes and authorization processes changes
respectively.
41
In the implementation of the technological and business process changes during
post-implementation, top management used a combination of autocratic change
management style, social pressure on users and well-monitored training programs to
address resistance to change among staff members to each change initiative.
4.2.3 HUMAN CHANGE AND CHANGE BARRIERS
In the discussion of the human changes and change barriers, Interviewee A noted
that a functional support structure was created in the department during ERP post-
implementation. The employees who constituted the support structure were both
technically and functionally competent individuals drawn from each of the modules
including Finance and Control, Supply Chain Management and Plant Management.
In discussing this point, Interviewee A highlights that:
‘…whenever an ERP cuts across the whole company, you must create a support
structure for it… within this support structure, we have all the elements for the
different modules […] [These are] technocrats who understand both SAP and the
business working with us.’
No barriers impacted the implementation of the functional support structure.
4.2.4 CONCLUSIONS
The narrative indicates that account processing, authorization processes and invoice
management were changed during ERP post-implementation; while the policies of
the company have restricted the changeability of some business processes such as the
payment pass.
Although additional modules not have been implemented in the Accounting
department, many enhancements and modifications to the existing ERP modules
have occurred through the integration of add-ons. There was an absence of resistance
to changes since top management autocratically managed the changes.
The only human change narrated was the implementation of a support structure per
module. The support structure consisted of staff members who understood how ERP
supported the business processes. The support structure was implemented without
any barriers because it was welcomed by users.
42
4.3 INTERVIEWEE B
4.3.1 BUSINESS PROCESS CHANGES AND CHANGE BARRIERS
Since ERP went live in 2004, the invoice management, vendor management and
partner accounting processes were changed in the Finance Methods and Systems
department in response to changing business needs. These changes triggered
corresponding changes in the configuration changes of the modules in the ERP
system, as well as the need to update the skills of users through continuous training.
However, Interviewee B’s narrative indicated that the unwillingness to imbibe the
changes was the barrier to the implementation of these changes, as explained below:
‘[…] sometimes people have the tendency of doing it their own way, not the best
practise way […]’
4.3.2 TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE AND CHANGE BARRIERS
Interviewee B narrated that ‘it is just the enhancement of the existing modules’ which
has occurred since ERP went live in 2004. These enhancements mainly occurred
through configuration changes in accordance with the prevailing business needs. On
the other hand, some of these configuration changes were implemented in order to
realise previously unknown functionalities offered by the system. According to
Interviewee B,
‘’[…] the module has the inherent capabilities but we were not using it, so we now
had to make configuration changes to now bring out some things so that we could
use them…’
Other configuration changes were implemented to support business process changes,
in order to reflect the prevailing business realities (such as account processing and
addition of new oil blocks), as explained below:
‘ So when you have new licenses [oil blocks], some of them are very complex in the
legal and accounting agreement, and so you may need to make changes in your
system to conform with it [...]’
However, translating business needs to technical requirements was the major barrier
to the implementation of the technological changes. As a result, the finished
43
applications usually partially met the business requirements. This is discussed in the
narrative:
‘it takes time [for the functional teams] to communicate [business needs] to the
technical teams […] because you’re now translating business needs into technical
needs […] there may even be compromises because you’re not even going to
translate one hundred per cent, you need to compromise […]’
4.3.3 HUMAN CHANGES AND CHANGE BARRIERS
As with the Accounts department, the only human change which occurred in the
Finance Systems and Methods department during ERP post-implementation was the
creation and continuous updating of the functional support structure in accordance
with changing business processes and technological needs. The addition of these
roles to the department’s structure was welcomed by users and the employees
selected for the roles were given recognition and rewards based on their performance
on the roles.
4.3.4 CONCLUSIONS
In these narratives, the invoice and vendor management processes, and accounting
processes were changed during ERP post-implementation. The narrative also
indicates that some business process changes were triggered by new business
realities, such as the acquisition of a new oil block which prompted changes in the
partner accounting processes.
In the discussion of the technological changes, the interviewee explicitly states that
‘it is the business processes that drive the configuration changes’. When business
processes are changed for improvement or reflection of new business realities, such
changes are then implemented in ERP in terms of configuration changes. The
barriers to the implementation of these technological changes stem from the
challenge of translating business requirements to technical solutions. As a result of
this, the finished configuration changes may not fully meet the business needs
because ‘…you need to compromise’.
The business process and configuration changes were accompanied by the creation
of new key user and super user roles in the department. These users were both
technically and functionally competent, and resolved the problems which other ERP
44
users encountered. Many users supported the creation of these roles while the key
users and super users themselves were financially rewarded according to their
performance on the role.
4.4 INTERVIEWEE C
4.4.1 BUSINESS PROCESS CHANGES AND CHANGE BARRIERS
During ERP post-implementation, the quality management and invoice management
processes were changed for improvement. However, the need to address change
management issues and training problems hindered the smooth implementation of
the business process changes, as explained below:
‘There were also change management issues and training problems to address…you
know it can be a bit challenging to change how people work, especially when they’ve
been working that way for a very long time’
4.4.2 TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGES AND CHANGE BARRIERS
In 2007, 3 years after the ERP went live, a Quality Management Module was added
to the existing system of the Contracts and Procurements department. However,
aligning the module with the normal business processes impeded the implementation
of the module.
4.4.3 HUMAN CHANGES AND CHANGE BARRIERS
Quite unexpectedly, no new roles were added in this department, only continuous
training and retraining of the existing users was performed, as explained below:
‘[…]none have been added in our department. But most people have had to be
retrained time and again whenever any new change in the business process […]’
4.4.4 CONCLUSIONS
When discussing the technological changes, Interviewee C explains that the Quality
Assurance Module has been added to his department during ERP post-
implementation. The barrier faced when adding this new module was with aligning
the module with the existing business processes in the department. The quality
management and invoice management business processes were also changed. The
45
interviewee indicated no human changes whatsoever has occurred in the 8 years of
ERP post-implementation in the department.
4.5 INTERVIEWEE D
4.5.1 BUSINESS PROCESS CHANGES AND CHANGE BARRIERS
In the Stocks and Procurement department, the replenishment process and intra-
company approval strategy business processes were changed during ERP post-
implementation. The replenishment process was changed in order to improve stock
management and reduce inventories, while the intra-company approval strategy was
changed in order to meet regulatory requirement of delegation of authority.
However, the organization’s internal procedures imposed rigid frameworks for all
business processes and this constrained the ability to implement the business process
changes. Also, the peculiarities of its Joint Operating Agreements, which was drawn
in the 1980’s, did not reflect business realities and therefore impeded the business
process change efforts.
4.5.2 TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGES AND CHANGE BARRIERS
As with the previous interviewees, Interview D concurred that the technological
changes implemented were mainly aimed at supporting the business process
changes. In this regard, the Lead Time Update was tool added to support the
replenishment process, while the CINDY3 application was integrated to support a
company-wide approval strategy change. However, the requests for these and other
technological changes first had to be made to top management, most of which were
declined at a rate of 80%. The technological change implementations were also
constrained by budget. Moreover, the phobia for technology among groups of users
across the department impeded the implementation of the changes.
4.5.3 HUMAN CHANGES AND CHANGE BARRIERS
Due to the implementation of additional modules and add-ons in the post-
implementation stage of ERP, several new roles were added to the structure of the
Stock Contracts and Procurements department. With addition of the Offshore
Logistics Module, a dispatcher role was create to manage container creation,
shipping, packing and returns transactions. In the case of CINDY, several releaser
roles were created to conform to the delegation of authority principle requirement of
46
industry regulations. Additionally, minor changes were made to the user reference
profiles to change the functionalities of each user. However, the need to comply with
the segregation of duty requirements of the industry regulations complicated the
assignment of the new roles to users in the department.
4.5.4 CONCLUSIONS
The business process changes narrated by Interviewee D were the replenishment
process, in addition to other changes imposed by government regulations. However,
the rigid internal procedures of the organisation and the peculiarities of its Joint
Operators Agreement impeded the implementation of the business process changes.
In the narration of the technological changes, the interviewee highlighted the
addition of the Offshore Logistics Module, the Lead time Update tool and CINDY.
The high rates at which requests for technological improvements and upgrades were
declined by top management and the budgetary constraints were the barriers to the
implementation of technological changes.
With regards to the human changes, the addition of the Offshore Logistics Module
prompted the creation of the dispatcher role. There were also major changes to user
reference profiles, even though new roles were not added to the department’s
structure. In this case, the barriers to the implementation came from external
regulations. The human changes had to occur within the framework of regulations
which imposed rules on tasks and roles assignable to users.
4.6 INTERVIEWEE E
4.6.1 BUSINESS PROCESS CHANGES AND CHANGE BARRIERS
In the Finance Control department, the invoice management process and service
entry sheet creation process were the only changes narrated by Interviewee E. The
unwillingness for users to imbibe the changes and the lack of training of users were
the barriers to the implementation of these changes.
4.6.2 TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGES AND CHANGE BARRIERS
Similar to the previous interviewees, Interviewee E acknowledges the occurrence of
several ongoing technological changes in the ERP system since go-live in 2004.
Several bespoke tools have been developed and integrated to support corresponding
changes in business processes. The SCAN-EJCC tool was developed to support the
47
changes in invoice management processes and service entry sheet creation. This tool
was subsequently replaced with an improved IMP/SES tool in April 2012.
4.6.3 HUMAN CHANGES ANC CHANGE BARRIERS
During ERP post-implementation, the Financial Control department underwent a
restructuring to leverage their ERP and complying with the changing industry
regulations. As a result of this, duties were segregated and a support structure was
created for the different modules, as explained below.
‘…since the deployment of ERP, we have had to implement segregation of duties and
support as a result of roles assigned to users for different modules. For instance, in
the Plant Management module, we created roles for Plant Management consultant,
Key User and Maintenance Engineer while Central and decentralized buyers, lead
user, purchasing approver, stock controller were created for Materials
Management…’
4.6.4 CONCLUSIONS
Although no new modules were added to the existing ERP, the narrative from
Interviewee E indicated that add-ons have been added to the system to the support
the changes in the invoice management, and service entry sheet creation and
approval processes. The lack of change readiness was the main barrier to the
implementation of these technological and business process changes within the
department. With regards to the human changes, segregation of duties and the
creation of support roles for the different ERP modules occurred during ERP post-
implementation. However, the fact that top management approval was required for
every business need was a barrier towards the implementation of the changes.
4.7 INTERVIEWEE F
4.7.1 BUSINESS PROCESS CHANGES AND CHANGE BARRIERS
Interviewee E could not identify any business process changes due to the nature of
his job. This interviewee functioned in a support role, rather than a user role and,
therefore, lacked knowledge about the business process changes or change barriers.
4.7.2 TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGES AND CHANGE BARRIERS
In the narration of technological changes experienced since go-live in 2004,
Interviewee F narrated that no modules have been added, but several add-ons have
48
been integrated to support the existing ERP modules. As with Interviewee E,
Interviewee F mentioned the implementation of the SCAN-EJCC tool to support the
changes in the invoice management and vendor management processes. The tool
enabled vendors to submit, scan and save their invoices into SAP servers for
payment approval. In addition, the business workflow tool was a web based interface
which was integrated in order to email users who were required to build or approve
invoices, among other functions. Also, upgrades of infrastructure have occurred in
2007 and 2010 which were not as a direct consequence of the application.
4.7.3 HUMAN CHANGES AND CHANGE BARRIERS
Interviewee F acknowledged that a functional support structure was created and
implemented in his department. The functional support structure consisted of key
users and super users for each module. The barriers to the implementation of these
changes were pockets of resistance to the changes, as well as the delegation of
authority principle imposed by industry regulation. As a result, responsibilities had
to be re-assigned to both the functional teams and IT teams. As a result, adequate
training and planning were carried whenever changes were implemented.
4.7.4 CONCLUSIONS
In this narrative, Interviewee F indicated new applications have been added and
infrastructural upgrades have occurred during ERP post implementation. It should be
noted here that Interviewee F worked in a support role and was not aware of any
business process changes. Interviewee F also noted that the creation of a functional
support structure and the re-distribution of responsibilities I the post-implementation
stage, which was impacted by separation of duties requirement of industry
regulations.
49
5. DISCUSSION
5.1 INTRODUCTION
This study set out with the aim of investigating the business process, technological
and human changes and change barriers which occur in the post-implementation
stage of ERP. The findings of this study strongly support the view that organizations
tend to implement several changes in order to leverage the capabilities of ERP in the
post-implementation stage (Aladwani, 2001), and that the implementation of these
changes can be hindered by several barriers (Yu, 2005; Zhu et al, 2010). According
to the aims of this study, the details of the changes and change barriers identified in
the study are presented and discussed here.
5.2 TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE AND CHANGE BARRIERS
The present study aimed to investigate the technological changes and change barriers
in the case company. Prior studies have concluded that organisations tend to add
functionality and extend their existing systems through the addition of new modules
in the post-implementation stage of ERP (Willis and Willis-Brown, 2002; Caldwell
and Stein, 1998). During this stage, Soh et al (2000) suggest that technological
changes may also be implemented to resolve ERP misfit issues. This is because
organisations are primarily focused on continuous improvement during this period
(Ross and Vitale, 2000). The findings of this study agree with these views because
several technological changes were found to have occurred in organization’s system
during ERP post-implementation in four main dimensions: additions of new
modules, addition or removal of add-ons and bespoke tools, infrastructural changes,
and on-going modifications.
It has been observed in the past that most ERP vendors tend to be weak in industry-
specific functional modules, thereby prompting organisations to add these solutions
from third-party vendors to their existing system in the post-implementation stage
(Willis and Willis-Brown, 2002). The analysis of the interview responses strongly
supports this view because several modules, specific to the oil and gas industry, were
added to the existing system to support several of the organisation’s highly
specialized business processes. Examples of these additions include the quality
management module which was added to support quality management processes and
50
the offshore logistics module which was added to improve the integration of offshore
locations of the company.
