206

APPENDIX 1

Figure A1.1 Evolution of ERP

207

APPENDIX 2

Figure A2.1 ERP Schema (Using SAP R/3 as exemplar)

(Source: www.sap.com)

208

APPENDIX 3

Figure A3.1 Research Methodologies in IS Literature (Source: Lee and Sarker 2008)

209

APPENDIX 4

QUESTIONNAIRE

ERP satisfaction study (Part 1) Date of response: __________

Organisation name _________________________________ Division ___________________

Organisation size Revenue _______________(Rs.Crores) Staff strength _____________

Respondent name _________________________________ Designation ________________

1. Could you indicate the ERP package implemented in your organisation

SAP ORACLE JD Edwards

RAMCO Others Pl. specify ______________________________

2. Which of the following modules were implemented 3.What is the implementation stage of ERP project

Financials Under Implementation

If under implementation Initial(<3mths)Mid stage Roll out

Sales & Marketing indicate stage

Inventory & Materials Just completed

Manufacturing / Shop floor Completed about a year back

HR

ERP running for ____ no. of years

Business Intelligence

4. Please indicate approx. size/cost* of the ERP project. 5. Was there a cost overrun

(Cost: License cost+hardware+implementation cost)

Less than 50 Lakhs No, project was completed at budgeted cost

50 Lakhs - 1 Crore About 10 - 15% cost overrun

1 Crore - 3 Crores About 15 - 50% cost overrun

3 Crores - 5 Crores Very high cost overrun

5 Crores - 10 Crores

10 Crores plus

6. What was the planned project completion time 7. Was the project completed on time

6 months Completed on time

8 -10 months Exceeded time by 10 - 15%

> 12 months Major delays in project implementation

8. Overall saltisfaction levels with ERP

Please indicate your overall satisfaction level with your ERP on the scale below

7 6 5 4 3 2 1SATISFIED DISSATISFIED

Please indicate____ months

Please indicate____ months

210

The ERP implementation process(Part 2) Please indicate the degree to which

you agree with the statement

S.No

Please look at the statements given below. With reference to the ERP

implementation in your organisation, please indicate your level of agreement

for each of the statements below Fu

llya

gre

e

Pa

rtia

llya

gre

e

Ne

utr

al

Dis

ag

ree

Fu

llyd

isa

gre

e

1The top management was actively involved and supported the ERP project

from the start to the finish5 4 3 2 1

2There was a project champion/s who led the project throughout by providing

guidance / building concesus /solving issues,etc5 4 3 2 1

3 A steering committee was formed which met at least every month monitored

progress, and initiated corrective action in case of any slippages.

5 4 3 2 1

4

The implementation consultants were competent, had subject matter experts

( functional experts) for different modules and did a good job during

implementation and post implementation.

5 4 3 2 1

5

A dedicated full time team was formed for the ERP project. The team

consited of experienced users for key modules. The team consisted of

senior experienced people representing all the core functions

5 4 3 2 1

6 The team was given the necessary training on the ERP. 5 4 3 2 1

7The ERP vendor was very cooperative in solving problems / fixing buys /

giving support during the implementation5 4 3 2 1

8The implementation partner has tools / templates that were simple and easy

to use. These were used throughout the project5 4 3 2 1

9The users were given ,good hands- on training . They were shown pilot

screens of the key processes and made to use the screen and get familiar.5 4 3 2 1

10User's feedback was taken and changes made to the screen formats and

reports to facilitate use of ERP5 4 3 2 1

11The implementation consultants were always realistic about what can be

expected from the ERP. They did not try to "oversell" the benefits of ERP.5 4 3 2 1

12The ERP package was selected carefully after studying various packages

keeping in mind the company's specific business needs.5 4 3 2 1

13

The scope and deliverables of the ERP project were discussed thoroughly

and agreed upon. There was not much change (increase in scope) during

the course of implementation.

