The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0368-492X.htm

The influencing factors of Enterprise

resource
enterprise resource planning planning (ERP)
readiness
(ERP) readiness stage on
enterprise resource planning 1089
project success: a project Received 22 November 2020
Revised 4 March 2021

manager’s perspective Accepted 4 April 2021

Mehmet Kirmizi
Graduate School of Social Sciences, Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey, and
Batuhan Kocaoglu
Management Information Systems Department, Piri Reis University,
Istanbul, Turkey

Abstract
Purpose – This study explores the influencing factors of the enterprise resource planning (ERP) readiness
stage on project success immediately after go-live from the project manager’s perspective.
Design/methodology/approach – The influencing factors of the ERP readiness stage are explored through
the literature and expert review sessions and are embedded in Kotter’s change management model. A survey-
based empirical study is conducted among ERP project managers in Turkey in 2019 utilizing principal
component analysis and multiple regression analysis to reveal the direct relation of influencing factors and
project success.
Findings – Results show that the proposed model explains 65.179% of the variation with four components.
The association of components through regression analysis reveals that project planning and management,
employee commitment and change management directly relate to the ERP project success. Yet, surprisingly
top management support is not directly correlated. Therefore, the results suggest that influencing factors of
such long projects are to be evaluated by the stages of the project life cycle.
Research limitations/implications – This research is limited to the project managers’ perspective in
Turkey and the readiness stage of the project life cycle.
Practical implications – The objectives of this research serve as a guideline for ERP project managers to
consider the success factors in terms of ERP project phases. This ensures that the project manager allocates
optimum resources to the right factors at the right time.
Originality/value – Despite numerous studies in the ERP readiness stage, this study opens new ways of
future research while filling several gaps. First, the ERP readiness phase is discussed with a theoretical
approach through Kotter’s change management model. Second, the influencing factors of the ERP readiness
stage on ERP project success from the project manager’s perspective are explored, and factor structures are
revealed. Then, the association of the factors with ERP project success of “immediately after go-live” is
empirically tested.
Keywords Enterprise resource planning (ERP), ERP readiness stage, Change management, Organizational
readiness, ERP project success, Multiple regression analysis, Principal component analysis (PCA)
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Enterprise resources planning (ERP) systems are one of the main catalysts of digital
transformation and enterprise institutionalization efforts. The rapid increase in competition Kybernetes
causes a continuous improvement in products/services and a continuous decrease in prices. Vol. 51 No. 3, 2022
pp. 1089-1113
The increase in quality and the decrease in prices constitute a contrasting situation because © Emerald Publishing Limited
0368-492X
the increased quality of products and services brings additional costs. In order to satisfy two DOI 10.1108/K-11-2020-0812
K conditions that are in contrast, enterprises are confronted with the necessity of creating a
51,3 professional structure in many fields, from production planning, supply chain, human
resources to financial management and Customer relationship management (CRM). In this
way, cost reduction (Czekster et al., 2019) can be achieved. ERP and similar enterprise
systems are essential tools for businesses to create cost leadership and product differentiation
(Porter, 1980). ERP systems enable the main functions of enterprises (finance, human
resources, customer relations, etc.) to work in an integrated way, enable standardization of
1090 processes, real-time data flow, and in whole, removal of physical barriers (SAP, 2019).
ERP market share is globally expected to be $74.20 billion by 2026 (Stratistics MRC, 2018).
Therefore, the criticality of the ERP adoption process cannot be underestimated. For this
reason, maximum attention and precision are required in the implementation of these
projects. Otherwise, the projects will fail inevitably, or the project objectives (cost, time, scope,
etc.) will diverge in an unknown direction bringing heavy loads to the enterprises in
operational and financial terms.
ERP project success is dependent on many variables in the context of the process, people and
technology. Numerous studies explore ERP project success factors in the literature (Ram and
Corkindale, 2014; Finney and Corbett, 2007; Saygili et al., 2017; Nijher and Saade, 2016). However,
these studies cover the holistic view of ERP implementation life cycle. The researchers
emphasize all the critical factors regardless of implementation stages. Most of the efforts in these
studies yield similar results. Therefore, it is important to define each of the success factors in its
relevant stage with quantitative methods in the ERP implementation since most of the studies in
the literature solely rely on the previous research in terms of global success factor definition.
Nah et al. (2003) determined the implementation success factors of chief information
officers’ perception with a five-level rating scale and discussed the importance of each factor.
Hasibuan and Dantes (2012) empirically analyzed the priority of ERP implementation key
success factors by the Pearson correlation test and associated the factors with ERP
implementation success. Besides, the authors associated the factors with stages of life cycle
models in a qualitative manner. However, it lacks the reasoning of associating factors with
implementation stages. Saygili et al. (2017) also determined the ERP implementation success
factors of end-users’ perception. Exploratory factor analysis is conducted to reveal the factor
structure. Ha and Ahn (2014) and Hasan et al. (2019) explored the ERP success factors
affecting the postimplementation stage with a business process performance perspective by
utilizing the partial least square method. The literature is well populated to explore ERP
success factors with quantitative methods from various perspectives of ERP project
stakeholders. However, to our best knowledge, the influencing factors of the ERP readiness
stage (in other words: adoption, planning, design or chartering) on ERP project success lack
in the literature. Therefore, this study aims to reveal the factor structure of the ERP readiness
stage by utilizing principal component analysis (PCA) and empirically test the direct
association of the factors with ERP project success of “immediately after go-live.” The project
success factors are decided to be measured after the go-live process, which lies in the post-
implementation phase, is started. The go-live process is a milestone in ERP project planning,
and ERP project success factors such as time, cost, etc. are accurately measured and
compared with planned goals.
This study is organized as follows: In Section 2, the theoretical foundation of the ERP
readiness stage is discussed, and ERP readiness models are comparatively analyzed across
model dimensions, design methods and assessment approaches. Section 3 presents a detailed
explanation of the ERP readiness stage success factors and ERP project success factors. The
instrument development approach and the initial research model is proposed. Section 4
describes the research methodology. Section 5 presents the result of the analysis. Discussion
and conclusion, implications, limitation, and future research suggestions are presented in
Sections 6, 7 and 8, respectively.
2. Literature review Enterprise
2.1 Theoretical framework resource
Since the business world is highly dynamic in many aspects, the transformation of business
processes is inevitable and requires fundamental organizational changes. Change is the
planning (ERP)
transition from the current state of the business to the planned (desired) or unplanned state of readiness
future uncertainty. Two perspectives come to the fore in managing the change process
(Armenakis and Harris, 2009): (1) the transformational leadership approach, which
emphasizes the leader-centric actions that guide the change and (2) the change recipient 1091
approach, which emphasizes the individual motivation to change. In the change recipient
approach, individuals who will be exposed to change (change recipient) must first
comprehend that change is necessary within the organization and that there is a gap
between the current situation and the situation that it should be (discrepancy). The diagnosis
of the change need and the appropriateness of the method, vision and strategy for
transformation should be realized by employees (appropriateness). Thus, employees and the
organization believe that change can be achieved successfully (efficacy), and the support of
employees who believe in change is obtained (principal support). As a result, the change
recipient reinforces the belief that change is necessary and that the organization will benefit
(valence). In this approach, the change agent who feels the discrepancy diagnoses the gap and
thinks of a change strategy that plays a vital role because it is instrumental in making other
employees believe in change.
Kotter (2011), on the other hand, emphasizes the importance of leadership in managing
change and reveals that the first steps of the change stages can be realized by producing a
vision at the strategic level and with the active participation of top-level managers. According
to Kotter, change is establishing a new system, not the successful operation of the old system,
and this requires leadership. Kotter (1996) proposes a leader-centric eight-stage theoretical
framework for managing organizational change: (1) Establish a sense of urgency indicates that
the necessity of a change due to reasons such as maintaining the competitive position,
technological developments or improving financial performance indicators should be
understood and revealed by the top management. Leadership needs to devote resources to
convince at least 75% of managers and buy into the change. (2) Form a powerful guiding
coalition indicates that high-level managers, not all but some at the beginning, share a
powerful commitment to the success for achieving improved performance. Creating a sense of
urgency among this group is a complicated process and requires someone to arise the
urgency. (3) Create a vision refers to the core values of the change, and all employees can
grasp the need for change. Without a clear and easy-to-grasp vision statement, success is just
a coincidence. (4) Communicate the vision indicates that managers regularly share messages
to all stakeholders to keep them up in walking and sustain their willingness to change.
Besides, as a communication tool, the managers’ behaviors should not be in contradiction
with the vision so that the employees do not become demotivated. (5) Empower others to act
on the vision refers to encouraging the stakeholders to motivate for idea-creation and risk-
taking. Removing both employee-based and organizational-based barriers is one of the
important activities required to empower stakeholders. The remaining three stages (plan for
and create short-term wins, consolidate improvements and produce more change, and
institutionalize new approaches) concern the steps to be taken in the process of implementing
the change.
In order for a highly complex transformation such as ERP system implementation to be
accomplished, internal and external stakeholders should act in cooperation as a whole. Active
top management support and participation, establishing a professional and expert team, and
consultation when necessary are important in creating the change vision. Change agents can
realize the needs to be more efficient, speed up processes and make changes that are
considered improvements. However, being a planner and visionary of an organizational
K transformation requires a highly professional and competent team. Gathering and
51,3 empowering this competent team, planning organizational improvements can occur with
the support and active participation of top management.
ERP projects are complex applications in which legacy processes and organizational
structure are entirely transformed and require a very laborious readiness process. The
readiness process is seen as a precursor of organizational change (Armenakis and Harris,
2009) and eliminates uncertainties in the systematic planning of the project. In order to
1092 manage the change in the readiness phase of ERP projects, the first five stages of Kotter’s
leader-centric change model and the employee-centric five-key-component framework
proposed by Armenakis and Harris (2009) will be utilized. Since the transformation is a
process, not a program or an application, the impact of leadership and employee contribution
changes at the beginning and after the transformation process.
According to Kotter’s model, the need for an ERP system, diagnosing requirements,
establishing urgency, forming a powerful coalition, creating and communicating the
vision emphasize a leader-centric approach. On the contrary, according to Armenakis and
Harris (2009), embracing the vision and strategy (appropriateness), believing that change
will be accomplished (efficacy), supporting change (principal support), believing that the
organization will benefit from the change (valence) emphasize an employee-centric
approach
Employees’ acceptance of the vision and strategy, belief that change will be achieved
successfully (efficacy), supporting change (principal support), believing that the organization
will benefit from the change (valance) bring an employee-centric approach to the fore. For this
reason, while the first four stages of Kotter’s model follow a leader-centric approach, the fifth
stage is as successful as the impact of leadership actions on employees. In this study, the ERP
readiness process will be discussed by combining Armenakis and Harris (2009)’s employee-
centric framework with Kotter (1996)’s leader-centric change management model within the
scope of organizational change theory.