Furthermore, the results of the study indicate that several externally acquired add-ons
and internally developed bespoke tools were added to the system to support key
business processes. Examples include Scan/Ejcc tool to support invoice management
processes, CINDY to integrate in-company approval strategy, and the Lead Time
Update tool to support the replenishment process. These findings correspond with
the results of a previous study by Ross and Vitale (2000) which concluded that
functionalities are added to ERP systems through add-ons and bespoke-tools during
ERP post-implementation. More interestingly, it was revealed in the study that some
of these add-ons worked were flawed and were subsequently dropped while others
which met the business needs were retained and continuously improved.
One unanticipated finding from the analysis of the interview data suggests a
relationship between the business process changes and technological changes. It
clearly emerged from the interviews that the majority of these technological changes
were triggered by the need to support the changes in business processes, or the
emergence of new business realities and opportunities. For instance, business process
changes (such as accounting processes) and the emergence of new business
opportunities (such as the acquisition of new oil blocks) prompted corresponding
modifications on the system through configuration changes.
Moreover, as previously noted by Willis and Willis-Brown (2002: 37), the discovery
of “the existence of a piece of functionality or how it works” may prompt the
implementation of configuration changes in the system during post-implementation.
This study detected the occurrence of such discovery in the organisation’s ERP,
which triggered several configuration changes to realize the full capabilities of the
systems.
In this study, the types of technological changes implemented in the organization
were found to have varied from department to department. For instance, while some
users reported both additions of new ERP modules and enhancements of the systems
in their departments, others noted that only enhancements of the existing systems
have occurred in their department.
51
The results of the analysis of the interview data showed that four main barriers
hindered the implementation of ERP post-implementation technological changes: top
management support, budgetary constraints, difficulty in translating business
requirements and internal policies. First, organisational rules required requests for
critical technological upgrades to be first approved by top management and the
majority of such requests were turned down. This is because top management
support can ‘influence the effectiveness of ERP post-implementation’ (Yu, 2005).
This finding corresponds with previous studies which indicate that the unwillingness
to implement technological upgrades by top management can hinder the
implementation of technological changes (Markus and Tannis, 2000).
Second, budgetary constraints imposed limits on the technological changes that
could be approved and implemented. This barrier is related to the first one (i.e. top
management support) in that the ability of the top management support the
implementation of technological changes is dependent on the size of the budgets
under their control.
Third, translating business needs arising from business process changes to technical
requirements to the technical teams for implementation was usually a difficult and
time-consuming undertaking. In many cases, the finished solutions partially satisfied
the business requirements. Nevertheless, this finding can be expected because ERP
tends to not meet 100 per cent of the business needs (Willis and Willis-Brown,
2002).
5.3 BUSINESS PROCESS CHANGE AND CHANGE BARRIERS
The second objective of the study was to examine the business process changes and
change barriers in ERP post-implementation. Interestingly, several business process
changes were triggered by industry regulations and new business opportunities.
Others were implemented in an effort to address various internal operational and
strategic issues, and improve the existing business processes. These findings support
the notion that organizations tend to implement ‘new business processes to support
the organisation’s goals’ in the post implementation stage of ERP (Minahan, 1998).
The business process changes identified in this study include plant maintenance
authorization processes, invoice management processes and quality management
processes. In the same vein, these findings must be interpreted with caution because
52
the business process changes identified in this study may be specific to the oil and
gas industry.
As noted in section 5.2, it emerged from data analysis is that the majority of the
business process change implementations prompted corresponding changes in the
configuration of the system. For instance, the changes in accounting processes,
invoice management processes and the acquisition of new oil blocks prompted
corresponding configuration changes on the ERP system. Other business processes
changes, such as intra-company approval strategy change, prompted technological
changes through the addition of add-ons to the existing system. Therefore, it can be
argued here that the findings of the current study contradict previous research that
suggests that business processes tend to be redesigned to fit the ERP solution
(Siringidi, 2000; Al-Mashari, 2005; Chang, 2004). In general, therefore, it seems that
the business process changes trigger the technological changes.
On the question of the barriers to the implementation of the business process
changes, very few barriers were identified in the study. First, the most serious barrier
observed was the organisation’s rigid internal procedures which govern its internal
operations, and the peculiarities of its joint operating agreement. These rules
imposed rigid frameworks for all of the organisation’s business processes, thereby
making these processes difficult to change or modify in order to leverage ERP
during ERP post-implementation. Second, the lack of effective communication of the
business process changes among the relevant stakeholders (i.e. users, vendors)
impeded the implementation of the business process changes. Third, the changes
were also hindered by the unwillingness of users to imbibe the changes thereby, as
Markus and Tanis (2000) observed in their study, maintained former work processes.
An implication of these is the possibility that effective communication of business
process changes among stakeholders can create adequate change awareness among
them.
Another important finding was that the inaccurate functioning of some add-ons and
bespoke tools which were implemented to drive business processes changes was also
a barrier to the implementation of the changes. One of the issues that emerge from
this finding is the possibility that add-ons and bespoke tools can function as both a
53
driver and barrier of business process change during ERP post-implementation,
depending on whether or not they function satisfactorily.
Previous studies have concluded that resistance to change among users is one
inevitable barrier during ERP post-implementation (Ross and Vitale, 2000).
However, findings from the study refute this claim since resistance to the business
process changes among users did not occur and was not a barrier to the
implementation of the changes. The lack of resistance by users across the
organisation can be attributed to a combination of the authoritative change
management style adopted by managers and the social pressure factor (i.e. pressure
from colleagues and managers) in the implementation of both the business process
and technological changes.
There are several possible explanations for this result. One explanation might be the
high power distance and collectivist culture which characterize developing societies
(Hofstede, 1980; Anandarajan et al, 2000) because managers tend to adopt
paternistic or autocratic change management styles while social pressures influences
system usage in such societies. It may also have resulted from the well-organised
change programmes implemented to drive each of the change efforts. However, with
a small sample size, caution must be applied, as similar findings might not be
obtained from users across other departments of the organisation.
Nevertheless, this finding has at least two important implications for business
process change barriers in multinational companies operating in developing
countries. First, autocratic change management styles can be an effective approach to
minimizing resistance to business process changes in Nigeria and other developing
countries. Second, effective change management programmes which accompany
change initiatives can reduce the barriers to their implementation.
5.4 HUMAN CHANGE AND CHANGE BARRIERS
The third change examined in this research regarded the human changes and change
barriers. The findings of the current study are consistent with those of Ross and
Vitale (2000), who found that organisations add new roles to their structure to
leverage the system due to the drive for continuous improvements. In this study, it
was revealed that an organisation-wide functional support structure was added to the
organisation’s structure during ERP post-implementation. It consisted of functionally
54
and technologically competent key users and super users for each ERP module, who
provided support to other users in their respective departments. However, this
finding differs from some published studies which claimed that organisations tend to
lose personnel who are knowledgeable of the configuration choices and business
process improvement during ERP post-implementation (Markus and Tanis, 2000).
Contrary to expectations, industry regulations were found be both a significant driver
of human changes and barrier to the implementation of the changes. One human
change was prompted by the need for the organisation to comply with the
segregation of duties principle of the Sarbanes Oxley Act, by implementing changes
on its ERP user roles. This principle prevents a single individual from having control
over two or more parts of a business process, in order to limit the risk of fraudulent
and unauthorized transactions (Deloitte, 2012). The immediate impact of the
implementation of this change in the organization was intra-departmental
restructuring through the re-assignment of roles and responsibilities of ERP users per
module.
Additionally, the addition of new modules to the existing ERP also triggered the
addition of corresponding module-specific roles. For instance, the addition of the
offshore module and the CINDY module resulted in the creation of roles for
dispatchers and releasers respectively. These findings, while preliminary, suggests
that technological changes can drive human changes during ERP post-
implementation.
Very little was found in the literature in the question of the likely barriers to the
implementation of human changes during ERP post-implementation. Similarly, the
interviewees in this study did not indicate any barriers to the implementation of
either of the above mentioned changes. This finding can be explained by the fact that
the introduction and continuous changes to the support structure were welcomed by
users. Another possible explanation for this might be that the users appointed to such
roles were financially rewarded according to their performance in the roles. This
finding corroborates the ideas of Ross and Vitale (2000), who suggested the
tendency for organisations to use financial incentives as a means of managing
resistance to changes. However, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 imposed the
delegation of authority principal on the organisation, and introduced a problem of
55
threshold overlaps. These made the assignment of duties to the newly created ERP
user roles problematic.
5.5 CONCLUSIONS
This chapter critically discussed the technological, business process and human
changes change and change barriers which emerged from the interview data and are
synthesized Appendix I.The findings of this study corroborated many of the findings
of past studies that organisations implement changes in the post-implementation
stage of ERP, which are impacted by several barriers. A number of interesting
findings emerged from the study, especially the possibility that some barriers could
impact multiple change initiatives, the absence of resistance and the influence of
industry regulations on both the changes and change barriers.
56
6. CONCLUSIONS
In this study, the aim was to examine the business process, technological and human
changes during ERP post-implementation and the barriers to the implementation of
the changes.
With regards to the business process changes and change barriers, this study has
shown that several business process changes, some of which are industry-specific,
occurred in response to new business needs, regulatory requirements and to leverage
the functionalities of ERP in the post-implementation stage. These changes were
experienced in invoice management, accounting processes and intra-company
approval processes. It was also shown that internal policies and procedures of the
organization, and flawed add-ons and bespoke tools can hinder the implementation
of these changes.
Concerning the technological changes and change barriers, the second major finding
was that several technological changes were aimed at continuous improvements and
supporting the business process changes. These changes were implemented through
the addition of industry-specific add-ons, bespoke tools and modules. Some barriers
to the implementation of these changes were discovered to be the organization’s
policies and procedures, budgetary constraints and the difficulty of translating
business needs to technical requirements.
With respect to the human changes and change barriers, the results of this
investigation also showed that human changes were implemented through the
addition of an organization-wide functional support structure and module-specific
roles. The major barrier to the implementation of the changes was discovered to be
industry regulations, which imposed constrains on the roles and functions which
could be assigned to users.
Furthermore, one of the more significant findings to emerge from this study is the
lack of resistance to the changes. This was explained by the autocratic change
management style adopted, and the social pressure applied on users to adopt the
changes. Additionally, the relevance of the impact of industry regulations on these
change efforts is clearly demonstrated by the current findings. These regulations
acted as both a driver and a barrier to the implementation of the human changes.
57
In general, therefore, it seems that the types of these changes vary from department
to department. The evidence from this study also suggests a causal relationship
between the each of these change dimensions, in that the business process changes
can trigger the technological changes, while the technological changes can prompt
corresponding human changes.
6.1 IMPLICATIONS
In view of these findings, this dissertation has extended the present knowledge of
change management and ERP post-implementation, especially on changes and
change barriers. The findings of this study have at least two important implications
for practice. First, autocratic management styles and social pressure can be effective
in minimizing user resistance to changes during ERP post-implementation in
multinational companies operating in developing countries. Second, internal policies
and procedures, and industry regulations should be taken into account when planning
and implementing change initiatives during this stage.
6.2 LIMITATIONS
Nevertheless, this study is limited in three aspects. First, the narrative analysis
technique used in the analysis of the data has been criticized for its subjective nature
and the increased tendency for the biases of the researcher to influence the research
outcome. Second, most of the findings are specific to oil and gas multinational
companies. Third, the generalizability of the research is limited.
6.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to address these limitations, it is recommended that alternative qualitative
analysis techniques, such as thematic analysis, be carried on out on a relatively larger
population size to validate the results of this study in future studies. It is also
suggested that further studies be conducted in this area, in other industries, in order
to ensure the generalizability of the findings in this study. Another recommendation
is the prioritization of the barriers identified in this study using quantitative
techniques.
WORD COUNT: 14,985
58
REFERENCES
Abdul-Gader, A. (1997). “Information systems strategies for multinational
companies in Arab Gulf countries”. International Journal of Information
Management [Online],17(1), 3-12.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268401296000382 [Accessed 8
May 2012].
Agbolade, O. (2011). “Information and communication technology and banks
profitability in Nigeria”. Australian Journal of Business and Management Research
[Online], 1(4), 102-107. http://www.ajbmr.com/articlepdf/ajbmrv01n0411.pdf
[Accessed 10 May 2012].
Agboola, A. (2007). “Information and communication technology in banking
operations in Nigeria: an evaluation of recent experiences”. African Journal of
Public Administration and Management [Online], 18(1), 1-14.
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/AAPAM/UNPAN026533.pd
f [Accessed 5 May 2012].
Alabar, T. (2012). “Electronic banking services and customer satisfaction in the
Nigerian banking industry”. International Journal for Business and Management
Tomorrow [Online], 2(3), 1-8. http://www.ijbmt.com/issue/277.pdf [Accessed 4 May
2012].
Aladwani, A. (2001). "Change management strategies for successful ERP
implementation", Business Process Management Journal [Online], 7 (3), 266 – 275.
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=1463-
7154&volume=7&issue=3&articleid=843482&show=html [Accessed 10 May
2012].
Al-Mashari, M. (2002). “Enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems: a research
agenda”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, 102 (3), 165-71.
Al-Salti, Z. and Hackney, R. (2011). "Factors impacting knowledge transfer success
in information systems outsourcing". Journal of Enterprise Information Management
[Online], 24 (5), 455 – 468.
59
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/088/2011/00000024/00000005/art0000
4 [Accessed 7 December 2011].
Anandarajan, M., Igbaria, M. and Anakwe, U. (2000). "Technology acceptance in
the banking industry: A perspective from a less developed country". Information
Technology & People [Online], 13 (4), 298 – 312.
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=883536&show=html&
[Accessed 25 April 2012].
Avgerou, C. (2008). “Information systems in developing countries: a critical
research review”. Journal of Information Technology [Online], 23 (3), 133-146.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000136 [Accessed 18 April 2012].
Alavi, M., and Leidner, D.E. (2001). “Review: Knowledge Management and
Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues”.
MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136.
Bada, A. (2011). “Local adaptations to global trends: a study of IT-based
organizational change program in a Nigerian bank”. The Information Society
[Online], 18(2), 77-86.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/01972240290075011#tabModule
[Accessed 28 April 2012].
Bancroft, N. (1996). Implementing SAP/R3. Greenwich: Manning Publications.