5 4 3 2 1

14

Enough contingency was built when cost, time and efforts were being

budgeted for the project. No undue pressure was put on the implementation

team to speed up implementation or cut costs.5 4 3 2 1

15 The customisation needed to implement the ERP was quite less - less than

15% efforts (mandays) for customisation.5 4 3 2 1

16

The legacy data in the company was reasonably accurate. Efforts were

made to ensure that all incorrect legacy data was either cleansed or not

taken into the new ERP system.

5 4 3 2 1

17

Business processes were simplified through necessary changes prior to /

consequent to the ERP implementation. Necessary changes in

organisational structure was made to accommodate new business work

flows.

5 4 3 2 1

18

Good efforts were put by the top management / implementation team to

handle the change management process with sensitivity - this includes inter

departmental problems, change in authority, resistance from certain groups,

etc

5 4 3 2 1

19There was good cooperation between departments in implementing the

ERP.5 4 3 2 1

20

Regular reports were sent to all concerned communicating the progress of

the ERP project. Key users were informed of their responsibilities and role

in the implementation regularly.

5 4 3 2 1

21During the implementation period, the ERP project was one of the biggest

projects being undertaken by the company. There were no other major

initiatives diverting attention of the people in the organisation.

5 4 3 2 1

211

Measuring the perceived success of the ERP project (Part 3)Code Factors Dimensions Please indicate the degree to which

you agree with the statement

(Please circle the proper response)

Fu

llya

gre

e

Pa

rtia

llya

gre

e

Ne

utr

al

Dis

ag

ree

Fu

llyd

isa

gre

e

N/A

SQ System Quality SQ1The data base is robust, very rarely crashes or

gets corrupted5 4 3 2 1

N/A

SQ2

In case of crash / corruption database recovery

is easy, quick and reliable5 4 3 2 1

N/A

SQ3

Database administration / systems

administration is simple5 4 3 2 1

N/A

SQ4

Customisation is easy. The report writer is

excellent and easy to use5 4 3 2 1

N/A

SQ5

System response to users is fast. Use of band

width / memory is very efficient5 4 3 2 1

N/A

SQ6It is easy to integrate the system with other

applications / legacy systems5 4 3 2 1

N/A

IQ

Information

Quality IQ1Information available from ERP is extremely

accurate.5 4 3 2 1

N/A

IQ2

The ERP is fully online and information is

available as and when needed5 4 3 2 1

N/A

IQ3

The reports generated are excellent - very good

look and feel and easy to read5 4 3 2 1

N/A

IQ4

It is easy to use system - screen navigation is

simple5 4 3 2 1

N/A

IQ5The ERP generates high quality, relevant MIS

for business decisions5 4 3 2 1

N/A

II

Individual

impact II1The system is flexible and easy to use and has

made my work much easier5 4 3 2 1

N/A

II2

After implementation of ERP, I feel that my

control on my job is much better5 4 3 2 1

N/A

II3My learning has gone up due to ERP 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

II4

I feel I have personally benefited a lot due to the

ERP implementation5 4 3 2 1

N/A

OI

Organisational

impact OI1

The ERP was implemented well within the

costs budgeted 5 4 3 2 1N/A

OI2

The ERP was implemented well within the time

budgeted (There was no time overrun) 5 4 3 2 1N/A

OI3

The ERP has enabled people / departments to

work much more efficiently with better

coordination5 4 3 2 1

N/A

OI4

The information from ERP has improved the

quality of decision making in the company 5 4 3 2 1N/A

OI5

Because of ERP we have been able to improve

speed and accuracy of response to customers,

suppliers and other stakeholders5 4 3 2 1

N/A

OI6

Because of ERP there has been an overall cost

reduction ( staff reduction, higher output, lower

wastages, lower inventories, etc )5 4 3 2 1

N/A

OOverall Impact

O17

Overall I feel the ERP implemention in my

organisation has been succesful and beneficial

to both me and the organisation5 4 3 2 1

N/A

212

APPENDIX 5

ERP Implementation Methodologies

AIM Structure Framework (Source www.oracle.com)

AIM is a framework of related elements. It involves phases,

processes, tasks and dependencies:

A task is a unit of work, which results in a single deliverable.

That deliverable may take many different forms like reports,

schedules, code, or test results for example.