2.2 Existing literature on enterprise resource planning readiness models

ERP project implementation requires much attention since it is solely neither a technological
tool nor software. The stakeholders of the ERP project need to evaluate each stage of the
project in a planned and systematic way and follow a structured methodology that is mostly
designed in phases as in Esteves and Pastor (1999), Markus and Tanis (1999), Sammon and
Adam (2005) and Sun et al. (2016). These phases are categorized into three groups by
Hasibuan and Dantes (2012): (1) The preimplementation phase includes activities related to
the planning and preparation of ERP adoption. (2) The implementation phase spends most of
the project time and budget and includes the project’s essential work. (3) The
postimplementation phase deals with stabilizing the new system, experiencing continuous
improvements and enhancements.
The first phase of the ERP project life cycle, the preimplementation, is defined in the
literature with similar expressions and includes similar stages titled as adoption, planning,
design, preparation or readiness, and the activities in the preimplementation phase become
the focus of the ERP readiness stage (Ahmadi et al., 2015). De Soysa and Nanayakkara (2006)
define the readiness stage as a process in which the planning activities are carried out, an
important decision is made such as whether the ERP system is applied and if so, “how” and
“why” questions are evaluated. The fact that these decisions are not made carefully indicates
that the ERP project will fail. According to Parr and Shanks (2000), readiness is considered
the most important stage. There is a consensus in the literature that the implementation of the
ERP project without careful readiness will drive the project to failure (De Soysa and
Nanayakkara, 2006; Razmi et al., 2009; Ahmadi et al., 2015; Ram et al., 2015; Sun et al., 2016;
Jagoda and Samaranayake, 2017).
 The researchers made evaluations about the importance of ERP readiness factors and Enterprise
developed models based on this evaluation. The main common point of these models is to resource
determine the items of the ERP readiness stage. ERP readiness frameworks, which are
frequently referred to in the literature, are shown in Table 1. The analysis of the existing
planning (ERP)
literature on ERP readiness frameworks is carried out with five headings. The first column of readiness
Table 1 introduces the referred sources. The second and third columns explore the main and
subdimensions of the ERP readiness frameworks. The titles of the main dimensions, which
perform the grouping function of subdimensions, vary. However, the definitions of the 1093
subdimensions are repetitive in each model. The third column includes three titles in order to
condense the size of the table. All the authors aim to develop an ERP readiness framework to
assess the ERP readiness of a company. The items that make up the framework are collected
from the literature and grouped by authors. Hanafizadeh and Ravasan (2011) utilized the
McKinsey 7S framework, and Sun et al. (2016) utilized the Delphi study to group the items.
Another title that comes to the fore in these studies is the assessment approach. In the studies,
quantitative methods such as multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods or
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and qualitative methods such as an interview or
Delphi study are used. The most striking common point of all of these studies is that the
criteria that affect the ERP project success are collected from the literature with a holistic
evaluation of the ERP project life cycle. However, empirically testing at what stage of the ERP
project life cycle these criteria are effective on project success will make a great contribution
to ERP project managers. Also, grouping items by authors under main dimensions increases
subjectivity. In conclusion, the contribution of this study is to reveal the factor structures of
influencing items of the ERP readiness stage by the project manager’s perspective and
empirically test the association of the factors with ERP project success of immediately after
go-live.

3. Development of enterprise resource planning readiness and enterprise

resource planning project success measures
ERP project success is dependent on many variables in the context of the process, people and
technology, and numerous studies explore ERP project success factors in the literature (Ram
and Corkindale, 2014; Finney and Corbett, 2007; Saygili et al., 2017; Nijher and Saade, 2016). In
this context, ERP readiness studies aim to assess the current readiness level of a company.
Therefore, these studies reveal the priority weights of global success factors by mostly using
MCDM methods, as shown in Table 1. The majority of these studies collected the success
factors through a literature review and explored the importance weights. Even most of the
studies lack explaining the operational definition of the factors. Although these success
factors are considered global factors valid for different stages with different priorities, the
researchers emphasize all the important factors regardless of implementation stages.
Therefore, we attribute great importance to reveal the success factors of different stages in
the ERP project life cycle. Another aspect of the related research is to extract the perspectives
of different stakeholders of ERP projects. Because each of the stakeholders approaches the
problem favoring their contribution to the project, this creates an overall understanding of
important factors.
Another important issue is the definition of ERP project success, which can be evaluated
from two perspectives. The first one is the project management point of view. Time, budget
and scope metrics that are considered 3-pillar in project management are the leading
indicators of ERP project success (Sun et al., 2016; Ettlie et al., 2005). Besides, Kim et al. (2005)
consider the user and top management satisfaction, meeting the business goals among ERP
project success factors. Hong and Kin (2002) define ERP project success with cost, time,
performance and benefits metrics. A project manager’s primary aim is to ensure that the
 K
51,3

1094

Table 1.
ERP readiness models
Aim of the research Aim of the research and
and readiness model readiness model design
design method and method and readiness
readiness model model assessment
Reference Main dimension Subdimension assessment approach Reference Main dimension Subdimension approach