Bochner, S. and Hesketh, B. (1994). “Power Distance, Individualism/Collectivism,
and Job-Related Attitudes in a Culturally Diverse Work Group”. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 25, 233-257.
Braun V. and Clark, V. (2006). “Using thematic analysis in psychology”, Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Brown, A. (1998). “Narrative, Politics and Legitimacy in an IT Implementation”.
Journal of Management Studies, 35(1), 35-59.
60
Bryman, A. (1988). Quantity and Quality in Social Research. London: Routledge.
Buchanan, D. and Badham, R. (2003). Power, politics and organizational change:
winning the turf game. London: Sage.
Burnes, B. (2004). Managing change. Essex: Pearson.
Caldwell, B. and Stein, T., (1998). Beyond ERP: New IT Agenda [Online]. New
York: Information Week Online. http://www.informationweek.com/711/11iuerp.htm
[Accessed 26 June 2012].
Carvatho, L., Scott L. and Jeffery, R. (2003). Exploring the use of techniques from
grounded theory in process engineering, [Online]. Wales: Caeser.
http://www.caesar.unsw.edu.au/publications/pdf/Tech03_1.pdf [Accessed 27 August
2012].
Career Bright (2011). Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Systems [image online].
http://careerbright.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ERP.jpg [Accessed 30 June
2012].
Chang , S. (2004). “ERP life cycle implementation, management and support:
implications for practice and research”. In: Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, 2004. Hawaii, United States of
America . 5-8 January 2004. New Jersey: IEEE.
Clandinin, J. and Connelly, M. (1998). “Personal Experience Methods”. In: Denzin,
N. and Lincoln, Y. (1998). Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials.
London: SAGE.
Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in
the Research Process. London: Sage.
Dauda, Y. and Akingbade, W. (2011). “Technology innovation and Nigerian banks
performance: the assessment of employee’s and customer responses”. American
Journal of Social and Management Science, [Online], 2(3), 248-257.
61
http://www.scihub.org/AJSMS/PDF/2011/3/AJSMS-2-3-248-257.pdf [Accessed 12
May 2012].
Deans, C., Karawan, K., Goslar, M.D, Ricks, D. and Toyne, B. (1991).
"Identification of key international information systems issues". Journal of High
Technology Management Review, 2(1), 57-81.
Deloitte (2012). Segregation of duties in ERP systems [Online]. New York: Deloitte.
http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_RU/ru/services/enterprise-risk/info-technology-
risk/segregation-of-duties-in-erp/index.htm [Accessed 19 August 2012].
De Ven, A. and Poole, M. (1995). “Explaining development and change in
organizations”. The Academy of Management Review [Online], 20(3), 510-540.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/258786 [Accessed 10 May 2012].
Dunphy, D. and Stace, D. (1993). “The Strategic Management of Corporate
Change". Human Relations, 46(8), 905 -920.
Ehikhamenor, F. (2003). “Information technology in Nigerian banks: the limits of
expectations”. Information Technology for Development [Online], 10(1), 13-24.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/itdj.1590100103 [Accessed 28 April 2012].
Federici, T. (2009). “Factors influencing ERP outcomes in SMEs: A post-
introduction assessment”. Journal of Enterprise Information Management [Online],
22(1-2), 81-98. http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-
67249099315&partnerID=40&md5=accf2f92b80ebf668ea61799be1224a4
[Accessed 12 May 2012].
Flick, U. (1998). An introduction to qualitative research. Sage: London.
Foster, D and Cornford, T (1992), "Evaluation of health information systems: issues,
models and case studies". Social Implications of Computers in Developing
Countries, McGraw-Hill, 304-18.
62
Fripp, C. (2009). Nigerian State Turns to ERP [Online]. Johannesburg: IT News
Africa. http://www.itnewsafrica.com/2009/02/nigerian-state-turns-to-sap-erp-
solution/ [Accessed 20 August 2012].
Gargeya, V. and Brady, C. (2005). "Success and failure factors of adopting SAP in
ERP system implementation". Business Process Management Journal [Online],
11(5), 501 – 516.
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1519904&show=html
[Accessed 20 April 2012].
Gartner Group (1999). “Enterprise Resource Planning Vendors”, in Proceedings of
Symposium/ IT Expo, Brisbane, Australia.
Gartner Research (2012). Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) [Online].
Connecticut: Gartner Research. http://www.gartner.com/it-glossary/enterprise-
resource-planning-erp/ [Accessed 20 July 2012].
Hayes, J. (2002). The theory and practice of change management. Hampshire:
Palgrave.
Heeks, R. (2002). “Information Systems and Developing Countries: Failure,
Success, and Local Improvisations”. The Information Society [Online], 18(2), 101-
112.
http://www.informaworld.com/openurl?genre=article&doi=10.1080/0197224029007
5039&magic=cref [Accessed 8 May 2012].
Holland, C. and Light, B. (1999). "A critical success factors model for ERP
implementation". IEEE Software , 16(3), 30-36.
Hopf, C. (2004). “Qualitative Interviews: An Overview”. In: Steinke I., Kardoff E.
and Flick U. (eds.), A Companion to Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
63
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-
related Values. Sage: Beverly Hills.
Hui, C. and Villareal, M. (1989). “Individualism-collectivism and psychological
needs: Their relationships in two cultures”. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
20, 310-323.
Idowu, P., Alu, A. and Adagunodo, E. (2002). “The effect of IT on the growth of the
banking industry in Nigeria”. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in
Developing Countries [Online], 10(2), 1-8.
http://www.ejisdc.org/ojs2/index.php/ejisdc/article/viewFile/55/55 [Accessed 4 May
2012].
Ifinedo, P., Rapp, B., Ifinedo, A. and Sundberg, K. (2010). “Relationships among
ERP post-implementation success constructs: An analysis at the organizational
level”. Computers in Human Behaviour [Online], 26(5), 1136-1148.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.020 [Accessed 12 May 2012].
Jackle, A., Roberts R. and Lynn, P. (2006). “Telephone versus Face-to-Face
Interviewing: Mode Effects on Data Quality and Likely Causes”, ISER Working
Paper no.2006-41. https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/files/iser_working_papers/2006-
41.pdf [Accessed 30 June 2012].
Kedia, B. and Bhagat, R. (1988). “Cultural Constraints on Transfer of Technology
across Nations: Implications for Research in International and Comparative
Management”. The Academy of Management Review [Online], 13 (4), pp. 559-571.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/258375 [Accessed 29 April 2012].
Koch, C. (1996), "Flipping the switch", CIO Magazine, 9(17), 43-66.
Leidner, D. and Kayworth, T. (2006). “Review: a review of culture in information
systems research: toward a theory of information technology culture conflict”. MIS
Quarterly [Online], 30(2), 357-399. http://misq.org/review-a-review-of-culture-in-
64
information-systems-research-toward-a-theory-of-information-technology-culture-
conflict.html [Accessed 2 May 2012].
Leung, K. and Iwawaki, S. (1988). “Cultural collectivism and distributive behavior”.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology [Online], 21, 139-157.
Lewin, K. (1952). "Group Decision and Social Change". In: Newcombe, E. and
Harley, R. (ed.), Readings in Social Psychology, pp.459-473. New York: Henry
Holt.
Manning, P. and Cullum-Swan, B. (1998). “Narrative, Content and Semiotic
Analysis Methods”. In: Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (ed.), Collecting and Interpreting
Qualitative Materials. London: SAGE.
Markus, M., Tanis, C. and Fenema, P. (2000). “Enterprise resource planning:
multisite ERP implementations”. Communications of the ACM, [Online], 43(4),
42-46. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/332051.332068 [Accessed 14 May 2012].
Markus, M.L. and Tanis, C. (2000). “The enterprise system experience : from
adoption to success’’. In: Zmud, R.W. (ed.), Framing the Domains of IT
Management: Projecting the Future Through the Past. Ohio: Pinnaflex Educational
Resources.
Mathews, B. and Ross, L. (2010). Research Methods: A Practical Guide for the
Social Sciences. London: Pearson.
May, T. (1997). Social Research: Issues, Methods and Process. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
McNamara, C. (2009). General guidelines for conducting interviews [Online],
Minnesota: Authenticity Consulting.
http://managementhelp.org/evaluatn/intrview.htm [Accessed 22 August 2012].
65
McMillan, J., and Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in education: A conceptual
introduction. 5th ed. New York: Longman.
Microsoft (2012). Microsoft Dynamics ERP available all over Nigeria [Online].
Carlifornia: Microsoft. http://www.microsoft.com/africa/nigeria/dynamics/erp/
[Accessed 27 August 2012].
Minahan, T. (1998). “Enterprise resource planning: Strategies not included”,
Purchasing [Online]. http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~arinzeob/ERPSCM/ERP3.pdf
[Accessed 20 June 2012].
Motwani, J.. Subramanian, J. and Gopalakrishna, P. (2005). “Critical factors for
successful ERP implementation: Exploratory findings from four case studies”.
Computers in Industry [Online], 56(6), 529-544.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166361505000692 [Accessed 5
May 2012].
Mursu, A., Soriyan, H., Olufokunbi, K. and Korpela, M. (2000). “Information
systems development in a developing country: theoretical analysis of special
requirements in Nigeria and Africa”. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences. Hawaii, United States of America 4-7
January 2000. New Jersey: IEEE.
Myers, M., and Tan, F. (2002). “Beyond Models of National Culture in Information
Systems Research”. Journal of Global Information Management [Online], 10(1), 24-
32. http://www.igi-global.com/article/beyond-models-national-culture-
information/3564 [Accessed 5 May 2012].
Nah, F., Lau, J.L. and Kuang, J. (2001). “Critical factors for successful
implementation of enterprise systems”. Business Process Management Journal, 7(3),
285-296.
66
Ng C., Gable G. and Chan T. (2002). “An ERP-client benefit-oriented maintenance
taxonomy”. Journal of Systems and Software [Online], 64 (2), 87-109.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0164121202000298 [Accessed 28
April 2012].
Nicolaou, A. (2004). “ERP systems implementation: drivers of post implementation
success”. In: Uncertain and Complex World: The IFIP Uncertain and Complex
World: The IFIP TC8/WG8.3 International Conference, Monash University,
Melbourne, Australia.
Nicolaou, A. and Bhattacharya, S. (2006). “Organizational performance effects of
ERP systems usage: The impact of post-implementation changes”. International
Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 7(1), 18-35.
Odedra, M., Lawrie, M, Bennett, M., Goodman, S (1993). "Sub-Saharan Africa: a
technological desert". Communications of the ACM, 35(2), 25-29.
Orlikowski, W. and Hofman, J. (1996). ‘An Improvisational Model of Change
Management: The Case of Groupware Technologies”. Working Paper Series 19, MIT
Center for Coordination Science [Online].
http://ideas.repec.org/p/wop/mitccs/191.html [Accessed April 27, 2012].
Poston, R. and Grabski, S. (2001). “Financial impacts of enterprise resource
planning implementations”. International Journal of Accounting Information
Systems, [Online], 2(4), 271-294.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1467089501000240 [Accessed 13
May 2012].
Punch, K. (1998). Introduction to Social Research: Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches. London: Sage.
Reismann, C.K. (1993). Narrative Analysis. London: Sage.
67
Rosemann, M. (2000). “Using reference models within the enterprise resource
planning lifecycle”. Australian Accounting Review [Online], 10(3), 19-21.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1835-2561.2000.tb00067.x/abstract [Accessed
28 July 2012].
Ross, J. and Vitale, M. (2000). “The ERP revolution: surviving versus
thriving.”Information Systems Frontiers [Online], 2(2), 233-241.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1026500224101 [Accessed 18 June 2012].
Shanks, G., Parr, A. and Darke, P. (2000). “Identification of necessary factors for
successful implementation of ERP systems”. In: Ngwenyama O., Introna L., Myers,
M. and DeCross J. (eds.), New Information Technologies in Organisational
Processes, pp. 99-119. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
SAP (2000). ValueSAP. Walldorf: SAP AG.
Saarinen, T. (1996). “An expanded instrument for evaluating information system
success”. Information and Management [Online], 31(2), 103-118.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378720696010750 [Accessed 22
August 2012].
Saunders, A., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2000). Research method for business
students. Prentice Hall: England.
Saunders M., Lewis P. and Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business
students. 5rd
ed. Essex: Pearson Education.
Schwartz, S. (1990). “Individualism-collectivism: Critique and proposed
refinements”. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 139-157.
68
Schwartz, S. and Bilsky, W. (1990). “Toward a theory of the universal content and
structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications”. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 878-891.
Silverman, D. (2005). Doing qualitative research. 2nd
ed. Sage: London
Seddon, P., Calvert, S. and Yang, S. (2010). “A multi-project model of key factors
affecting organizational benefits from enterprise systems”. MIS Quarterly
[Online], 34(2), 305-328.
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2017464&CFID=102751036&CFTOKEN=971182
91 [Accessed 29 April 2012].
Shang, S. and Seddon, P. (2002). “Assessing and managing the benefits of enterprise
systems: the manager’s perspective”. Information Systems Journal, [Online], 12(4),
271-299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2575.2002.00132.x [Accessed 13 May
2012].
Shanks, G., Parr, A., Hu, B., Corbitt, B., Thanasankit, T., and Seddon, P. (2000).
"Differences in Critical Success Factors in ERP Systems Implementation in
Australia and China: A Cultural Analysis", In: Proceedings of the 8th
European
Conference on Information Systems [Online], July 3-5 2000.
http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2000/53 [Accessed 30 August 2012].
Sheu, C., Chae, B. and Yang, C. (2004). “National differences and ERP
implementation: issues and challenges”. Omega [Online], 32(5), 361-371.
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S030504830400009X [Accessed 10 May
2012].
Silverman, D. (2005). Doing Qualitative Research. 2nd
ed. London: Sage.
Siriginidi, S. (2000). "Enterprise resource planning in reengineering business".
Business Process Management Journal [Online], 6(5), 376 – 391.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14637150010352390 [Accessed 14 May 2012].
69
Somekh, B. and Lewin, C. (2005). Research Methods in the Social Sciences.
London: Sage.
Somers, T. and Nelson, K. (2004). “A taxonomy of players and activities across the
ERP project life cycle”. Information and Management [Online], 41(3), 257-278.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378720603000235 [Accessed 22
August 2012].