A process is a closely related group of dependent tasks, which

meets a major objective. A process is usually based on a

common discipline.

A phase is a chronological grouping of tasks. It enables a

flexible way to organize tasks, schedule major deliverables, and

deliver projects.

Processes and phases are explained in more detail below.

Processes

A process in AIM represents a related set of objectives, resource

skill requirements, inputs, and deliverable outputs. A task can belong to only

one process. Project team members are usually assigned to a process

according to their specialization and background. A brief description of the

AIM processes is given below:

213

1. Business Requirements Definition: Business Requirements

Definition defines the business needs that must be met by the

implementation project. You document business processes by

identifying business events and describing the steps that

respond to these events.

2. Business Requirements Mapping: Business Requirements

Mapping compares the business requirements to standard

application software functionality and identifies gaps that

must be addressed to fully meet business needs. As gaps

between requirements and functionality emerge, they are

resolved by documenting workarounds, alternative solutions,

application extensions, or by changing the underlying

business process.

3. Application and Technical Architecture: During the

Application and Technical Architecture you design an

information systems architecture that reflects your business

vision. Using the business and information systems

requirements, this process facilitates development of a plan

for deploying and configuring the hardware required for a

successful implementation.

4. Module Design and Build: Module Design and Build

produces custom software solutions to gaps in functionality

identified during Business Requirements Mapping. Custom

software solutions include program modules that must be

designed, built, and tested before they can be incorporated

into the system.

5. Data Conversion : Data Conversion defines the tasks and

deliverables required to convert legacy data to the Oracle

214

Applications tables. The first step of this process explicitly

defines the business objects that are required for conversion

and the legacy source systems that store these objects. The

converted data may be needed for system testing, training, and

acceptance testing as well as for production.

6. Documentation: Documentation begins with materials

created early in the project. Using detailed documents from

the project, the writing staff develops user and technical

material that are tailored to the implementation.

7. Business System Testing: Business System Testing focuses

on linking test requirements back to business requirements

and securing project resources needed for testing. It supports

utilizing common test information including data profiles to

promote testing co-ordination and to minimize duplication of

test preparation and execution effort.

8. Performance Testing: Performance Testing enables you to

define, build, and execute a performance test. Use the results

to make decisions on whether the performance is acceptable

for the business and to help propose tactical or strategic

changes to address the performance quality shortfall.

Performance Testing is closely related to Application and

Technical Architecture; they are interdependent.

9. User Training: Training prepares both users and

administrators to assume on the tasks of running the new

application system. It includes development of materials and

methods as well as administration. Instructors and courseware

developers orient their material toward roles and jobs, and not

toward application modules.

215

10. Production Migration : Production Migration moves the

company, system, and people to the new enterprise system.

Following production cutover, it monitors and refines the

production system and plans for the future. The Production

Migration process encompasses transition to production

readiness, production cutover, and post-production support

Figure A5.1 AIM Framework (Source: www.Oracle.com )

216

APPENDIX 6

Table A6.1 AHP detailed workings

RECIPROCAL MATRIX

217

Table A6.1 (Continued)

218

Table A6.1 (Continued)

219

APPENDIX 7

ERP SELECTION PROBLEM USING ANP –

AN ILLUSTRATION

In this illustration we use ANP to select between three competing

ERP products , SAP, ORACLE and RAMCO using the criteria, Cost( C ) ,

Functionality (Fu) and Customization ( Cu) .

Analytical Network Process (ANP) attempts to map the human

process of decision making wherein the process is not necessarily hierarchical

but could often be iterative and cyclical. In addition to the dependence of the

alternatives on criteria AHP recognises the dependence of criteria on

alternatives and among themselves as well (Figure A7.1). AHP implicitly

assumes independence of criteria while ANP addresses the inter dependence.

Goal = Choose

apropriate ERP

package

CriteriaCost( C)

Customizat ion (

C u)

Functionalit y

(FU)

Alternatives SAP Ramco Oracle

Figure A 7.1- ANP Framework -ERP Selection

Pair-wise comparison matrices are generated using the standard Saaty

scale between criteria and for each alternative across criteria. The matrices are

normalized and Eigen vectors computed by taking the geometric mean of the cell

elements. These are then normalised by dividing with the column total to yield the

priority vector (Table A 7.1).