De Soysa and Technoware Communication Development of a (Hanafizadeh Strategy Vision and Development of a
Nanayakkara, network hardware framework to assess and Ravasan, mission framework to assess the
(2006)a the ERP readiness of a 2011) Goals/objectives ERP readiness of a
company. Strategic IT plans company
Humanware Top management Model items are Structure Centralization Model items are obtained
commitment obtained from the Specialization from the literature review
literature review and and grouped by authors
Enterprise-wide Formalization
grouped by authors using the McKinsey 7S
thinking The assessment is done Size framework
Project champion with the analytical CIO position The assessment is done
Skilled staff hierarchy process and with confirmatory factor
Flexible workforce nonlinear analysis
Infoware Data integrity programming Systems IT infrastructure
Business
processes
Data
Orgaware Integrated resource Style/Culture Organizational
management culture
Supply Chain Top management
Management (SCM) support
Shared vision, values Communication
and goals
Raymond et al. Organizational Competitive strategy Development of a Staff Human resource
(2006) context Availability of framework to assess management
resources the ERP readiness of a Training and
Operational methods company education
Sophistication of Model items are Project team
existing IT use obtained from the
literature review and
Procurement methods

(continued )
 Aim of the research Aim of the research and
and readiness model readiness model design
design method and method and readiness
readiness model model assessment
Reference Main dimension Subdimension assessment approach Reference Main dimension Subdimension approach

External forces Business environment grouped by authors Skills Management’s

Commercial The assessment is done skills
dependence with the interview and IT staff’s skills
field study Users’ skills
Perception of Complexity/cost Shared values Shared beliefs
ERP Benefits/strategic Company-wide
advantage commitment
Desire to implement Project champion
Business Operational Ahmadi et al. Organizational ERP Project Presentation of a
processes Managerial (2015) readiness Business case structured approach for
Integration Top Management assessing the readiness
Support of the company
Business Process Model items are obtained
Improvement from the literature review
The assessment is done
ERP Project Plan
with fuzzy cognitive
Social readiness Planning maps
Readiness
Structural
Readiness
Strategy
Readiness
Technical Technical
readiness Infrastructure
Data
Technical Staff

(continued )
readiness
Enterprise
resource

1095
planning (ERP)
 K
51,3

1096

Table 1.
Aim of the research Aim of the research and
and readiness model readiness model design
design method and method and readiness
readiness model model assessment
Reference Main dimension Subdimension assessment approach Reference Main dimension Subdimension approach

(Razmi et al., Project Project championship Development of a (Sun et al., Top Top management Development and testing
2009) Resource allocation framework to assess 2016) management supports of a stage-by-stage ERP
Assign responsibilities the ERP readiness of a support Cross implementation
Project team company departments assessment framework
Project scope Model items are corporation Model items are obtained
obtained from the Clear roles and from the literature review
literature review and and grouped with the
responsibility
grouped by authors Delphi survey
The assessment is done Staff The assessment is done
with the fuzzy development plan with Structural
Vision and ERP implementation analytical network Effective ERP goals and Equation Modeling
goals vision process communication objectives
ERP mission and goals Information-rich
ecosystems
Performance
monitoring
Effective learning
activities
Systems and Existing systems Right employee ERP project
Processes Existing processes quality knowledge or
experience
Learning and
new skill
development
Experienced ERP
project manager

(continued )
 Aim of the research Aim of the research and
and readiness model readiness model design
design method and method and readiness
readiness model model assessment
Reference Main dimension Subdimension assessment approach Reference Main dimension Subdimension approach

Culture and Culture Change Change

structures Decision mechanism management management
Organizational readiness
structure Organization
Communication structure and
Human Top management business
resources personnel processes
Sufficient IT
resources
Note(s): a10 (out of 37) most important factors are given for convenience
readiness
Enterprise
resource

1097
planning (ERP)