Soh, C., Kien, S. and Tay-Yap., J. (2000). “Enterprise resource planning: cultural fits
and misfits: is ERP a universal solution?”. Communications of the ACM [Online],
43(4), 47-51. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/332051.332070 [Accessed 10 May 2012].
Somers, T. and Nelson, K. (2001). “The impact of critical success factors across the
stages of enterprise resource planning implementations”. In: Proceedings of the 34th
Annual Hawaii International Conference on Science, Hawaii, United States of
America, 3-6 January 2001. New Jersey: IEEE.
Soton (2012). Introduction to qualitative analysis. Southampton: The University of
Southampton. www.psychology.soton.ac.uk/researchmethods/.../qual_lecture3.ppt
[Accessed 20 July 2012].
Stake, R. (1978). “The case study method in social inquiry”. Educational Researcher
[Online], 7(2), 5-8. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1174340 [Accessed 16 May 2012].
Stapleton, G. and Rezak, C. (2004). “Change management underpins a successful
ERP implementation at Marathon Oil”. Journal of Organizational Excellence
[Online], 23(4), 15-22.
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/bibliographic_databases.htm?id=1458317&PHPSES
SID=v3cgp1qtft0ur9k7h6qvkklm84 [Accessed 9 May 2012].
Stratman, J.K. and Roth, A.V. (2002), "Enterprise resource planning (ERP)
competence constructs: two-stage multi-item scale development and validation",
Decision Sciences, 33(4), 601-28.
70
Straub, D., Loch, K., and Hill, C. E. (2001). “Transfer of Information Technology to
the Arab World: A Test of Cultural Influence Modeling”. Journal of Global
Information Management [Online], 9(4), pp.6-28. http://www.igi-
global.com/article/transfer-information-technology-arab-world/3559 [Accessed 27
April 2012].
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research. London: SAGE.
Stumpf, S.A., Brief, A.P. and Hartman, K. (1987). ``Self-efficacy expectations and
coping with career-related events''. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31(1), 91-108.
Sturges, J. and Hanrahan, K. (2004). “Comparing Telephone and Face-to-Face
Qualitative Interviewing: a Research Note”. Qualitative Research, 12(4), 107-118.
Themistocleous, M., Irani, Z., O'Keefe, R.M. (2001), "ERP and application
integration". Business Process Management Journal , 7(3), 195-204.
Tiamiyu, M. (2000). “Information technology in Nigerian federal agencies:
problems, impact and strategies”. Journal of Information Science [Online], 26(4),
227-237. http://jis.sagepub.com/content/26/4/227.short [Accessed 10 May 2012].
The Nation (2012). World Bank cuts Nigeria, other’s growth rate. [Online]. Lagos:
Vintage Press Ltd.
http://www.thenationonlineng.net/2011/index.php/business/33821-world-bank-cuts-
nigeria,-others%E2%80%99-growth-rate.html [Accessed 17 May 2012].
Tidd, J., Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (2006). Managing innovation. 3rd
. Sussex: John
Wiley and Sons.
TOTAL (2012). TOTAL in the Nigerian petroleum industry [Online]. Lagos:
TEPNG. http://www.ng.total.com/02_about_tepng/0207_tepngs_role.htm [Accessed
30 June 2012].
Tuner, D. (2010). “Qualitative Interview Design: A Practical Guide for Novice
Investigators”. The Qualitative Report, 15(3), 754-760.
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR15-3/qid.pdf [Accessed 9 August 2012].
71
Umble, E.J., Umble, M. (2001), "Enterprise resource planning systems: a review of
implementation issues and critical success factors", Proceedings of the 32nd
Annual Meeting of the Decision Sciences Institute , pp.1109-1111.
Umble, J., Haft, R. and Umble,M. (2003). “Enterprise resource planning:
Implementation procedures and critical success factors”. European Journal of
Operational Research [Online], 146(2), 241-257.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221702005477 [Accessed 10
August 2012].
UN Data (2010). World statistics pocketbook [pdf]. Geneva: United Nations
http://data.un.org/CountryProfile.aspx?crName=NIGERIA [Accessed 12 May 2012].
Urla A. and Urla J. (2002). “Tell me a good story: using narrative analysis to
examine information requirements interviews during an ERP implementation”.
SIGMIS Database 33, 1 (February 2002), 38-52. DOI=10.1145/504350.504357
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/504350.504357
Ven, A. and Poole, M. (1995). “Explaining development and change in
organizations”. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 510-540.
Venkatraman, N. (1994), “IT-enabled business transformation: from automation to
business scope redefinition”, Sloan Management Review, Winter.
Wagner L., Jodie M. and Newell S. (2011). “Accounting logics, reconfiguration
of ERP systems and the emergence of new accounting practices : a socio -
material perspective”. Management Accounting Research [Online], 22 (3), 181-
197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2011.03.001 [Accessed 14 May 2012].
Wier, B., Hunton, J. and HassabElnaby, H. (2007). “Enterprise resource planning
systems and non-financial performance incentives: The joint impact on corporate
performance”. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems [Online],
8(3), 165-190.
72
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1467089507000292 [Accessed 25
April 2012].
Willis, T. and Willis-Brown, H. (2002). "Extending the value of ERP". Industrial
Management & Data Systems, 102(1), 35 – 38.
Williams, M. (2002). “Qualitative Research in Action”. In: May, T. (ed.), Social
Research: Issues, Methods and Process. London: Sage.
Wikipedia (2012). Nigeria [Online]. New York: Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigeria#Economy [Accessed 8 May 2012].
Wokocha, A. and Nwokeocha, S. (2009). “E-governance: lessons from the capacity
building project and online registration of teachers in Nigeria”. In: ICEGOV
(International Conference on E-Government) Proceedings of the 3rd
international conference on Theory and practice of electronic governance.
New York, United States of America 265-270.
Worren, N., Ruddle, K. and Moore, K. (1999). “From Organizational Development
to Change Management”. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35(3), 273-
286.
World Bank Group (2010). Business environment snapshot for Nigeria. [Online].
New York: World Bank Group.
http://www.doingbusiness.org/data/exploreeconomies/nigeria/ [Accessed 14 May
2012].
Yin, R. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. California: Sage.
Yu, C., (2005). "Causes influencing the effectiveness of the post-implementation
ERP system". Industrial Management & Data Systems [Online], 105 (1), 115 – 132.
73
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1463415 [Accessed 18 April
2012].
Zhu Y., Li Y., Wang W. and Chen J. (2010). “What leads to post-implementation
success of ERP? An empirical study of the Chinese retail industry”. International
Journal of Information Management [Online], 30 (3), 265-276.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268401209001200 [Accessed 10
May 2012].
74
APPENDIX I: A SYNTHESIS OF THE TECHNOLOGICAL,
BUSINESS PROCESS AND HUMAN CHANGES AND CHANGE
BARRIERS IDENTIFIED IN THE STUDY
Changes Change barriers
Business process -Invoice management
processes
- Procurement accounting
processes
- Changes triggered by
acquisition of new oil
blocks
- Intra-company approval
strategy
- Plant Maintenance
authorization process
- Vendor management
process
- Quality management
processes
- Replenishment process
- Internal policies and
procedures of the
organisation
- Lack of communication
among stakeholders
- Lack of change readiness
among stake holders
- User unwillingness to
imbibe change.
- Inability of add-ons and
bespoke tools to automate
business processes
accurately
Technological - Integration of add-ons
(e.g. Lead Time Update
and Scan/Ejcc tools)
- Addition of bespoke
tools (e.g. CINDY)
- Addition of new modules
(i.e. Offshore Logistics
Module, Quality
Management Module)
- Configuration changes
on existing modules
- Infrastructural Upgrades
- Internal procedures and
policies
- Budgetary constraints
- Difficulties in business
needs to technical
requirements
- Top management
unwillingness to
implement upgrades
- Difficulties in aligning
new modules with existing
business processes
75
Human - Addition of functional
support structure
comprising key users and
super users.
- Addition of module-
specific roles
- Segregation of duties and
re-assignment of roles and
responsibilities
- Changes to user
reference profiles
- Industry regulations
- Lack of training
76
APPENDIX II: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Part 1
- What is your job title?
- Which business function or department do you belong to?
- Can you briefly describe the function of your department?
- What ERP modules do you use?
o What do you use these ERP modules for?
o When was this ERP package implemented in your business function?
o When did you start using the ERP package?
Part 2
- In the 8 years since ERP was implemented in your department, do you feel
any new ERP modules have been added to the existing ERP system? Why?
o If yes, were these additions obtained from third party vendors? Why?
o Which additions/extensions were implemented? Why?
o How did the support of your colleagues and superiors influence the
implementation of this change?
- What ERP software and hardware upgrades have occurred? Why?
o Do you feel these software and hardware upgrades were performed
without any problems? If not, what prevented the upgrades from
being implemented smoothly?
o Did the presence or absence of external consultants impact the
implementation of these changes?
o Where users in your department trained after these upgrades were
implemented?
o What challenges do you feel were experienced in the implementation
of these changes?
o What kind of impact did these technological changes have on
business processes?
- What aspects of your business process have been redesigned to leverage the
existing ERP in your department? Why?
o Why where these redesigns necessary?
77
o What were the main issues your department faced when redesigning
these business processes?
o Were your colleagues willing to progress with the business process
redesign? Why?
- What new roles have been added to your department’s structure to improve
the benefits your department gains from the existing ERP? Why?
o What are these roles?
o What were the main issues faced in your department when
introducing these new roles?
o What are the functions of the employees in these roles?
- What other noticeable issues, difficulties, and problems have you
encountered in the eight years of ERP post-implementation?
78
APPENDIX III: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS
INTERVIEWEE A: Joint Venture Accounting Manager
INTERVIEWER: Sir, please what is your job title?
INTERVIEWEE A: I am the accounting manager
INTERVIEWER: Which department do you belong to?
INTERVIEWEE A: Finance and Control Division, within Accounting Department
INTERVIEWER: Can you briefly describe the function of your department?
INTERVIEWEE A: We are responsible for the accounts. First of all, this is a
multinational company and when I say responsible for the account I mean the
integrity of the account not the report. That means if we have a general ledger
account for example and we see that the balance is 12 dollars. The integrity of this
12 dollars rests on us to make sure that whoever is taking this 12 dollars to make a
report is sure that this 12 dollars is correct. Responsible for the accounts in another
sense means somebody has prepared an account using this records, that is not the
kind of responsibility I am talking about.
INTERVIEWER: As accounting manager could you briefly describe your daily
routine?
INTERVIEWEE A: My daily routine, we have vendors (for whom) we process their
invoices, we have regulations including taxes and all that, payments that were made
to ensure that the taxes…we also have the responsibility of ensuring that the vendors
are paid based on contractual terms. On the other side, you know we are a joint
venture, by joint venture it means that partners have to pay their cash calls, you have
to monitor the timing of the payment of the cash calls, based on how much (they)
were supposed to pay, if there are differences you create an arrears or overpayment.
You also have to prepare the accounts, the returns for the partners. We prepare the
partner portion, the one for the group portion is prepared by the guys in corporate.
Now in all integrity issues concerning accounting for example, if we have an account
that has a balance, we have to ensure that the balance is correct. For example, it is
possible to give an advance to a vendor to procure the items, the vendor procures the
item, you have the amount outstanding in an advance account, whereas you ‘ve
79
already received delivery, …it is your responsibility to identify such advances and
tie it to the payment otherwise you will have outstanding in terms of vendors you
have not paid. If you clear this one item, you clear about three other items of the
books so the books are not (inaudible). And you find out that most times, you have
to find the problem.
INTERVIEWER: Which ERP modules do you use in your department? SAP
INTERVIEWEE A: What specific module is being use in your department? Supply
Chain Management (SCM), Plant Maintenance, Finance and Control (FIC). Under
the supply chain management (SCM), the plants and maintenance are inside it. I
don’t know which one is correct but we use PM, we use the MM portion. Under the
FIC, we use the project system as well.
INTERVIEWER: When were these ERP systems implemented in your department?
INTERVIEWEE A: 2004.
INTERVIEWER: When did you start using the ERP system?
INTERVIEWEE A: February 1, 2004 – go live.
INTERVIEWER: In the 8 years since the ERP system was implemented in your
department, do you feel any new ERP modules have been added to the existing
system?
INTERVIEWER A: Basically, there have been evolutions but not new. I’d tell you
what it means For example if you look at the materials management side, on the
queue…don’t forget evolution does not mean you are adding parts of the system…its
just the way you’re… The real questions are these - there are regulations within the
republic, within Nigeria, that certain percentage of your procurements has to be in
Naira and another percentage has to be in dollars. Initially, the thinking was, okay,
why can’t we put two of them together in one box and create…for it. TOTAL didn’t
want…gas plant…But over time we discovered that (inaudible) is doing other things,
in the sense that …create a (inaudible) of ten dollars, and create a portion of it for
200 naira. It will keep accepting them until it gets to 210 dollars, adding two of them
as if they are in the same currency. So we dropped that, so we see that there some
80
evolutions then we go back to where we were and find another way to do it. There
has been improvements, like evolutions, improvements, changes and stuff.
INTERVIEWER: Could you name any specific improvement to the ERP
system?
INTERVIEWEE A: First of all, ERP are meant to work for us and not us for the
ERP. Now when the partners, we thought or we believed that, the partners normally
want or believe…directly inside the cost object, that means if you say you spent 10
dollars sweeping the main road. We believe the partners want to see the 10 dollars
from directly the invoice into the accounts for the main road. Now the way SAP
works is this. SAP wants to see the flow, because it’s an ERP, who authorized the
job, creates an authorization? First of all, people talk about…but he said he has
swept the road means that you owe him. Now the gentle man who says OK, now he
sends the invoice and you book it again the fact that someone says he has stopped.