220

Table A 7.1 Pair-wise Comparison Matrices

Criteria: CostPWC of criteria

w.r.t alternatives

Cost SAP ORACLE RAMCOEigen

Vector

Priority

MatrixSAP Cost Fu Cu

Eigen

Vector

Priority

Matrix

SAP 1 1 0.13 0.5 0.1 Cost 1 0.14 0.13 0.26 0.06

ORACLE 1 1 0.13 0.5 0.1 Fu 7 1 6 3.48 0.74

RAMCO 8 8 1 4 0.8 Cu 5 0.17 1 0.94 0.2

Total 10 10 1.25 5 Total 13 1.31 7.13 4.68

Criteria:

Customisation -CU

PWC of criteria

w.r.t alternatives

CU SAP ORACLE RAMCOEigen

Vector

Priority

MatrixORACLE Cost Fu Cu

Eigen

Vector

Priority

Matrix

SAP 1 1 0.14 0.52 0.1 Cost 1 0.2 0.13 0.29 0.06

ORACLE 6 1 0.17 1 0.2 Fu 5 1 0.17 0.94 0.21

RAMCO 7 6 1 3.48 0.7 Cu 6 6 1 3.3 0.73

Total 14 8 1.31 5 Total 12 7.2 1.29 4.54

Criteria:

Functionality -FU

PWC of criteria

w.r.t alternatives

FU SAP ORACLE RAMCOEigen

Vector

Priority

MatrixRAMCO Cost Fu Cu

Eigen

Vector

Priority

Matrix

SAP 1 5 8 3.42 0.71 Cost 1 7 8 3.83 0.78

ORACLE 0.2 1 7 1.12 0.23 Fu 0.14 1 0.33 0.36 0.07

RAMCO 0.13 0.14 1 0.26 0.05 Cu 0.13 3 1 0.72 0.15

Total 1.33 6.14 16 4.8 Total 1.27 11 9.33 4.91

221

The next step in the ANP process is to combine the pair-wise comparison

matrices into a single matrix called the Supermatrix. This matrix contains the

priority vectors for comparing the alternatives against criteria on the top right hand

quadrant and the comparison of the criteria against alternatives in the bottom left

hand quadrant.

Table A 7.2 Supermatrix-S

Cost Fu Cu SAP ORACLE RAMCO

Cost 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0600 0.0600 0.7800

Fu 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.7400 0.2100 0.0700

Cu 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2000 0.7300 0.1500

SAP 0.1000 0.1000 0.7100 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

ORACLE 0.1000 0.2000 0.2300 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

RAMCO 0.8000 0.7000 0.0600 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

The Saaty method is to carry out iterations by squaring this matrix

several times to yield a final matrix with identical row items in each block. For

example after the first squaring the S’ is obtained (Table A 7.3). In this research this

was carried out using EXCEL. A matrix multiplication macro was written using the

= MMULT(Range), function in EXCEL. The Supermatrix was multiplied by itself

several times to obtain the limit matrix.

Table A 7.3 Supermatrix S’

Cost Fu Cu SAP ORACLE RAMCO

Cost 0.6360 0.5640 0.1032 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Fu 0.1510 0.1650 0.5779 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Cu 0.2130 0.2710 0.3189 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

SAP 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2220 0.5453 0.1915

ORACLE 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2000 0.2159 0.1265

RAMCO 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.5780 0.2388 0.6820

222

Repeating this process several times yields the limit matrix with identical

items in each block .In this illustrative example this was achieved in the 5th

iteration.

The resulting matrix S5

is given in Table A7.3. The last three rows gives the

relative priorities of the three alternatives : SAP 0.26,ORACLE 0.16 and RAMCO

0.58.

Table A 7.4 Limit Supermatrix S5

Cost Fu Cu SAP ORACLE RAMCO

Cost 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.48

Fu 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.26

Cu 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.26

SAP 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00

ORACLE 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00

RAMCO 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00