Table 1.
K project is completed on time and budget within the specified scope. The second perspective is
51,3 the user and enterprise level. The main objective of this view is how much of the projected
operational benefits (access to targeted delivery time, reduced production costs, ensuring
stock control, etc.) of the ERP system is reaped. However, with this point of view, the aim is to
measure ERP performance rather than the measurement of ERP project success, and it is
important that such a measurement is carried out in a time period close to the end of the
postimplementation phase of the project life cycle when the system reaches stability.
1098 Therefore, this point of view is not included in this study.
This study aims to measure ERP project success from the project manager’s perspective
rather than from the user, manager or internal stakeholder perspective. The success of the
ERP project is measured by the amount of deviation from the planned budget, time and scope,
top management and user satisfaction immediately after “go-live.”
Therefore, success factor items in the ERP readiness stage are gathered with an extensive
literature review since the literature is well-populated in ERP project success factors.
Therefore, 63 items are collected from an extensive literature review, and operational
definitions are stated. A two-round expert review session is executed with four experts in
ERP project management and three academicians conducting research in the related field. In
the first discussion round, the collected items are evaluated and refined by experts. The
refinement process includes the elimination of items of similar meaning and of smaller effects
on ERP projects. Then, the authors revisited the items and their operational definitions to
present in the second-round discussion meeting. In this round, experts reviewed the revisited
item list to omit the items which have a smaller effect on the ERP project. Finally, the experts
agreed on the items and operational definitions, which are shown in Table 2.
As a result of the literature review and item collection efforts, the influencing factors of the
ERP readiness stage is revealed, and an instrument is developed to measure the effect of these
items on ERP project success. The third-round of discussion meetings with the same experts
was conducted to assess whether the designed questionnaire met the operational meanings of
all items (in Table 2) in the proposed model and whether the expressions reflect this meaning
in terms of wording and clarity. The modified questionnaire was sent to 10 ERP project
managers who were actively running a project at that time in order to evaluate the
comprehensiveness and applicability. The feedbacks were given by the project managers,
and the measurement instrument is finalized by satisfying face and content validity. The
questionnaire is divided into two parts: (1) instrument in which items are related to the
objective of this study and (2) De facto questions in which characteristics of the target
population is revealed. The instrument is organized as a multi-item, single response with
declarative sentences using the five-points Likert-type interval scale. The instrument has 30
items, and de facto questions have four items, including education and experience of the
project manager, size and company sector.
The influencing factors in the proposed model are associated with the stages of Kotter
(1996)’s change management model. The need for change, the discrepancy between current
and desired and its urgency are required to be clearly stated by leadership. The
establishment of urgency is realized with the support and participation of top management
and cross-functional managers. Establishing a team and appointing a leader whose power
directly comes from experience and status create a coalition for driving change and guiding
this change by identifying weaknesses. In this context, the coalition leader is the project
champion whose primary duty is to bring stakeholders to the common ground. Besides, the
project champion helps the project managers identify the existing capabilities such as
adequacy of the project team, information technology (IT) staff, infrastructure and data
management processes. The vision statement includes the core values of the project, and all
employees can grasp the need for change. In this context, project planning, goals and
objectives, and task description are clearly stated. In order for all employees to understand
Items for factors Operational definition Reference
Enterprise
resource
I.1. Support of top management Top management support is one of Razmi et al. (2009), De Soysa and planning (ERP)
to the ERP project the core factors for ERP project Nanayakkara (2006), Ahmadi et al.
success since it demonstrates the (2015), Sun et al. (2016), Jagoda and readiness
integration of the ERP project to the Samaranayake (2017), Ngai et al.
strategic plan and makes the ERP (2008), Dey et al. (2010), Kim et al.
project the top priority of the (2005), Shiau (2016) 1099
company
I.2. Active participation of top Active participation of senior Razmi et al. (2009), De Soysa and
management in the ERP project management in the ERP Project Nanayakkara (2006), Hanafizadeh
creates momentum and a mutual and Ravasan (2011), Dey et al. (2010)
trust environment throughout the
company, which is highly important
for the company to get ready for the
ERP project
I.3. Support of cross-functional Continuous support of cross- Razmi et al. (2009), De Soysa and
managers to the ERP project functional managers mitigates the Nanayakkara (2006)
possible problem areas and clarifies
the obstacles in the project manager
and project team’s way during
implementation
I.4. Active participation of Active participation of cross- Razmi et al. (2009), De Soysa and
cross-functional managers in functional managers creates Nanayakkara (2006), Ahmadi et al.
the ERP project leadership for departmental success (2015), Hanafizadeh and Ravasan
and affects the employer’s behavior (2011), Sun et al. (2016), Kim et al.
in favor of project success since (2005)
employers become more eager to be a
part of the project
I.5. Project champion The Project champion is a high-level Razmi et al. (2009), De Soysa and
manager who has the power to Nanayakkara (2006), Ahmadi et al.
communicate with project partners (2015), Hanafizadeh and Ravasan
and sponsors, guide the project (2011), Ngai et al. (2008), Kim et al.
manager and project team, and solve (2005)
the problems experienced during the
project. He/she is highly effective in
providing organizational
transformation
I.6. Adequacy of ERP Project The ERP project team will be guiding Razmi et al. (2009), Hanafizadeh and
Team the ERP project under the Ravasan (2011), Ram et al. (2015),
supervision of the ERP project Jagoda and Samaranayake (2017),
manager. Therefore, the selection of a Ngai et al. (2008), Kim et al. (2005)
competent (both business and
technical knowledge and experience)
team effectively supports the project
manager and makes a significant
contribution throughout the project
I.7. Adequacy of the IT staff The company’s own IT staff is the Ahmadi et al. (2015),l Hanafizadeh
only one who understands the and Ravasan (2011), Ram et al.
technical language. It is thought that (2015), Sun et al. (2016), Kim et al.
the IT staff, consultants, ERP project (2005)
manager and ERP solution partner
work closely. Thus, the IT staff carry
on works inside the company as an
interface for employees and Table 2.
managers ERP project readiness
stage factors and ERP
(continued ) project success factors
K Items for factors Operational definition Reference
51,3
I.8. Adequacy of IT ERP systems are business functions Razmi et al. (2009), De Soysa and
infrastructure (hardware, that use IT intensively. Inadequate Nanayakkara (2006), Ahmadi et al.
software and network) IT infrastructure (hardware, (2015), Hanafizadeh and Ravasan
software and network) is a failure (2011), Sun et al. (2016), Kim et al.
factor that prevents the successful (2005)
1100 implementation of the ERP project. In
order for enterprises to use their ERP
systems successfully, they have to
move the IT infrastructure to a
sufficient level
I.9. Awareness of the The adoption of ERP systems is the Ahmadi et al. (2015), Ram et al. (2015)
professional management process in which businesses will live
consultancy needs for the ERP in rare times. For this reason, it needs
project expert and experienced consultancy
activities to carry out the process
successfully. ERP consultants’
impact is significant for successfully
implementing the project at critical
times until the ERP project’s closure
I.10. Presence of a data Developing procedures for arranging Razmi et al. (2009), De Soysa and
management plan or regenerating existing master data Nanayakkara (2006), Ahmadi et al.
in accordance with the operating (2015), Ram et al. (2015), Ngai et al.
principles of the ERP system affects (2008)
project success. Master data is an
issue that users will frequently use in
the operation of ERP systems.
Furthermore, it is essential that the
data are correct in order for the
operations to be carried out correctly
I.11. Vision statement In order to determine where the Razmi et al. (2009), De Soysa and
project will carry the business in the Nanayakkara (2006), Hanafizadeh
future, a vision statement is a and Ravasan (2011), Ngai et al. (2008)
necessity. The ERP project vision is
required in a controversial moment
for stakeholders to come to the same
ground
I.12. Project planning Every project requires a project plan, Razmi et al. (2009), Ahmadi et al.
so do ERP projects. Therefore, it is (2015), Ram et al. (2015), Ngai et al.
highly important that top (2008)
management sets a course for the
project in budget, time, scope, human
resources, risk, etc. Therefore, the
ERP project manager and the team
can comply with this plan
I.13. Goal definitions It is a critical success factor to Razmi et al. (2009), De Soysa and
I.14. Measurable objectives determine why the company needs Nanayakkara (2006), Ahmadi et al.
the ERP system, what will be (2015), Sun et al. (2016), Dey et al.
achieved at the end of the project, and (2010), Shiau (2016)
what the company expects in the
ERP project. Besides, the measurable
objectives of the ERP systems need
to be determined

Table 2. (continued )
Items for factors Operational definition Reference
Enterprise
resource
I.15. Communication plan There are many stakeholders (project Razmi et al. (2009), De Soysa and planning (ERP)
manager, senior management, Nanayakkara (2006), Hanafizadeh
employees, customers, suppliers, etc.) and Ravasan (2011), Ngai et al. readiness
of ERP projects. Determining the (2008), Dey et al. (2010), Kim et al.
channels through which and how (2005)
often stakeholders should 1101
communicate and which issues they
will be involved in the ERP project
make an important contribution to
the project’s final success
I.16. Business process redesign ERP systems are in continuous Razmi et al. (2009), De Soysa and
I.17. Organizational structure development, with feedback from Nanayakkara (2006), Ahmadi et al.
redesign many users globally. Therefore, it (2015), Hanafizadeh and Ravasan
has much expertise embedded in it. (2011), Ram et al. (2015), Sun et al.
Companies that develop these (2016), Jagoda and Samaranayake
software systems have a great, (2017), Ngai et al. (2008), Shiau (2016)
embodied corporate memory. Instead
of customizing the ERP systems for
current business processes and
organizational structures, it is wise to
restructure the business processes
and organizational structures to
adapt these systems for ERP project
success
I.18. Task assignment ERP projects are long-lasting, and in Razmi et al. (2009), Sun et al. (2016)
big projects, many stakeholders
(employees, project team, IT staff,
consultants, etc.) are involved. As a
result of the task assignment process,
the responsible personnel are
determined, and how the employees
will be included in the project is
clarified that contribute to the project
success
I.19. Task description Clarifying job descriptions determine
the boundaries of the work that the
employees will do during the project.
Job descriptions prevent confusion
and chaos and contribute to project
success
I.20. Support for individual Employees embrace the change if Hanafizadeh and Ravasan (2011),
development of employees supported for individual Sun et al. (2016)
development that leads to the success
of the project
I.21. Presence of a participatory Ensuring employees’ participation in
decision-making environment decision-making processes during
the readiness stage will create a sense
of belonging and increase employee
motivation for a successful project
I.22. Presence of a collaborative An environment where employees
working environment collaborate, help each other and
contribute to each other’s
development increases employee
contribution to the project success

(continued ) Table 2.
K Items for factors Operational definition Reference
51,3
I.23. Concerns related to the Big projects bring significant
project (loss of work, increase in changes, and employees feel
workload, etc.) uncertainty during this change.
These uncertainties raise concerns
such as loss of work and increase in
1102 workload, and therefore, these
concerns are required to be
eliminated for project success
I.24. Active participation of Employee participation also yields to
employees in the ERP project the success of the project. Employees
who take responsibility and are
active during the project are expected
to embrace success
I.25. Training program ERP systems are essential software Hanafizadeh and Ravasan (2011),
and each of them has unique Ram et al. (2015), Jagoda and
characteristics. Planning a structural Samaranayake (2017), Ngai et al.
and company-wide training program (2008), Dey et al. (2010), Kim et al.
(including the idea behind ERP (2005), Shiau (2016)
systems such as “What is ERP?”
“Why We Need?” “How To Use?” etc.)
in the early steps of the project is a
successful step
S1. Project cost The project cost, time and satisfying Sun et al. (2016), Hong and Kin
business needs are the three pillars of (2002), Ettlie et al. (2005)
any project management and an
essential part of the project success
measure. The degree of project cost
deviation is expressed
S2. Project time The degree of project time deviation
is expressed
S3. Fulfilled business needs The degree of project scope deviation Sun et al. (2016), Kim et al. (2005),
is expressed Ettlie et al. (2005)
S4. User satisfaction User satisfaction is a concrete Kim et al. (2005)
indicator that reflects the ERP
system’s adoption rate and increases
project success
S5. Top management Top management satisfaction is also
satisfaction a concrete indicator that
demonstrates the ERP project fulfills
Table 2. the desired requirements

and embrace the vision of the project and change, managers must be in continuous
communication with employees and keep them informed of developments. In this context, a
plan should be created that includes communication with employees through which
channels, how often and in what detail. Identifying weaknesses in previous steps enables
managers to grasp the barriers to change and empower the employees. Some of the barriers
to change come from the employees, and some come from the organization. As for the
employee perspective, trust should be restored, and concerns should be resolved, training
should be planned, employees should be included in decision-making processes. As for the
organizational part, obstacles to change, such as legacy business processes and
organization structure, task assignment and description, are required to be removed or
redesigned. Therefore, the model development process, the proposed research model and
theoretical foundation are presented in Figure 1.
 Influencing Factors of ERP Readiness Stage