Now because we felt that the partners do not want to see somebody authorize and
another person (into the account) …the partners want to see the invoice going into
the account directly. We built something called a bespoke, a by-pass of the way the
system works to be able to make in such a way that, when he says he has swept the
road it will not ?show? into the cost object, that is the expense account, it would
rather go into a statistical entry, that is an entry that is hanging without making any
making any account entry. An when you get the invoice and put the invoice the
invoice will now put into the cost object, therefore the partners will see the invoice
directly into the cost object, that is in the expense account. That created a lot of
competition/complication, first of all what we did was an evolution that is an
upgrade of the system. But we discovered that it created a lot of other issues in the
sense that you cannot calculate your payables accurately. Because every time
somebody completes a job, it generates a payable, even if there is no invoice. So you
cannot say this is amount I’m going to pay (inaudible) you cannot (inaudible)
accurately. So overtime, we had to stop it in 2008 and go back to the original
method. We took it as a challenge to speak to the partners that look, this is the way
the machine works and we can’t turn it around. We are not the only people using
SAP. So the partners accepted and today it works better. This is a typical change that
we noticed in the course of the life of an ERP. There are some restrictions you
cannot avoid, particularly the one to do with the way of working. For example, every
81
company has a policy on payment pass, terms of payment. Now, if you have a policy
on terms of payment X and somebody within the system has agreed to change it to Y
just because he feels very happy with somebody else, ehm you should be able to
block it to say OK, every time that a document comes in, the document should come
with (inaudible). Now you find out that the flow of SAP is that there is what they
call the document hierarchy. It flows from the (inaudible) to the company
code…from the company code to the mm document, before it gets to the fi
document. If somebody in the upstream document creating the PO finds something
different from what the company policy says, it falls all the way down. Now if you
say that someone in FI should change, it means that you can change that one and
change others. Now we go into a situation where we say let us block this and
because they know how to block it, there is no way to block it. Now if you want to
block it you have to go to gas plant. Now when I say gas plant, gas plan means a
bespoke that is to write a lot of code. You know when you draw your diagram of
how the place should be to achieve something, if you look at it looks like a gas plant.
So you have to build a bespoke to go around it to make it work. But the bespoke is
not worth it because they create more problems.
INTERVIEWER: Did you experience any barriers from your colleagues when
these improvements were being done?
INTERVIEWEE A: Normally, within the area of change management…I’d tell you
something. There are two styles of change management, depending on the style, the
way you work its going to be different. SAP is an ERP that touches all aspects of the
company and all aspects of the company use SAP. What this means is that if
somebody is supplying something to us from Paris, or from London or wherever, and
its arriving, once you give it a code, SAP captures it. On arrival, once you enter the
code that came with it….and triggers OMS process…until you put it in the boot,
until the guy captures it and…then SAP closes that document. Now because it
touches all aspects of the business, it means that the level at which you want your
change management is not at the divisional level, it is at the corporate level. So
(inaudible) committee has issue with…so we call it the top-down push. If the md
says this is the way we’re going, nobody will say I’m not going that way. So if you
82
see everybody interested in it, and then every time speak you have to say something
about it, make it look like that is the way everybody is going to go. If everybody is
playing the same song, then everybody will find it interesting to go and learn this
new song, then everybody is going to work better. And on your cut-off date, the
strategy I have even supported even on the latest project we did…when we changed
an aspect of the way the work was been done. On that one, on the cut-off date, we
stop the old machine, and we stop the new machine. Once we do, no one will have
the choice of going back to the old one because he likes it or he is used to it. That
one stops, nobody will have access to it. So everything you want to do must be in the
new one. And because there is a push from management, nobody has a choice to say
no. When you see hierarchy, everybody telling you this is the way to do it, when you
say no, that word should not be mentioned here. Nobody talks about the old system.
It depends on the style of your change management. If you don’t do it correctly,
there will be resistance. If you do it correctly, everybody falls in line.
INTERVIEWER: Do you feel that all of the individuals responsible for working
with the system were given relevant training on how to use the system?
INTERVIEWEE A: Well, if there is not training, your change management will fail
completely. It is not negotiable. First of all is that within the code of the
implementation phase, you have gentlemen that tells you how the work is been done.
We call them the business representatives. At every twist and turn, they have to tell
you what is acceptable otherwise you aren’t going to get your project approved by
management at the end of the day. Because they have to sign off first before any
other person signs off. So while the project is going on, everybody down the line is
aware, because the business representatives will not come and give you an answer to
a question. He’s going to go call his own local representatives and they discuss the
situation that you have presented to him and they take a decision, so everybody is
involved from the beginning. So by the time you finish your (blueprinting) to say
(this is what we know we’re supposed to put down), then you get people to start the
configuration what you have ?agreed? Now they start the configuration of what you
have (blueprinted), you’re going to create a timebox, and you’re going to begin to
take people and train them. When you’re training, the implementation people are
working. So it’s a phased training, and everybody is trained, you open the access to
the timebox to (inaudible), so you can go and (inaudible) and have a feel of the
83
system. And the more you have the (inaudible) of the system, the more you get used
to the vocabulary of the system, because every system has a vocabulary. So when
you get into the vocabulary of the system, you stop talking about work order, and
you begin talking about purchase order. You stop talking about cost ‘something’ and
you begin to talk about cost objects. The language is already changing while the
legacy is on. And everybody knows the target date of each. And management has
directed that that target date must be fixed and respected, and everybody knows that
on this date I must work with this, and nobody is going to ask any questions, and
nobody is going to ask the question, do you know how to do it because management
has the idea that everyone has the training, there is a training calendar for everybody.
And management will see that the report of the training must be sent back to
management to find out who did not attend. So they adopted a calendar way of doing
things in this change work.
INTERVIEWER: Has there any new roles or functions which have been added
to your departments structure to ensure that your department can benefit from
the ERP system?
INTERVIEWEE A: Let me tell you, I am the accounting manager today, when the
system went live I was the systems administrator. I was the administrator of that
system. For you to set up an ERP as big as SAP, as an example, there has to be a
support structure for it. Whenever an ERP cuts across the whole company, you must
create a support structure for it. And the support structure is supposed to have all the
elements of the organisation working inside it. What it means is that if somebody has
a problem working with (a location) within SAP, you know that in the maintenance
environment, every machine has a place where it belongs, it has the environment and
everything within it, those things are configured within it. So whenever you talk
about SAP machines, and the equipments inside the machine, and note the calendar
of its maintenance…so within that structure, we have people whom we call the
support structure, within this support structure, we have all the elements (FIC, SCM,
PM) we have technocrats who understand SAP and understand the business working
with us. So what they do is that if there is a problem, they look at how is this
gentleman doing it, is he doing it in line with how it is supposed to be done? Is it the
machine? Is it the procedure? Or is it the individual? If it is the procedure, then we
84
change the procedure immediately. If it’s the individual, then we train him/her. If it’s
the machine, then we need to modify something in the machine.
For example, when we went live, an individual who works on the shop floor could
easily order maintenance. But if you calculate the cost of (inaudible) maintenance, it
goes up to about 10 million dollars. That means the maintenance should only be
ordered by an authorized person. And in plant maintenance, there was no way of
controlling the amount of money an individual can authorize. So we had to build
(inaudible) and begin to find way to structure to add in a way of authorization and
we succeeded. So it is no longer that we can say this individual can authorize what
he pleases, it’s not anybody that can come in maintenance. If you want maintenance,
then you have to escalate it to the right person who can say ‘yes’, we have enough
money, the maintenance is due and we can do and we have contacted the vendor.
Once we press a button, it triggers the maintenance process and that will depend on
the amount of money you can authorize.
INTERVIEWER: So are there other difficulties you feel have been experienced
in the department during ERP post-implementation?
INTERVIEWEE A: When you have an ERP, you have some small softwares that
work around it. Sometimes, you discover that you have a problem of data integrity,
concerned with having the same data on both sides. Sometimes you find out that if
you change information in the ERP it doesn’t update the softwares working around
them. So you begin to find out what is the best way, should you then say ok, every
night you delete everything you have, you upload from the ERP. That means you are
sure that what you have in that line is what you have in ERP, because you cannot go
the other way round, its not possible, because the information contained in the ERP
controls other aspects of the ERP. So it must be the ERP updating those ones, not the
other way round. So it’s a choice of what you want to do.
Interviewee B: Head of Finance Methods and Systems Department, Finance
Methods and Systems Department
INTERVIEWER: Which department do you belong to?
85
INTERVIEWEE B: Department, finance methods and systems – we are in charge of
the business aspect of the system, we do the finance, procedures, we are in charge of
closures, and we are in charge of supporting SAP users
INTERVIEWER: In the 8 years since ERP was implemented in your
department, which new ERP modules have been added to the existing ERP?
INTERVIEWEE B: None have been added so far…we are still using the original
modules we implemented during go-live in 2004.
INTERVIEWER: Sir, you responded that no new modules have been
implemented at since SAP was implemented, is there a possible explanation for
that?
INTERVIEWEE B: Well…its just the enhancement of the existing modules we have
been doing…When the system went live, I think it was very clear, in our own case,
the development of our system took two years…so it’s a long time, oil companies do
not rush in implementing applications it takes time, they’d do analysis, they’d get
data…so within those two years, and in those years we do long term planning, so we
know that these are the kinds of operations we going to do, this is what SAP offers
and this is our best bet so the modules were very clear. The configuration changes
were that…we are enhancing the modules…more and more to meet our business
needs, but we’re not really bringing in new modules because a new module for us
will be like, in SAP you have MM, MM means materials management… a new
module will now be like I want to bring material management when there was no
materials management so that would be like too far off for us…so like FI…FI is a
financial accounting module so we already thought of that, or asset accounting (AA)
so you’ve already heard of it so these were the modules we were going to use to run
this business and the best practise and the JV… the joint venture modules which oil
and gas companies use so there was no change. But of course in all these modules
we have made a lot of progress on them but we’ve not really added a new one but the
fact is that changes have occurred.
INTERVIEWER: So, when you say enhancements have occurred during post-
implementation, can you explain what these enhancements were?
86
INTERVIEWEE B: Yes, what I mean by enhancement, yes you upgrade…upgrading
means because, let me say a simple application - Excel. Excel are meant for
planning…maybe when you started to use them, you were not Ok, so you now have
an add-on.so it is still Excel that you’re using but an add-on is not like a new module
of excel but it is more like maybe a macro just to help you automate some things and
make it effective for you, but it is still an inherent capability of excel so…so the
modules, it is not every capability of the modules we were using, so the hardline is
that the module has the inherent capability so we were not using it so we now had to
make configuration changes to now bring out some things so that we could use
them…you understand me…that was more like enhancing the system. There were
some things which the modules did not have…SAP too is also evolving, they can say
ah, a lot of people are saying they want this, so they will now send this to the
module, so a module that could not do this will then be able to do that, something
new.
INTERVIEWER: Do you feel that any ERP system upgrades in your
department have occurred since post-implementation?
INTERVIEWEE B: We have had several system configuration changes since go-live
but no upgrade…although we have scheduled our upgrade from SAP Version 4.6 to
ECC for next year 2013.
INTERVIEWER: So you have mentioned that many configuration changes
have occurred during ERP post implementation. I was just wondering if you
could give some examples of these configuration changes?
INTERVIEWEE B: You know uhm…we have new business requirements from time
to time and SAP will complete…is a bit umm…there some things you cannot do at
the user level…I’m now trying to scan my mind…OK lets take for instance…umm..
a principle in our system…sorry I;m scanning my mind to discuss the one that will
not be too abstract for you to understand… Lets say when we have the mapping of
umm…say when you buy goods, stock or materials, the way that the stock accounts
could be mapped to…umm…financial accounts so that *via a stock account*….in
SAP its called evaluation class is mapped to a general ledger account so that…the
people who are buying stock don’t care about the financial jargons but when they
buy it the mapping of the account is considered as a mapping…no we have a single
87
configuration issue where later on you decide that now, later on, an account
shouldn’t be mapped to this…you should change the mapping as simple as that is
that is the configuration…so its just basically that the configurations are the rules
that govern the system…you can say that we want these set of accounts to calculate
exchange rate difference…exchange rate difference should run an account…and if
we say we do not want this account, that we want another account to calculate
exchange rate difference so…every update of a principle of a concept sometimes
when you have a new license and a new block you may need to change these
configurations to reflect the realities of the day and sometimes you even have to
explain them to the technical team…because they understand the technical
perspective…they don’t understand the business perspective so you have to explain
it to them and describe what you want and they will tell you whether its technically
feasible or not.
INTERVIEWER: So are you suggesting that there were some communication
problems when communicating these changes to the technical people?
INTERVIEWEE B: Ummm, will I say they are communication problems or
challenges…in the sense that they can be achieved…its not like the person says yes
and he goes to do another thing because he doesn’t understand what we’ve said…it
takes time to communicate to the technical teams because the business won’t just
run, we can enter into a very complex partnership and say I’m a partner with you but
I’m still going to fund you in another way but I’m in partnership with another guy
and I’ll fund him with 60% of what I was funding you…the reality is that everybody
is doing a business, he doesn’t care whether what the impact is on the system. When
he has gone to do that business or has agreed on that kind of contract…he now
(inaudible) back to your business teams…err err…your system teams, and we now
ask him is this thing that we now have to do in reality, how best can we reflect them,
to understand how we can do that…then we now communicate it to somebody who
is an SAP consultant, someone who is very technical…he may not even have much
finance knowledge and you now have to explain to him and say, OK, this is exactly
what I want…so that process could be demanding and it difficult to pass that
information across…because you’re now translating business needs into technical
needs. And there may be hiccups here and there…people may say this is not what I
88
wanted…there may even be compromises because you’re not even going to translate
one hundred percent, you need to compromise and say we’d just manage with this.
So its not that the problem is communication per se, but the challenge in
communicating. The challenge is that it has to be translated. It is like me saying that
OK, translate something from English to Igbo, it is not that you can’t translate it but
there’s going to be a challenge for you….because there’s going to be some words in
English that its going to be difficult to find the Igbo equivalent of it. In such cases, if
there’s no word for ‘telephone’ in Igbo, we’re just going to use telephone as it is
since we can’t seem to find an Igbo word for it. So that kind of thing.
INTERVIEWER: Just now you explained how mapping has to be done with
respect to the configuration changes, now can you just talk about how these
configuration changes have changed the business processes in your own
department?
INTERVIEWEE B: Of course, they would because it is the business processes that
drive the configuration changes…if I have a new business process, or a new business
reality, I’d want to reflect it in my system…but by the time I reflect it in my system,
I will now be able to implement that configuration change. Because for instance I
have a new block, and a new block means I’m going to open a new bank account, it
means I’m going to open a new partner account, for instance in the oil and gas
business. So when that has happened, the first thing is that before I even start to do
those things in reality, or as I am doing those things in reality, for me to work with
the change and capture it in the system, I will now ask the configuration to be
changed in the system…so that the system and the business reality will be the same.
So definitely we need configuration changes…it is that the business needs are the
ones that trigger the configuration changes and the configuration changes mean that
the business needs have been met and would be changed.
INTERVIEWER: Sir, you mentioned a word called block I do not understand
what that word means?
INTERVIEWEE B: OK, what I mean by block is an oil field, or an oil well…you’d
be issued a license called an oil mining lease by the Nigerian government, saying,
OK, Emeka, I give you 1 hectare of land and, for instance, where you can drill oil,
89
so it’s a lease…I’m using them interchangeably…that lease is the official
language…you can call the lease a block, a block is a subset of the lease…In a lease
you can have several blocks in it…So when you have new licenses, some of them are
very complex in the legal and accounting agreement, and so you may need to make
changes in your system to conform with it because the whole idea is that the system
is meant for the business and not the other way round, you do not adjust your
business because this is how your system is configured, no. You tell your system
that this is how I want to run my business, so you, you work for me and not the other
way round. But of course, the system can propose some best practises because the
developers of the system might have gone around the world and gathered best
practises which they feel that oh its good if you can adopt but the whole idea is that
your business needs drives how your system is configured.
INTERVIEWER: Now let’s focus now on the human aspect, like your
colleagues and the other people you work with in your department. Do you feel
that whenever these changes in terms of business process or configuration
changes had to be done, do you feel that there was any resistance or problems
with them having to adapt to these new kinds of changes?
INTERVIEWEE B: Of course, they would because those changes, these business
needs are usually done at a high (inaudible) the management and the various
departments that are responsible they’re going to negotiate it so whenever a new
business change, let us say, an invoice (inaudible)…a new way of configuration
change that involves the way you process your invoice and how you pay your
vendors so certainly it is going to affect people because you have to communicate to
your vendors and say ok because of my new system change when you submit your
invoice, he has to have this kind of information, otherwise I will not collect your
invoice. People who are capturing the invoice into the system, you need to train them
and say OK, this is the new way to capture the invoice in the system. The people
who would be approving the invoices, they need to be communicated to. So there’s
always going to be a period of change management, and many times people don’t
really know what they are doing. They don’t appreciate it. They know the ‘how’, but
they do not know the ‘why’. They just say, this is how they said I should do it oh, so
whenever there are changes there’s definitely going to be an issue of change
management. And you have to keep reminding them and following up decisions with
90
them and sometimes people have the tendency of doing it their own way, not the best
practise way, they do not really understand. But by the time you keep training them,
and training them, and training them, it may rub off and you have to keep doing it
and doing before they now adjust…there would be that window of period when
things are now clear, but eventually, things will sort themselves out.
INTERVIEWER: Can you tell me if any new roles have been added to your
department's structure to improve the benefits your department gains from the
existing ERP?
INTERVIEWEE B: Well, yes…mainly the creation of Key User and Super User
roles.
INTERVIEWER: Can you please explain what these key user and super roles
are about?
INTERVIEWEE B: These roles are people who, like, will be seen to be competent.
So when you want to develop a new system, you will not carry the whole company
along. Let us say you do a configuration change or develop and invoice process
system, like I said, a new way of processing invoices that go to your records. So,
usually in TOTAL, we can have umm, 20 or 30 people involved in…big companies
like this we can have 30 people 40 people involved in invoice processing at various
levels. You won’t have to carry all of them, instead you will want to identify people
who, usually they will have a bias for systems…people who, they’re doing their jobs
as accountants for instance, but they like (inaudible) You pick them and say the stage
when you’re conceptualizing these change they give you their input, so they will be
carried along throughout this process and they will know about it more than the
ordinary person. So, because, when you want to deploy your system you can’t carry
everyone off their work. These ones will spend time off their work to concentrate on
this new development. Eventually when the system goes live, they will be reference
points to their colleagues because their colleagues may not know as much about it so
these are the key users.
What we call key users is like (inaudible) among the key users, there will be one
person who’d be a super user, like the lead user. That one will be someone who
knows it very well and is competent in it. So that when you have a problem, you will
91
first escalate it to your colleague who is like a key user, if he or she cannot resolve it,
she escalates it to the lead user. If the lead user cannot resolve the problem, you
escalate it to a competency center or a very technical team who will now look into it.
INTERVIEWER: So can you possibly say whether or not, when these key users
and super users were given these roles to take up within the organisation, do
you feel that these individuals willingly took it…do you feel that they accepted
those responsibilities very gladly?
INTERVIEWEE B: Yeah, because how we did it is that first they were appointed via
the company’s intranet so they were given recognition so that is one. Number 2, it is
part of their performance evaluation, so I think they were rewarded for it. So they
will be appraised on their performance on it apart from their normal jobs, maybe a
percentage of their annual appraisals will consider their roles in that job function.
INTERVIEWER: So these are like permanent roles?
INTERVIEWEE B: Yes, if you are a key user or a lead user, you can be a key user
or lead user for maybe one or two years then it changes again because, of course, you
are not there forever. As the configuration/organisation changes, new people will be
appointed and things like that. But yes, you will normally be first an accountant, like
first of all, if you’re just employed in a company, nobody will employ you as a key
user…you’d be employed for a job and in addition to your employment you can be
appointed to be a key user. Primarily, you’d have your job function and the key or
lead user is an additional part of your job.
INTERVIEWER: So can you talk about the SAP modules that you use?
INTERVIEWEE B: The building blocks of SAP which you’d find in most
companies are not so many…so we use FIC – financial accounting, we use CO –
controlling, for mining accounting - MA, MM – for material management,
logistics…because we are an oil company, we use JVA module – the joint venture
accounting module. It is very important to us because we are an oil company, other
companies do not use JVA, but JVA is like a very key module that oil companies
use…, we do not use HR modules, we use another application for HR, we use the
PM module, we use the offshore logistics module OLM, in finance we use Project
92
System Module, we use the Asset Accounting Module to manage fixed assets. I
think those are basically the main modules we use.
Participant C: Contracts and Procurements Methods Manager
INTERVIEWER: In the 8 years since ERP was implemented in your
department, which new ERP modules have been added to the existing ERP?
INTERVIEWEE C: Well, in the department, only Quality Management Module has
been implemented since SAP was implemented in 2004. We are still using most of
the other modules that were implemented at the time.
INTERVIEWER: What recent ERP system upgrades in your department have
occurred since post-implementation?
INTERVIEWEE C: A lot of upgrades have taken place aimed at aligning the ERP
system to the business need.
INTERVIEWER: What were the main barriers faced when implementing these
additions and upgrades in your department?
INTERVIEWEE C: During the implementation of the upgrades, well, we had to
address a lot of issues…I can remember that it was initially difficult to fully align,
you know, like unify SAP with our normal business processes.
INTERVIEWER: What aspects of your business process have been redesigned
to leverage the existing ERP in your department?
INTERVIEWEE C: Yes, some aspects of the way we work in our department needed
to be changed since SAP was implemented…especially…for example, because of
the addition of the Quality Management Module. Take for instance, the quality
management process and the invoice management process…these business processes
had to be changed.
INTERVIEWER: So what, then, do you feel were the main obstacles to
redesigning these business processes?
INTERVIEWEE C: For my department, we had plenty of change management issues
and training problems to address…you know it can be a bit challenging to change
how people work, especially when you’ve been working that way for a very long
time. We also had to confront the issue of training…users had to be trained from
93
time to time to bring their skills up to date with the current business reality and ways
or working.
INTERVIEWER: What new roles have been added to your department's
structure to improve the benefits your department gains from the existing
ERP?
INTERVIEWEE C: None have been added in our department. But most people have
had to be retrained time and again whenever any new change in the business process,
the way we work changes…or, even when the new module was added to the system.
INTERVIEWEE D: STOCK CONTRACTS AND PROCUREMENTS
INTERVIEWER: In the 8 years since ERP was implemented in your
department, which new ERP modules have been added to the existing ERP?
INTERVIEWEE D: Well, for us in (inaudible)…it was important for us to improve
the integration of the offshore locations of the business…so we had to add the
Offshore Logistics Module…its normally called OLM. So the OLM basically gives
us visibility of materials from, you know, dispatch to reception
offshore…and…material returns.
INTERVIEWER: What recent ERP system upgrades in your department have
occurred since post-implementation?
INTERVIEWEE D: From the finance side of things, we have had to integrate in-
company approval strategy - (DOA – Delegation Of Authority) through a mini
project - CINDY…CINDY is a project name set up by the Group to address the
harmonization of the releases in SAP with internal thresholds…as well as
departments. So in the project, I mean CINDY, we wanted to replicate the
authorization thresholds and link these thresholds to relevant departments throughout
the company. So, the way to do this…I mean, the vehicle for this enhancement is the
workflow that links SAP sign on to e-mail, that is Outlook…and so we this measure
then supports real time approvals for mobile users through just a single sign-on….
INTERVIEWER: What were the main barriers faced when implementing these
additions and upgrades in your department?
INTERVIEWEE D: Of course, we faced some barriers here and there…these things
normally have some impact so there are bound to be hiccups when we have to make
94
upgrades and even enhancements. So…for example, we have Head Office rules that
aim to harmonize systems across Total…that is the Group. So with these kinds of
rules, authorizations to create any upgrades has to be approved by Head Office…but
about 80% of the time, the authorizations are turned down. Sometimes, we also have
constraints in terms of our budget because, you see, most times, it is difficult to
convince other Stakeholders, some of whom are already set in their own ways (JOA)
INTERVIEWER: What aspects of your business process has been redesigned to
leverage the existing ERP in your department?
INTERVIEWEE D: In the area of the changes in business processes in the way we
work, we have had a few…so for instance, for us to aid what we call the
replenishment process which is heavily depends on the Lead Time and
Consumption, we had to add on a bespoke tool…the tool is called the Lead Time
Update. So the Lead Time Update tool calculates the actual purchasing lead times
from purchasing requests release to goods receipts. So after this is done, is is then
integrated into the MRP process and the planning activities of both the user entities
and the Procurement team to be able to estimate when to launch a
requisitions…bearing in mind the different lead times. This tool, I mean the Lead
Time Update tool, helped us improve our net consequence…we also had better Stock
Management, reduced inventories, even better user satisfaction as well.
INTERVIEWER: What do you feel were the main obstacles to redesigning
these business processes?
INTERVIEWEE D: In the area of changing or redesigning our business processes,
well, we had to address some important barriers…For instance, the existing internal
procedures and the peculiarities of the Joint Operating Agreements (JOA) with the
partners was one issue…this was drawn in the 1980’s…it was also a bit difficult to
manage the changes that the government agencies introduced as well…do you know
what I mean? So, this meant that for every change initiative that comes about, an
amount of time enormous time is wasted in all kinds of engagements and…you
know the changing mind sets of people…Even most of the clauses that we have in
the JOA out of tune with the current realities of the business environment…but they
are, you know, seem to be sacrosanct!
95
INTERVIEWER: What new roles have been added to your department's
structure to improve the benefits your department gains from the existing
ERP?
INTERVIEWEE D: So based on the CINDY project and some of the additions we
have added with time to the ERP…we needed to introduce some new roles. So, for
example, for the OLM addition…we had to have a dispatcher…this person has
access to many areas such as container creation, Shipping, packing and returns
transactions….In the case of CINDY, many releasers came in line with the
delegation of authority principle. Basically, all other roles…at least within this
department…have remained essentially the same, although we have had to make
some minor changes to the user reference profiles.
INTERVIEWER: What were the difficulties encountered when adding these
new roles to the department's structure?
INTERVIEWEE D: Umm…about the difficulties we faced…there were just the
usual issues with delegation of authority, you know, like threshold overlaps…Also,
the ability to separate some transaction codes from standard user references…say,
for example, the Dispatcher Role integrated with the MIGO access which also
contains GR, & GI transactions…I mean the goods receipt and good issue
transactions. The process, you know, is sort of for each procedure…because we are
complying with Sarbone-Oxley)…and it also brings up the issue of segregation of
duty issue. So these are the main issues I can remember we have had to confront, you
see, when restructuring the roles in our department since SAP was brought in.
INTERVIEWEE E: PROCESS OFFICER, FINANCIAL CONTROL
DEPARTMENT
INTERVIEWER: In the 8 years since ERP was implemented in your
department, which new ERP modules have been added to the existing ERP?
INTERVIEWEE E: NONE has been added in my department even though there has
been an upgrade on the version
INTERVIEWER: What recent ERP system upgrades in your department have
occurred since post-implementation?
96
INTERVIEWEE E: NONE at the moment except in 2013 when the ECC6 version
will be deployed
INTERVIEWER E: What aspects of your business process have been redesigned
to leverage the existing ERP in your department?
INTERVIEWEE E: Well, before SAP was deployed here, we were carrying out most
of our business processes in a very manual way. But since ERP was implemented,
most business processes are now done in real time.
INTERVIEWER: Thanks for that response. If we can now focus in the post-
implementation stage of SAP in your department, can you give any real
examples of the business processes that have had to be redesigned since SAP
was implemented in your department?
INTERVIEWER E: Okay, well…for us we have had to do embark on some projects
that involved a lot of re-designs since ERP was implemented here. So, for example,
we have had to complete the project we called scan-ejcc….the scan-ejcc tool was
basically used to interface with SAP where invoices are properly managed and for
other things like…emm…service entry sheet creation, for instance. So, you see, the
business approval of these documents, I mean the invoices… are done within the
SES tool and it is then copied into SAP automatically. So this tool was basically an
interface and it was very user friendly. The platform was Livelink 9.0. But, you see,
however, at the end of life of the livelink enterprise tool, a new tool was deployed as
a replacement in April 2012. The IMP/SES tool was developed within SAP which
replaced scan-ejcc. The benefits of the new system for us were many…for instance
servers were reduced in number, all our validations or approvals are now done in
SAP, optical character recognition of invoices are now possible and controls are also
strengthened for business processes and procedures. So, you see there were many
benefits when the new tool was deployed here.