Establish a Sense of Urgency

xI.1. Top Management Support
xI.2. Top Management Participation
xI.3. Cross-Functional Manager Support
xI.4. Cross-Functional Manager Participation
Form a Powerful Guiding Coalition
xI.5. Project Champion
Literature xI.6. Adequacy of Project Team
Item Collection
Review xI.7. Adequacy of IT Staff
xI.8. Adequacy of Infrastucture
xI.9. Awareness of Management Consultancy Needs
xI.10. Data Management Plan ERP Project Success
Create a Vision Refined Research
Expert Review Model xProject Cost

Leader intensive activities

Item Refinement xI.11. Vision Statement
1 and 2 x xProject Time
xI.12. Project Planning
xI.13. Project Goals x xFulfilled Business Needs
xI.14. Measurable Objectives x xUser Satisfaction
Communicate the Vision x x Top Management
xI.15. Communication Plan Satisfaction
Expert Review 3 Questionnaire
Empower Others to Act on the Vision
Pilot Application Refinement
xI.16. Business Process Redesign
xI.17. Organizational Structure Redesign
xI.18. Task Assignment
xI.19. Task Description
Final Research xI.20. Support for Individual Development
Model and xI.21. Participatory Decision-Making Environment
Questionnaire xI.22. Collaborative Working Environment
xI.23. Concerns Related to Project intensive activities
Leader and Employee
xI.24. Employee Participation
xL.25. Training Program

ERP Readiness Stage Implementation ERP Project Success

Implementation
Go-live
is started
readiness
Enterprise
resource

1103
planning (ERP)

process and the

Model development
Figure 1.

research model
proposed
K 4. Methodology
51,3 4.1 Data collection and descriptive statistics
In an international network sharing environment, LinkedIn, between March and December
2019, 675 people whose titles are ERP project manager and are working in Turkey were sent
a direct mail, which summarizes the purpose of the study. This study requires two
conditions for the target population: (1) The ERP project is in the postimplementation phase
(after the go-live process), (2) The project manager is on duty from the beginning of the
1104 project (from the readiness stage) to the postimplementation phase (after go-live process).
Due to the nature of ERP projects, the long duration of the project and the frequent change
of project managers reduce the presence of a project manager in both the readiness stage
and the go-live process, and thus the target population becomes very narrow. Despite such
a narrow target population definition, our effective response rate is 38%, with 259
participants in the online survey. When the studies in the field of ERP are examined (Ha and
Ahn (2014) with 31%, Hasan et al. (2019) with 47%, Hasibuan and Dantes (2012) with 34%,
Saygili et al. (2017) with 51%), it is evaluated that the effective response rate is relatively
higher. The result of the descriptive statistics is shown in Table 3. The education profile of
the project managers mostly consists of a bachelor’s degree with 67.57% and a master’s
degree with 28.57%. In terms of working experience, 50.58% of the project managers who
participated in the survey have less than six years of experience, 29.73% have working
experience between 6 and 10 years, 19.59% of project managers have working experience of
more than ten years. Company size, which a project manager worked in his last project,
mostly consists of a large scale with 52.12% and a medium scale with 45.56%. The sectors
of companies are manufacturing with 34.36%, energy and chemical with 12.36%, textile
with 10.42%, and others. Besides, the frequency analysis of the project success items is
presented in Table 4. Therefore, the distribution of the scores related to project success is
evaluated so that the participants who think their project is successful do not dominate the
survey.

4.2 Measurements
Measurement of a phenomenon may require many items, in which some are related to each
other. In such a case, it is important to determine these items and group them without losing
the nature of the original item. The primary purpose of the factor analysis is to find out the
interrelationships among items and to create factors consisting of a group of interrelated

Frequency Percent (%) Frequency Percent (%)

Sample size 259 100

Education Company sector
PhD 3 1.16 Manufacturing 89 34.36
Master’s degree 74 28.57 Energy and chemical industry 32 12.36
Bachelor’s degree 175 67.57 Textile 27 10.42
High school 7 2.70 Retail 20 7.72
Experience Automotive 15 5.79
0–5 131 50.58 Construction 12 4.63
6–10 77 29.73 IT & software 8 3.09
11þ 51 19.69 Plastic 6 2.32
Company size Other 50 19.31
Small 6 2.32
Table 3. Medium 118 45.56
Descriptive statistics Large 135 52.12
Scores of items Frequency Percent(%) Scores of items Frequency Percent(%)
Enterprise
resource
Project cost success User satisfaction planning (ERP)
1 70 27 1 7 3%
2 93 36 2 36 14% readiness
3 68 26 3 74 29%
4 18 7 4 101 39%
5 10 4 5 41 16% 1105
Project time success Top management satisfaction
1 78 30% 1 5 2%
2 80 31% 2 22 8%
3 57 22% 3 70 27%
4 30 12% 4 121 47%
5 14 5% 5 41 16%
Fulfilled business needs
1 23 9%
2 60 23% Table 4.
3 96 37% Frequency analysis of
4 61 24% the project
5 19 7% success items

items. Each factor consisting of a group of variables represents a synthesized conceptual

meaning what that group of items explains separately. In this context, item reduction is
achieved to conduct further statistical analysis. Therefore, PCA is used for item reduction
purposes. PCA is a statistical method that clusters correlated variables into components by
utilizing orthogonal transformation, which interprets that new factors are uncorrelated
variables. The resulting components are the clustered version of the items and contain a
similar meaning of constituting items (Forina et al., 1988). In PCA, the sample size should be
more than five times the number of items. However, the recommended is a 10:1 ratio (Hair Jr.
et al., 2009). This study reached the 10.4:1 ratio of a sample size to item.
Before utilizing PCA, the reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha) is calculated where all
items construct one simple measure to reveal whether an item is not related to the conceptual
design of the research as recommended by Churchill Jr (1979) and Lai and Ong (2010). All 25
items show good reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.885, meaning no item is exclusive to
the core concept. Afterward, PCA with varimax rotation is utilized for the simplest factor
structure to reveal the number of extracted components determined by Kaiser’s criterion,
where we keep all the factors that are larger than the eigenvalue of 1. According to Hair et al.
(2009), such an established cut-off value is most reliable when the number of variables is
between 20 and 50. The varimax rotation is a highly preferred method in orthogonal rotations
and is also the default setting in statistical tools. Hair Jr. et al. (2009) express that the varimax
rotation gives clearer factor separation over other orthogonal rotation methods. Besides,
other orthogonal transformations (quartimax and equamax) were also tried. However, the
varimax rotation has given a better solution in terms of keeping more items with higher factor
loadings. Under these circumstances, 25 items were included in PCA with varimax rotation
and with suppressing factor loadings less than 0.4 (Maskey et al., 2018). The first analysis
extracted seven components, with all items positively loaded. Elimination of the criteria is
done one by one in the following order: 1) Items with factor loadings of less than 0.5. Each time
the smallest factor loading is eliminated. 2) Items that are cross-loaded with more than 0.4.
Each time, the smallest difference of factor loadings was eliminated. These items were
excluded one by one, and the analysis was repeated to see the component structure. Once
K factor loadings with a cut-off value of 0.5 and cross-loading with a cut-off value of 0.4 are
51,3 fulfilled, then 3) Internal consistency of items consisting of each construct (Cronbach’s alpha)
that is less than 0.7 is eliminated. Therefore, 10 items are eliminated, and the result of the
analysis is shown in Table 5.
Bartlett’s test of sphericity gives the overall significance of the correlation matrix. In this
case, the correlation matrix yields a significant correlation among variables at the 0.01 level
where p(0.000)<<0.01. Another measure for PCA is to determine the appropriateness of the
1106 factor analysis with the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy (MSA).
In this study, the KMO MSA value is 0.863, where we can move further for the subsequent
analysis. Another analysis is to check the diagonal of the anti-image correlation matrix for
MSA. The smallest value is 0.771, and the largest is 0.920 indicating all anti-image
correlations are larger than 0.5 (Hair et al., 2009).
There are intercorrelations between items of the scale and the same component is
measured with internal consistency by Cronbach’s alpha. Internal consistency of listed items
in Table 5 is measured, and the Cronbach’s alpha value is 0.885, indicating that all items in the
scale are measuring the same concept (Hair et al., 2009). Besides, the last column of Table 5
shows that items in three of the components indicate a good internal consistency greater than
0.7 (Nunnally, 1978), and items in one component are slightly less than 0.7. Cronbach’s alpha
values between 0.6 and 0.7 can be considered questionable within tolerable limits (Dahl et al.,
2014). Therefore, we decided to keep the component in the model.