INTERVIEWER: What do you feel were the main obstacles to redesigning
these business processes?
INTERVIEWEE E: You know, the main thing is the change factor…our people were
not usually ready to respond and imbibe the changes we had to implement.
INTERVIEWER: So why do you feel that people were not readily responsive to
the change in these business processes?
97
INTERVIEWEE E: I think it was mainly a kind of phobia for technology…we tried
to overcome this phobia through the setting up of steering committee made up of top
management, you know, so they were able to give their full support for the changes
and the technology itself. We also did other things, so posters were created for the
purposes of enlightenment campaigns all through the company. Even on our intranet,
notifications and information were placed on the intranet and left there for a long
time. We also had to send personal notifications were sent to everyone concerned
with SAP…and in the personal notifications; we tried to articulate the benefits of the
tools.
We also had to train people. So we had to send these training invitations a minimum
of two weeks before the actual training was to take place…Apart from all of these,
the project teams also reviewed activities and checklist regularly.
INTERVIEWER: What new roles have been added to your department's
structure to improve the benefits your department gains from the existing
ERP?
INTERVIEWEE E: With the deployment of ERP, we have had been better
segregation of duties and support as a result of roles assigned to users for different
modules, you know, like PM,MM, FI, CO and functional support respectively.
INTERVIEWER: Can you be more specific about the roles assigned to users
for the PM, MM, FI and CO?
INTERVIEWEE E: Okay, so for PM, we had…PM – PM consultant, Key User,
Maintenance Engineer, MM – Central and decentralized buyers, MM lead user,
purchasing approver, stock controller, FI – Accountant level 1 & 2, Payment
Analyst, Treasurer…and then in CO, we had project cost controller, Budget analyst,
Cost controller I & II
INTERVIEWER: What were the difficulties encountered when adding these
new roles to the department's structure?
98
INTERVIEWEE E: When we did this..,that is adding these new roles, we needed to
do what we call proper impact analysis to validate the impact of the restructuring of
the existing documents at the time. We had to do other things like test running to
monitor the risk, phase by phase deployment which is time consuming to minimize
risk. We also had change Management, in the sense of, user appreciation of
expectation following structuring
INTERVIEWER: Where there any barriers which hindered the introduction of
these new job roles?
INTERVIEWEE E: For us, we required top management approval after every
business need was verified. There were also other issues with technical specification
and coding, and training of users across the department.
INTERVIEWER: Was adequate training provided for these users, and if so, do
you feel that these users were readily receptive to the training?
INTERVIEWEE E: Yes. Adequate training was provided for them. Let me give you
some examples, okay, we had Desk-place support provided to different users. We
had refresher training organized after go-live and Course/training evaluation surveys
administered. We also maintained the Key Potential indicators (KPIs) for the
different business activities.
Interviewee F: Head Enterpriese Administration
INTERVIEWER: Which department do you belong to?
INTERVIEWEE F: It used to be called the IT department before but now it is called
the affiliate information systems support.
INTERVIEWER: So can briefly describe the functions of your department?
INTERVIEWEE F: My department provides technical support for all the enterprise
applications that are used by all the locations, like SAP for instance. Everybody in
Lagos, Port Harcourt, Abuja and Offshore, they all use SAP. Things like (inaudible),
everybody across the company uses it. And the Oracle database and SQL database as
well. Other departments handle locations used in only Lagos for instance, but my
department handles the applications that cut across the entire company.
99
INTERVIEWER: As Head of Enterprise Administration, what is your daily
routine like?
INTERVIEWEE F: My duty is to (inaudible) SAP team, Oracle team, SQL team,
Exchange team on status of the systems and address any issue that has come up
concerning those systems; to plan activities and projects with the team.
INTERVIEWER: Which specific ERP modules are being used within your
business area?
INTERVIEWEE F: Now we support SAP system, but we don’t actually use it. We
keep it running, like I said I’m in the technical support team. So my job is to make
sure that the application is running, if it crashes or if it slow or it is going down, it is
my team that brings it back up. The modules that I use are Finance and Control,
Plant Maintenance, and Materials Management.
INTERVIEWER: In the 8 years since ERP was implemented in your
department, do you feel any new ERP modules have been added to the existing
ERP system? Why?
INTERVIEWEE F: No new modules have been added, but additional applications
have been added to support the existing ERP modules.
INTERVIEWER: Can you possibly give examples of some of these
applications?
INTERVIEWEE F: So there was one called scan/ejcc, what it does is that for people
who are to approve payment of invoices, they need to have certain set of servers that
could…when they click on an invoice in SAP, is actually a scanned copy of the
invoice…not just the electronic details of the invoice…they begin to check and some
workstations were set up within the company, where vendors can come in and
submit their invoices and they will be scanned, saved into the servers and they could
be called up from within SAP. There is another application called (inaudible)
workflow as well which was basically a BusinessWorkflow which would send
emails to people when they had invoices to approve. So they’d click on it and they
get a web based interface into SAP through which they can build invoice, approve
and so on….having to log into SAP directly.
100
INTERVIEWER: When these new applications were included to support the
rest of the system, what were the main problems you feel were faced when these
things had to be done.
INTERVIEWEE F: First they were major changes in terms of infrastructure which
had been added…users had to be trained on how to support them. And of course,
there is always resistances to change, we have about a thousand active users and
some of the invoices could be quite large and we have what they call delegation of
authority within the company so different people can approve up to a certain level
we had to give all the training and planning…the right process and the right
people….. So it was quite a big project not just metamorphosed …
INTERVIEWER: So was there any need to upgrade hardware used to upgrade
ERP systems?
INTERVIEWEE F: Not directly, not a direct consequence of these applications but I
will tell you over the 8 years we have had to do an upgrade of the IT infrastructure
itself. We had an upgrade in about 2007, infact we’ve done two upgrades…we did
one upgrade to a higher platform but eventually over the years, we weren’t satisfied
with the performance of that one so we had to upgrade to the current platform.
INTERVIEWER: Did you have to work with external consultants when
performing these upgrades?
INTERVIEWEE F: Yes, in Nigeria we have our technical team here, I was the only
staff in that team…the other people are team are external contractors. Then our
support team in headquarters is also a team of external contractors, especially in SAP
that’s what they do…both teams to achieve their objectives.
INTERVIEWER: These upgrades and additions to the existing system, do you
feel that they impacted on the normal business processes
INTERVIEWEE F: Definitely it did. It changed the way people were working and so
there had to be user training and so on. We have a lot of VIP customers, people with
very large responsibilities, they don’t have time to…umm…use the system the way
people lower in the organisation…they want to be able to get their information very
quickly and do what they need to do and approve it quickly. And so this application
101
was meant help them with all the information they need…make their decision
quickly without…also violating the delegation of that duty.
INTERVIEW: Are there other examples of business process changes which you
can describe?
INTERVIEWEE F: Umm, like I said, I am not a primary user…we I do mostly is to
support the system and keep it running.
INTERVIEWER: What new roles have been added to your department’s
structure to improve the benefits your department gains from the existing
ERP?
INTERVIEWEE F: Yes, we actually had to create a functional support structure.
Basically people were nominated as lead users for the key business areas, one for
MM, PM and FIC, we have key users in smaller…so the lead users for the entire
domain, for example for the lead user for MM is the highest…for MM in Nigeria, in
the business area, not in IT. In the procurement department he has a regular job, but
he now has a dual role of supporting all the MM users in procurement department for
instance. So you also have key users in the smaller areas under MM so you have key
users who if a staff has a problem they should be able to understand a problem….go
to the lead user. If the lead user can’t resolve it, then we escalate it to HQ and try to
get a change in the system to fix whatever problem was. We had to crash create a
support structure then a new team was introduced, now we host our SAP system is
finance. SAP was seen as a finance project even though it cut across the
procurement, plant maintenance and materials management. Now the finance they
had to create the SAP support team were the users, basically what they do is to
coordinate all the requests from the lead users and then coordinate activities with IT
as well….SAP team, to plan my own operation and to handle their own technical
requests. They coordinate all the activities on the SAP system.
INTERVIEWER: What were the main issues faced in your department when
introducing these new roles?
102
INTERVIEWEE F: The main one is that for the lead users and key users, it wasn’t a
full time job so additional work in addition to their major job…over the years due to
the financial crisis in the US, the Sarbone Oxley Regulation had an impact on us as
well since we are listed on the NYSE. What it meant was that we had to have a
separation of duties, before when the IT team was just responsible for…anything that
needed to be done, certain things were taken away from the IT team to the functional
team, and certain things were taken away from the functional team to the …team and
a specific request and oblige is set up.
So basically, for instance in the past somebody….created in the system they just
send a mail to the IT team and the IT team will create it…so such registration, that is
not possible anymore…creating users should not also assign roles to them for
security reasons. So the technical team can create users but do not have access to
assign roles to them, the SAP coordination team and the functional support team.
Then another example is the…administrator account on the SAP system, i.e. the one
who can do any and everything is in the custody of the IT team, but not in the
custody of the SAP administrator. So they had to create…account to do our work,
but now we don’t have the password for that account and we had to create a specific
roles for technical administrators…the way we do things because we now had
to…….and we had to make specific requests to management to get access to that
password….when we finished using, we had to change it again. All these had to be
documented…and so on.
103
APPENDIX IV: INTRODUCTORY LETTER
Dear Sir/Madam,
I kindly request for your participation in a brief telephone interview for my degree
project.
I am currently studying for a Masters degree in Information Systems at the
University of Sheffield. As an important aspect of my course, I am now conducting a
research on Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems in multinational
companies. The research will investigate the changes that occur after Enterprise
Resource Planning (ERP) systems are implemented in multinational companies. As
an experienced staff member of a department in which Enterprise Resource Planning
(ERP) system is being used, your opinions and assistance can be highly valuable to
the research.
In this regard, I kindly seek your participation in a 40-minute telephone interview at
your convenience. In the interview, I intend to discuss the following aspects with
you:
- The business process, technological and human changes which have occurred after
the ERP system was implemented in your department.
- The barriers which hindered the implementation of these changes.
Ethical Approval has been granted for this research in accordance with the
University of Sheffield Research Ethics policy. Please be rest assured that the
information collected in the course of the interviews will be kept strictly confidential
and none of your opinions will be traceable to you or your organisation. Please find
attached an information sheet and consent form.
Many thanks for your time and consideration. I look forward to speaking with you
soon.
Kind Regards,
Chukwuemeka Peter Ibekwe
104
Information Systems MSc
The University of Sheffield
105
APPENDIX V: INFORMATION SHEET
1. Research Project Title:
Change Management and Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Post-implementation
2. Invitation paragraph
You are being invited to participate in a research project which forms an important
component of an Information Systems MSc. Before you decide, it is important for
you to understand why the research is being done and what may be required of you
as a participant. Please take time to read the following information carefully and
discuss it with others if you wish. Do not hesitate to ask the researcher if there is
anything that is not clear or if you would like further information. Kindly take time
to decide whether or not you wish to take part. Thank you for reading this.
3. What is the project’s purpose?
The research focuses on ERP systems, a technology which many multinational
companies utilize to improve their overall business performance. More specifically,
the research will primarily investigate a number of change-related issues in the post-
implementation phase of ERP.
The project aims to:
- investigate the business process, human and technological changes
experienced during ERP post-implementation in a typical multinational
company and
- the barriers to the implementation of these changes
The duration of the project is 3 months.
4. Why have I been chosen?
You should explain how the participant was chosen and how many other participants
will be recruited.
You have been chosen because of your wide range of experience in the use of ERP
in the post-implementation phase within a multinational company. Your opinions
106
will be highly valuable for the research. A total of 15 participants are required for the
study.
5. Do I have to take part?
It is up to you to decide whether or not to participate in the research. If you do decide
to take part, you will be provided with this information sheet to keep and a consent
form to sign and you can still decide to withdraw at any time without it affecting any
benefits that you are entitled to in any way.
6. What will happen to me if I take part?
You will be interviewed for a duration of about 30 – 40 minutes over the telephone
by the researcher. You will be interviewed only once. The interview will be securely
digitally recorded for data collection purposes only and will be destroyed upon
completion of the project.
In the interview, you will be presented with a number of open and closed questions
to which you may respond. The questions are designed to investigate the business
process, technological and human changes occurring during ERP post-
implementation and the barriers to the implementation of these changes. Additional
questions to be asked include the functions of your job and department, in order to
establish the context of your responses. You are thus expected to discuss these
aspects in reasonable detail.
The research method adopted for the project is termed qualitative methodology,
using an inductive approach. Using these methods, the outcomes of the research
strongly depends on your responses to the interview questions.
7. What do I have to do?
You are only required to provide the aforementioned information during a 30-40
minute telephone interview at a mutually agreed time.
8. What are the possible disadvantages and risks of taking part?
With the exception of minimal time commitment, there are no disadvantages or risks
associated with taking part.
107
9. What are the possible benefits of taking part?
Whilst there are no immediate benefits for those people participating in the project, it
is hoped that this work will contribute the field of change management and ERP
post-implementation and provide related information for practising IS managers.
10. What happens if the research study stops earlier than expected?
In the event where the research study stops earlier than expected, you will duly
informed with the reasons and the initial request for participation will be withdrawn.
11. What if something goes wrong?
In the event when something goes wrong, you may contact the researcher or the
project supervisor. Their contact details are provided below:
Chukwuemeka Peter Ibekwe
+447407256514
Alex GC Peng (Supervisor)
+441142222658
All necessary action will be taken to address the specific situation.
12. Will my taking part in this project be kept confidential?
All the information that we collect about you during the course of the research will
be kept strictly confidential. You and your organisation will not be able to be
identified in any reports or publication
The information collected will be digitally stored in a secure hard-drive made
available to only the researcher, and will be destroyed upon completion of the
research.
108
13. What type of information will be sought from me and why is the collection of
this information relevant for achieving the research project’s objectives?
The information the research seeks from you concerns the functions of your job and
department, the changes (i.e. business process, technological and human) which have
occurred in the ERP post-implementation stage, and the barriers to the
implementation of these changes. The information is relevant to achieve the earlier
mentioned research project’s objectives.