5. Results
This study aims to reveal the ERP readiness factors that are directly contributing to ERP
project success after go-live. Therefore, collected items are reduced by performing PCA to

Componenta
Project
planning Top Reliability
and Employee Change management (Cronbach’s
Item management commitment management support alpha)

I.18. Task assignment 0.843 0.854

I.19. Task description 0.781
I.12. Project planning 0.735
I.11. Vision statement 0.651
I.10. Data management plan 0.629
I.6. Adequacy of the project team 0.508
I.15. Communication plan 0.504
I.4. Cross-functional man. 0.822 0.799
participation
I.24. Employee participation 0.780
I.3. Cross-funct. man. Support 0.750
I.17. Org. structure redesign 0.857 0.820
I.16. Business process redesign 0.829
I.2. Top management 0.781 0.692b
participation
I.5. Project champion 0.781
I.1. Top management support 0.565
% of variance 23.635 16.146 13.171 12.227
Cumulative % 23.635 39.781 52.952 65.179
Note(s): Extraction method: Principal component analysis. Rotation method: varimax with Kaiser
normalization
a. Rotation converged in six iterations
Table 5. b. Internal consistency of component 4 is evaluated slightly less than 0.7 and can be considered as a valid
Results of PCA measure (Dahl et al., 2014)
refine the proposed research model. The refined research model consists of four independent Enterprise
variables (project planning and management, employee commitment, change management resource
and top management) and one dependent variable (ERP project success), as shown in
Figure 2.
planning (ERP)
Multiple regression analysis is conducted in seven stages: (1) linearity, (2) multicollinearity, readiness
(3) homoscedasticity, (4) normality of the error terms, (5) R2 and F-test, (6) auto-correlation, (7) β
coefficients and t-test. Project planning and management, employee commitment and change
management show a significant association with ERP project success, but top management is 1107
not significantly associated, as shown in Table 6. Therefore, top management is omitted, and
the analysis is repeated. Besides, independent variables are not significantly associated with
each other as an indicator of no multicollinearity. It is not sufficient to mention that there is no
multicollinearity. Thus we check the tolerance and variance inflation factor of each independent
variable and ensure that there is no multicollinearity since the tolerance values are larger than
the threshold value of 0.1 (Hair et al., 2009).
Another prerequisite for regression analysis is to check the homoscedasticity. Therefore,
Spearman’s correlation analysis is conducted between the absolute value of residual terms
and each independent variable. Results show no significant correlations (p > 0.05), and thus
the model is homoscedastic. It is expected that the distribution of error terms is normal. The
Kolmogorov–Smirnov test result (p > 0.05) shows that the normality assumption is satisfied.
The F-test result (p < 0.001) indicates that the explanatory power (R2) of the model is
statistically significant. We also check whether the F-test result is significant due to auto-
correlation. The Durbin–Watson value (2.066) is in the no auto-correlation zone, and it
confirms the F-test result and explanatory power. Finally, we check whether the beta
coefficients are significantly different from zero. The results of the t-test show that there is a
significant relationship between the independent and dependent variables. After satisfying
the abovementioned assumptions, it is concluded that the multiple regression analysis can be
interpreted. Therefore, a summary of the regression analysis is shown in Table 7.

Project Success
Project Planning and Project Cost
Management Project Time
Employee Commitment Fulfilled Business Needs
Change Management User Satisfaction
Top Management Top Management
Satisfaction

ERP Readiness Stage Implementation

Figure 2.
Implementation is Go-live Refined research model
started

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5

Project success 14.28 3.350 1.000

Project planning and management 25.98 5.453 0.707 1.000 Table 6.
Employee commitment 10.68 2.496 0.724 0.574 1.000 Descriptive statistics
Change management 6.45 2.154 0.702 0.534 0.536 1.000 and the correlation
Top management 11.09 2.413 0.483 0.475 0.554 0.412 1.000 matrix
K 6. Discussions and conclusion
51,3 This study aims to reveal the factor structure of the ERP readiness stage and empirically test
the direct association of the factors with ERP project success immediately “after go-live.” The
target population of the study is ERP project managers, who are considered one of the most
important players, and the survey took place in Turkey. Critical success factors of ERP
projects are determined through an in-depth literature review and are refined with experts to
improve the quality of the measurement. Besides, Kotter (1996)’s change management model
1108 is adopted to explore critical success factors in a theoretical framework, as presented in
Figure 1.
Principal component analysis reveals four components: project planning and
management, employee commitment, change management and top management. The titles
of the components are named according to the operational definitions of the items, which
constitute the component. Four components explain 65.179% of the variation, and the most
important contribution comes from project planning and management with 23.635%, the rest
is employee commitment with 16.146%, change management with 13.171% and top
management with 12.227%. As stated in Table 1, the ERP readiness literature has a
consensus on change management and top management support factors. However, employee
and cross-functional manager commitment is solely mentioned by Hanafizadeh and Ravasan
(2011). Project planning and management items are not covered but scattered in the literature.
ERP project managers mostly consider the managerial perspective of the readiness phase
since all the items and components that are not eliminated by PCA refer to managerial issues.
Task assignment, task description, and project planning items load to project planning and
management more than others. When evaluated with the project management philosophy, it
is understood that the grouped items are the activity areas that take place in the planning
stage of the project management. Considering that the target group is project managers, there
are no surprising results. Project planning and management differ from the literature since it
covers all the items related to project management.
Employee commitment does not find sufficient importance in the literature and is not
mentioned among the success factors. However, in this study, it is found to be an important
dimension for the project managers and is ranked as second in terms of explained variance.
Project managers see that it is more important for employees to believe in and contribute to
the project than the other two main factors, and this contribution to the literature is
considered an important aspect.
Business process redesign and organizational structure redesign are the two items with a
consensus in the literature (Ahmadi et al., 2015; Hanafizadeh and Ravasan, 2011; Sun et al.,
2016) regarding critical success factors of ERP projects. The importance of these items is
emphasized in the ERP readiness studies. Another important factor is top management
support. It emerges as the most important concept in the literature. However, it makes the
least contribution to the research model with the least explained variance. The result may be
surprising, but the most significant contribution of the top management is the decision to
start the project at the beginning. Afterward, top management cannot maintain the same

Variables b Standard error Beta t Sig

Constant 0.622 0.682 – 0.912 0.363

Project planning and management 0.197 0.031 0.320 6.354 0.000
Table 7. Employee commitment 0.482 0.068 0.359 7.118 0.000
Summary of the Change management 0.527 0.076 0.339 6.924 0.000
regression analysis Note(s): R 5 0.851, R2 5 0.725, adjusted R2 5 0.720; ANOVA results: F 5 158.67, p < 0.001
support and incentives, mainly because of busyness and other work. Other factors come to Enterprise
the fore during the readiness stage, and the importance of other decisions given by top resource
management is incomparably small. It can be considered reasonable that project managers
attach more importance to employee commitment than top management support.
planning (ERP)
As a result of PCA, 11 items are eliminated. During the ERP readiness phase, these items readiness
are not recognized as success factors by the project managers. “Definition of ERP project
goals and objectives” can be considered as a part of the vision statement, and project
managers may have evaluated in this way. The “adequacy of IT infrastructure” might be 1109
considered an area that can be effective in the later stages of an ERP project. ERP systems
are modular and expandable today. During the project implementation, the requirements,
such as the number of data entry points, additional barcode equipment, etc. may change.
Besides, due to the long project implementation time and the technological improvements,
the technical infrastructure is gaining more importance close to the go-live process, not in
the readiness stage. The “competency of IT personnel” item is also eliminated in the model.
Internal IT staff is limited, and the task definition is few and exact. IT staff is not expected
to do particular and irrelevant jobs; if needed, experts can be outsourced (Kurnia et al.,
2019). “Training planning” is another item eliminated. It is useful to give the end-user
training as close to the go-live process as possible or immediately after (Kurnia et al., 2019),
so project managers consider this function in the implementation process. The importance
of “management consultancy” is clearly emphasized in the literature, and it should be taken
in an ideal situation. Unfortunately, it is seen as an unnecessary cost in practice, and it is
loaded to the ERP project manager and the ERP consultant. Thus, the ERP project manager
does not consider management consultancy as a contributing item. Moreover, it is thought
that the project manager’s perception of employees’ commitment to the project, taking
responsibility and assuming the success of the project caused the elimination of other items
(support for individual development of employees, presence of a collaborative working
environment, presence of participatory decision-making environment and concerns related
to the project). These eliminated items and the employee commitment are specified as
organizational clan culture in a study by Chtourou Ben Amar and Ben Romdhane (2020)
covering 160 business managers from 53 large businesses in Tunisia, and these eliminated
items become critical in the postimplementation process and positively influence
Information Systems (IS) strategic alignment.
In the second part of the study, multiple regression analysis is conducted to reveal the
association of the components with the ERP project success, defined by project cost and time,
meeting business needs, and user and top management satisfaction. Four components are
determined as the independent variables, and ERP project success is determined as the
dependent variable.
During the readiness stage of the ERP project, project planning and management,
employee commitment and change management are directly associated with ERP project
success immediately after “go-live” with explanatory power (R2) of 0.72. According to the
regression results in Table 7, employee commitment is, not surprisingly, the most important
success factor. Change management is second important and project planning and
management is the third important success factor; however, their contribution to the
project success is almost equal. Project managers perceive employee commitment as a very
important factor since the human perspective to technology adoption contributes more than
other factors. If cross-functional managers are committed, they create leadership for
departmental success and affect the employer’s behavior favoring project success since
employers become more eager to be a part of the project. Besides, committed employees take
responsibility, become active and embrace success. Top management support during the
ERP readiness stage is not directly associated with project success. This result might not
seem reasonable at the first glance; however, it can be discussed through Kotter’s (1996)
K change management model. In the first stage of Kotter’s model, top management establishes
51,3 the urgency, reveals the need for change and the discrepancy between the current and desired
state of business functions. In the second stage, a powerful guiding project champion, a
project manager and a project team are appointed for driving the change and guiding this
change by identifying weaknesses. After this stage, all activities regarding the planning and
implementation of the ERP project are carried out by the project manager. The project
manager’s intensive involvement in the readiness stage of the ERP project may suggest that
1110 the top management support does not directly affect project success. The project manager
might be convinced that he/she is the executor of the work. Although the project manager
does not directly perceive the support of the top management whose effort to make an
efficient vision statement, effort to overcome the obstacles in redesigning the business
processes and organizational structure, effort to convince employees for active support and
participation in the project, both theory, literature and practical implications suggest that top
management stands as an important contributor.

7. Implications
7.1 Theoretical implications
This study employs Kotter’s (1996) change management framework in empirical
identification of ERP readiness stage critical success factors. The ERP readiness stage is,
in essence, an organizational preparation for a complex change in business processes,
organizational structure and culture. However, the existing ERP readiness literature
approaches this phenomenon solely from a conceptual perspective and builds upon previous
suggestions. This conceptual perspective covers the holistic view of ERP implementation life
cycle, and the researchers emphasize all the critical factors regardless of implementation
stages. Therefore, the existing literature lacks exploring the influencing success factors in the
ERP readiness stage based on a solid theoretical framework. Thus, establishing a strong tie
between ERP readiness stage success factors and Kotter’s organizational change theory
demonstrates a sound judgment.
This study suggests three things: (1) Empirical test of ERP project critical success factors
and their direct association with the project success based on a theoretical and conceptual
framework demonstrate that the influence of some previous factors is validated, and some are
rejected. (2) The stage-based evaluation of critical success factors (local evaluation) verifies
that the results differ from the previous studies that evaluate the life cycle–based (global
evaluation) critical success factors. (3) Complex digital transformation projects such as ERP
systems implementation have many stakeholders, and each can have a different perspective
in evaluating critical success factors. This study focuses on the project manager’s perspective
and sheds light on the way researchers can evaluate other stakeholders’ perspective.
7.2 Practical implications
The results of this study concretely show to the practitioners that the ERP readiness stage is
coherent with organizational change management in a theoretical context and that process
activities include change-centered actions. It is understood that critical success factors in the
ERP project may change throughout the phases of the project life cycle and the stakeholders’
perceptions. The objectives of this research serve as a guideline for ERP project managers to
consider the success factors in terms of ERP project phases. This ensures that the project
manager allocates optimum resources to the right factors at the right time.

8. Limitation and future research

This research is limited to the project managers’ perspective and readiness stage of the
project life cycle. In a study conducted by Kirmizi and Kocaoglu (2020) in Turkey, the priority
weights of ERP readiness factors are revealed, and the results are compared with studies
conducted in Iran (Razmi et al., 2009) and China (Sun et al., 2015). The authors explored that Enterprise
the priority weights of the factors vary according to cultural differences. Therefore, it is resource
aimed to narrow down the target population to provide homogeneity, and the results of this
study are limited to the project managers who carried out projects in Turkey. However, the
planning (ERP)
generalizability of the results is needed to be tested in other countries since cultural issues readiness
come into prominence for perception. Another issue is considered as a limitation and sheds
some light on future research topics. Vargas and Comuzzi (2020) evaluated the ERP
implementation success factors within six contextual dimensions such as size, culture, sector, 1111
etc. However, this study omits the contextual separation of the influencing factors in the ERP
readiness stage.
For future research, several areas are recommended as follows:
(1) The perspective of different stakeholders such as end-users, consultants and top
management can be explored deeply to reveal the critical success factors and success
relations in the readiness stage. A comparative study results in a significant
contribution to the literature.
(2) This study’s objectives can be customized to reveal critical success factors and
success relations of other ERP project stages.
(3) Contextualizing the influencing factors of ERP project success through stages, as
mentioned in Vargas and Comuzzi (2020), is worthwhile as a future study.
(4) Top management support is not directly associated with project success. However,
there is a strong consensus in the literature that it is one of the most important factors.
Therefore, modeling complex research problems with moderator and/or mediator
variables are recommended to prove the indirect association with ERP project
success.