14. What will happen to the results of the research project?
The results of the research project will be published in the University of Sheffield’s
dissertation publications database by December 2011. As earlier mentioned, you will
not be identified in any report of publication.
15. Who is organising and funding the research?
While the project is relatively small-scale, the research is entirely funded by the
researcher.
16. Who has ethically reviewed the project?
This project has been ethically approved through the Information Systems
department’s ethics review procedure according to the mandate by the University of
Sheffield’s Research Ethics Committee.
17. Contact for further information
If you require further information, please contact:
Chukwuemeka Peter Ibekwe
109
+447407256514
Alex GC Peng (Supervisor)
+441142222658
If you decide to take part in the research, you will be provided with a copy of the
information sheet and a signed consent form to keep.
18. Will I be recorded, and how will the recorded media be used?
The audio recordings of the telephone interview made during this research will be
used only for data collection and analysis purposes. No other use will be made of
them without your written permission, and no one outside the project will be allowed
access to the original recordings. The interview recordings will be subsequently
destroyed upon completion of the research.
Thank you for taking part in the project.
110
APPENDIX VI: PARCIPANT CONSENT FORM
Title of Research Project: Change Management and Enterprise Resource Planning
Post-implementation: A Case Study of a Multinational Company in Nigeria
Name of Researcher: Chukwuemeka Peter Ibekwe
Participant Identification Number for this project: Please initial box
1. I confirm that I have read and understand the letter dated [insert date] explaining
the above research project
and I have had the opportunity to ask questions about the project.
2. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw
at any time without giving any reason and without there being any negative
consequences. In addition, should I not wish to answer any particular
question or questions, I am free to decline. Insert contact number here of
lead researcher/member of research team (as appropriate).
3. I understand that my responses will be kept strictly confidential (only if true).
I give permission for members of the research team to have access to my
anonymised responses. I understand that my name will not be linked with
the research materials, and I will not be identified or identifiable in the
report or reports that result from the research.
4. I agree for the data collected from me to be used in future research
111
5. I agree to take part in the above research project.
________________________ ________________
____________________
Name of Participant Date Signature
(or legal representative)
_________________________ ________________
____________________
Name of person taking consent Date Signature
(if different from lead researcher)
To be signed and dated in presence of the participant
_________________________ ________________
____________________
Lead Researcher Date Signature
To be signed and dated in presence of the participant
Copies:
Once this has been signed by all parties the participant should receive a copy of the
signed and dated participant consent form, the letter/pre-written script/information
sheet and any other written information provided to the participants. A copy of the
signed and dated consent form should be placed in the project’s main record (e.g. a
site file), which must be kept in a secure location.
Information School
112
ADDRESS & OTHER CONFIRMATIONS
Name: CHUKWUEMEKA PETER IBEKWE
Programme: INFORMATION SYSTEMS MSC
Registration No: 110135618
118
APPENDIX X: RESEARCH ETHICS PROPOSAL
University Research Ethics Application Form
for Undergraduate & Postgraduate-Taught
Students
This form has been approved by the University Research Ethics Committee (UREC)
Complete this form if you are an undergraduate or a postgraduate-taught student who plans to undertake a research project which requires ethics approval via the University Ethics Review Procedure.
Your Supervisor decides if ethics approval is required and, if required, which ethics review procedure (e.g. University, NHS, Alternative) applies. If the University’s procedure applies, your Supervisor decides if your proposed project should be classed as ‘low risk’ or potentially ‘high risk’. *PLEASE NOTE THAT YOUR DEPARTMENT MAY USE A VARIATION OF THIS FORM: PLEASE CHECK WITH THE ETHICS ADMINISTRATOR IN YOUR DEPARTMENT*
This form should be accompanied, where appropriate, by all Information
Sheets / Covering Letters / Written Scripts which you propose to use to inform
the prospective participants about the proposed research, and/or by a
Consent Form where you need to use one.
Further guidance on how to apply is at:
www.sheffield.ac.uk/ris/other/gov-ethics/ethicspolicy/approval-procedure/review-
procedure
Guidance on the possible routes for obtaining ethics approval (i.e. on the University Ethics Review Procedure, the NHS procedure and the Social Care Research Ethics Committee, and the Alternative procedure) is at: www.sheffield.ac.uk/ris/other/gov-ethics/ethicspolicy/approval-procedure/ethics-approval
119
Once you have completed this research ethics application form in full, and
other documents where appropriate, check that your name, the title of your
research project and the date is contained in the footer of each page.
If your Supervisor has classed the project as ‘low risk’:
Email this form, together with other documents where applicable, to your Supervisor; and
Sign and date Annex 1 of this form and provide a paper copy to your Supervisor.
Important Note for Supervisors:
Following the ethics review the Supervisor must provide the academic
department’s Ethics Administrator with a copy of the ‘low risk’ research ethics
application that s/he reviewed and a completed Ethics Reviewer’s Comments
Form indicating the ethics decision that s/he took in relation to it. The Ethics
Reviewer’s Comments Form can be downloaded here:
www.sheffield.ac.uk/ris/other/gov-ethics/ethicspolicy/further-
guidance/universityprocedure2/reviewersc The Ethics Administrator reserves
the right to consult the Chair of the academic department’s Ethics Review Panel
(or equivalent) of s/he has concerns that projects classed as low risk should in
fact have been classed as potentially high risk.
If your Supervisor has classed the project as potentially ‘high risk’:
Email this form, together with other documents where applicable, to your department’s Ethics Administrator; and
Ask your Supervisor to sign and date Annex 2 of this form and provide a paper copy of it to your department’s Ethics Administrator.
Ethics Administrators are listed at:
www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.99105!/file/Ethics-Administrators.pdf
University Research Ethics Application Form
for Undergraduate & Postgraduate-Taught Students
I confirm that I have read the current version of the University of Sheffield
‘Ethics Policy Governing Research Involving Human Participants, Personal X
120
Data and Human Tissue’, as shown on the University’s research ethics
website
at: www.sheffield.ac.uk/ris/other/gov-ethics/ethicspolicy
A1. Title of research project: Change Management and Enterprise
Resource Planning Systems Post-implementation: A Case Study of a
Multinational Company in Nigeria
A2. Name of Student: Chukwuemeka Peter Ibekwe
Department: Information Systems Email:
[email protected] Tel.:
07407256514
Name of Supervisor: Alex GC Peng
A3. Proposed Project Duration:
Start date: 31 May 2012 End date: 2 September 2012
A4. Mark ‘X’ in one or more of the following boxes if your research:
involves adults with mental incapacity or mental illness
involves prisoners or others in custodial care (e.g. young offenders)
involves children or young people aged under 18 years
involves using samples of human biological material collected before for
another purpose
121
involves taking new samples of human biological material (e.g. blood, tissue) *
involves testing a medicinal product *
involves taking new samples of human biological material (e.g. blood, tissue) *
involves additional radiation above that required for clinical care *
involves investigating a medical device *
* If you have marked boxes marked * then you also need to obtain confirmation that
appropriate University insurance is in place. To do this email [email protected]
and request a copy of the ‘Clinical Trial Insurance Application Form’.
It is recommended that you familiarise yourself with the University’s Ethics Policy Governing
Research Involving Human Participants, Personal Data and Human Tissue before
completing the following questions. Please note that if you provide sufficient information
about the research (what you intend to do, how it will be carried out and how you intend to
minimise any risks), this will help the ethics reviewers to make an informed judgement
quickly without having to ask for further details.
122
A5. Briefly summarise:
i. The project’s aims and objectives: (this must be in language comprehensible to a lay person)
Aims:
This study aims to examine business, technical and human changes caused by the
post-implementation phase of ERP system lifecycle within multinational companies
and the barriers which affect the implementation of such changes.
Objectives:
- To investigate the post-implementation activities of the ERP system in
multinational companies in Nigeria.
- To investigate the changes caused by the post-implementation phase of the
ERP lifecycle in multinational companies in Nigeria.
- To identify the barriers that can affect the implementation of these changes.
- To prioritize the identified barriers.
ii. The project’s methodology: (this must be in language comprehensible to a lay person)
The research methodology proposed for this study is the qualitative research
methodology using an inductive approach. First, interviews will be conducted
with fifteen participants from management and ERP users within the proposed
organisation. These participants will be drawn from the business functions in
which the ERP system has been implemented. The interview is aimed at
identifying the key ERP change-related issues and barriers in the organisation.
Thereafter, the data collected will be recorded in audio format and analysed
using thematic analysis.
A6. What is the potential for physical and/or psychological harm / distress
to
123
participants?
The research presents no potential for physical and/or psychological harm to
participants.
A7. Does your research raise any issues of personal safety for you or other
researchers involved in the project? (especially if taking place outside
working hours or off University premises)
The research raises no issues of personal safety for me.
If yes, explain how these issues will be managed.
A8. How will the potential participants in the project be:
i. Identified? Potential participants will be identified through a well-known contact
within the case organisation.
ii. Approached?
124
Potential participants will be approached through a well-known
contact within the case organisation. The participants will be emailed
and approached in person by my contact.
iii. Recruited? I will email the potential participants with brief background information about
the research contained in a letter and the data that will be required from
them. Thereafter, I will obtain inform consent from the participants, as well
as their confirmation of participation.
A9. Will informed consent be obtained from the participants?
YES
X N
O
If informed consent or consent is NOT to be obtained please explain why. Further guidance is at: www.sheffield.ac.uk/ris/other/gov-ethics/ethicspolicy/policy-notes/consent
A9.1. This question is only applicable if you are planning to obtain informed
consent:
How do you plan to obtain informed consent? (i.e. the proposed
process?):
I will email potential participants with details of the aspects of the
research that he/she is needed to participate in, especially the areas
which can influence his/her willingness to participate. Thereafter, I will
have the potential participants sign an informed consent form, which
includes a statement that they agree to participate in the research. After
the participant confirms his/her participation, I will progress with booking
an appointment to conduct interviews.
A10. What measures will be put in place to ensure confidentiality of
personal data, where appropriate?
125
Data for the research will be made available only to myself, and will be
stored in a secure hard drive. Additionally, I will ensure that none of the data
obtained from participants will be traceable to them by handing these data
anonymously.
A11. Will financial / in kind payments (other than reasonable expenses and
compensation for time) be offered to participants? (Indicate how much
and on what basis this has been decided)
No forms of payment will be offered to participants.
A12. Will the research involve the production of recorded media such as
audio and/or video recordings?
YES
X N
O
A12.1. This question is only applicable if you are planning to produce recorded
media:
How will you ensure that there is a clear agreement with participants as
to how these recorded media may be stored, used and (if appropriate)
destroyed?
I will clearly specify from the outset that the recorded media will be stored on
my computer hard-drive and used solely for the purpose of the study.
Guidance on a range of ethical issues, including safety and well-being, consent and
anonymity, confidentiality and data protection’ are available at:
www.sheffield.ac.uk/ris/other/gov-ethics/ethicspolicy/policy-notes
6
For Undergraduate & Postgraduate-Taught Students
Student Declaration
(The student completes Annex 1 if the Supervisor has classed the student’s
proposed research project as ‘low risk’)
The Supervisor needs to receive an electronic copy of the form, and other documents
where appropriate, plus a signed, dated paper copy of this Annex 1 ‘the Student
Declaration’.
Full Research Project Title: Change Management and
Enterprise Resource Planning Systems Post-
implementation: A Case Study of a
Multinational Company in Nigeria
In signing this Student Declaration I am confirming that:
The research ethics application form for the above-named project is accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.
The above-named project will abide by the University’s ‘Good Research Practice Standards’: www.sheffield.ac.uk/ris/other/gov-ethics/good
The above-named project will abide by the University’s ‘Ethics Policy Governing Research Involving Human Participants, Personal Data and Human Tissue’: www.sheffield.ac.uk/ris/other/gov-ethics/ethicspolicy
Subject to the above-named project being ethically approved I undertake to adhere to any ethics conditions that may be set.
I will inform my Supervisor of significant changes to the above-named project that have ethical consequences.
I will inform my Supervisor if prospective participants make a complaint about the above-named project.
I understand that personal data about me as a researcher on the research ethics application form will be held by those involved in the ethics review process (e.g. my Supervisor and the Ethics Administrator) and that this will be managed according to Data Protection Act principles.
I understand that this project cannot be submitted for ethics approval in more than one department, and that if I wish to appeal against the decision made, this must be done through the original department.
6
Name of Supervisor: Alex GC Peng
Name of student: Chukwuemeka Peter ibekwe
Signature of student: Chukwuemeka Peter Ibekwe Date: 26-07-2012
128
For Undergraduate & Postgraduate-Taught
Students
Supervisor Declaration
(The Supervisor completes Annex 2 if s/he has classed the student’s
proposed research project as potentially ‘high risk’)
The Ethics Administrator needs to receive an electronic copy of the form, and
other documents where appropriate, plus a signed, dated paper copy of this
Annex 2 ‘the Supervisor Declaration’.
Full Research Project Title: insert name
In signing this Supervisor Declaration I am confirming that:
The research ethics application form for the above-named project is accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.
The above-named project will abide by the University’s ‘Good Research Practice Standards’: www.sheffield.ac.uk/ris/other/gov-ethics/good
The above-named project will abide by the University’s ‘Ethics Policy for Research Involving Human Participants, Data and Tissue’: www.sheffield.ac.uk/ris/other/gov-ethics/ethicspolicy
Subject to the above-named project being ethically approved I will undertake to ensure that the student adheres to any ethics conditions that may be set.
The student or the Supervisor will undertake to inform the Ethics Administrator of significant changes to the above-named project that have ethical consequences.
The student or the Supervisor will undertake to inform the Ethics Administrator if prospective participants make a complaint about the above-named project.
I understand that personal data about the student and/or myself on the research ethics application form will be held by those involved in the ethics review process (e.g. the Ethics Administrator and/or reviewers) and that this will be managed according to Data Protection Act principles.
I understand that this project cannot be submitted for ethics approval in more than one department, and that if I and/or the student wish to appeal
129
against the decision made, this must be done through the original department.
Name of Supervisor: insert name
Name of student: insert name
Signature of Supervisor: sign here
Date: insert date