References
Ahmadi, S., Papageorgiou, E., Yeh, C.-H. and Martin, R. (2015), “Managing readiness-relevant
activities for the organizational dimension of ERP implementation”, Computers in Industry,
Vol. 68, pp. 89-104.
Armenakis, A.A. and Harris, S.G. (2009), “Reflections: our journey in organizational change research
and practice”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 127-142.
Chtourou Ben Amar, N. and Ben Romdhane, R. (2020), “Organizational culture and information
systems strategic alignment: exploring the influence through an empirical study from Tunisia”,
Journal of Enterprise Information Management Science, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 95-119.
Churchill, G.A. Jr (1979), “A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 64-73.
Czekster, R.M., Webber, T., Jandrey, A.H. and Marcon, C.A.M. (2019), “Selection of enterprise resource
planning software using analytic hierarchy process”, Enterprise Information Systems, Vol. 13
No. 6, pp. 895-915.
Dahl, Ø., Fenstad, J.F. and Kongsvik, T. (2014), “Antecedents of safety-compliant behaviour on
offshore service vessels: a multi-factorial approach”, Maritime Policy and Management: The
Flagship Journal of International Shipping and Port Research, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 20-41.
De Soysa, S. and Nanayakkara, J. (2006), “Readiness for ERP implementation in an organization:
development of an assessment model”, International Conference on Information and
Automation (ICIA), IEEE, Shandong, pp. 27-32.
Dey, P.K., Clegg, B.T. and Bennett, D.J. (2010), “Managing enterprise resource planning projects”,
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 282-296.
K Esteves, J.M. and Pastor, J.A. (1999), “An ERP life-cycle-based research agenda”, First International
Workshop in Enterprise Management and Resource Planning: Methods, Tools and Architectures
51,3 (EMRPS), Venice, Italy.
Ettlie, J.E., Perotti, V.J. and Joseph, D.A. (2005), “Strategic predictors of successful enterprise system
deployment”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 10,
pp. 953-972.
Finney, S. and Corbett, M. (2007), “ERP implementation: a compilation and analysis of critical success
1112 factors”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 329-347.
Forina, M., Armanino, C., Lanteri, S. and Leardi, R. (1988), “Methods of varimax rotation in factor analysis
with applications in clinical and food chemistry”, Journal of Chemometrics, Vol. 3, pp. 115-125.
Ha, Y.M. and Ahn, H.J. (2014), “Factors affecting the performance of enterprise resource planning
(ERP) systems in the post-implementation stage”, Behaviour and Information Technology,
Vol. 33 No. 10, pp. 1065-1081.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2009), Multivariate Data Analysis, Pearson,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hanafizadeh, P. and Ravasan, A.Z. (2011), “A McKinsey 7 model-based framework for ERP readiness
assessment”, International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 23-63.
Hasan, N., Miah, S.J., Bao, Y. and Hoque, M.R. (2019), “Factors affecting post-implementation success
of enterprise resource planning systems: a perspective of business process performance”,
Enterprise Information Systems, Vol. 13 No. 9, pp. 1217-1244.
Hasibuan, Z.A. and Dantes, G.R. (2012), “Priority of key success factors (KSFS) on enterprise resource
planning (ERP) system implementation life cycle”, Journal of Enterprise Resource Planning
Studies, Vol. 2012, pp. 1-15.
Hong, K.-K. and Kin, Y.-G. (2002), “The critical success factors for ERP implementation: an
organizational fit perspective”, Information and Management, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 25-40.
Jagoda, K. and Samaranayake, P. (2017), “An integrated framework for ERP system implementation”,
International Journal of Accounting and Information Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 91-109.
Kim, Y., Lee, Z. and Gosain, S. (2005), “Impediments to successful ERP implementation process”,
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 158-170.
Kirmizi, M. and Kocaoglu, B. (2020), “The key for success in enterprise information systems projects:
development of a novel ERP readiness assessment method and a case study”, Enterprise
Information Systems, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 1-37, %@ 1751-7575.
Kotter, J.P. (1996), Leading Change, Harvard business press, Boston, MA.
Kotter, J.P. (2011), “Leading change: why transformation efforts will fail”, in Kotter, J.P., Kim, W.C. and
Mauborgne, R.A. (Eds), HBR’s 10 Must Reads on Change Management, Harvard Business
Press, pp. 1-16.
Kurnia, S., Linden, T. and Huang, G.S. (2019), “A hermeneutic analysis of critical success factors for
Enterprise Systems implementation by SMEs”, Enterprise Information Systems, Vol. 13 No. 9,
pp. 1195-1216.
Lai, J.-Y. and Ong, C.-S. (2010), “Assessing and managing employees for embracing change: a multiple-
item scale to measure employee readiness for e-business”, Technovation, Vol. 30, pp. 76-85.
Markus, M.L. and Tanis, C. (1999), “The enterprise system experience – from adoption to success”, in
Zmud, R.W. and Price, M.F. (Eds), Pinnaflex Educational Resources.
Maskey, R., Fei, J. and Nguyen, H.-O. (2018), “Use of exploratory factor Analysis in maritime research”,
The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 91-111.
Nah, F.F.-H., Zuckweiler, K.M. and Lau, J.L.-S. (2003), “ERP implementation: Chief information
Officers’ perceptions of critical success factors”, International Journal of Human-Computer
Interaction, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 5-22.
Ngai, E.W.T., Law, C.C.H. and Wat, F.K.T. (2008), “Examining the critical success factors in the Enterprise
adoption of enterprise resource planning”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 59, pp. 548-564.
resource
Nijher, H. and Saade, R. (2016), “Critical success factors in enterprise resource planning
implementation: a review of case studies”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management,
planning (ERP)
Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 72-96. readiness
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Parr, A. and Shanks, G. (2000), “A model of ERP project implementation”, Journal of Information 1113
Technology, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 289-303.
Porter, M.E. (1980), Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors, Free
Press, New York.
Ram, J. and Corkindale, D. (2014), “How ‘critical’ are the critical success factors (CSFs)? Examining the
role of CSFs for ERP”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 151-174.
Ram, J., Corkindale, D. and Wu, M.-L. (2015), “Examining the role of organizational readiness in erp
project delivery”, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 29-39.
Raymond, L., Rivard, S. and Jutras, D. (2006), “Evaluating readiness for ERP adoption in manufacturing
SMEs”, International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 1-17.
Razmi, J., Sangari, M.S. and Ghodsi, R. (2009), “Developing a practical framework for ERP readiness
assessment using fuzzy analytic network process”, Advances in Engineering Software, Vol. 40
No. 11, pp. 1168-1178.
Sammon, D. and Adam, F. (2005), “Towards a model of organisational prerequisites for enterprise-
wide systems integration: examining ERP and data warehousing”, Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 458-470.
SAP (2019), What Is ERP?, available at: https://www.sap.com/products/what-is-erp.html (accessed 20
January 2020).
Saygili, E.E., Ozturkoglu, Y. and Kocakulah, M.C. (2017), “End users’ perceptions of critical success
factors in ERP applications”, International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems, Vol. 13
No. 4, pp. 58-75.
Shiau, W.-L. (2016), “The intellectual core of enterprise information systems: a co-citation analysis”,
Enterprise Information Systems, Vol. 10 No. 8, pp. 815-844.
Stratistics MRC (2018), Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Software - Global Market Outlook (2017-
2026), available at: https://www.sap.com/products/what-is-erp.html (accessed 18 October 2019).
Sun, H., Ni, W. and Lam, R. (2015), “A step-by-step performance assessment and improvement method
for ERP implementation: action case studies in Chinese companies”, Computers in Industry,
Vol. 68, pp. 40-52.
Sun, H., Ni, W., Lam, R. and Ng, C.Y. (2016), “A stage-by-stage assessment of enterprise resource
planning implementation: an empirical study from Hong Kong”, Journal of Global Information
Technology Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 104-127.
Vargas, M.A. and Comuzzi, M. (2020), “A multi-dimensional model of Enterprise Resource Planning
critical success factors”, Enterprise Information Systems, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 38-57.

Corresponding author
Mehmet Kirmizi can be contacted at: mhmt_krmz@hotmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.