Research on SAP Business One Implementation Risk Factors with Interpretive Structural Model
Affiliation(s)
School of Business Administration, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China.
School of Business Administration, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China.
ABSTRACT
The possible risk factors during SAP Business One implementation were studied with depth interview. The results are then adjusted by experts. 20 categories of risk factors that are totally 49 factors were found. Based on the risk factors during the SAP Business One implementation, questionnaire was used to study the key risk factors of SAP Business One implementation. Results illustrate ten key risk factors, these are risk of senior managers leadership, risk of project management, risk of process improvement, risk of implementation team organization, risk of process analysis, risk of based data, risk of personnel coordination, risk of change management, risk of secondary development, and risk of data import. Focus on the key risks of SAP Business One implementation, the interpretative structural modeling approach is used to study the relationship between these factors and establish a seven-level hierarchical structure. The study illustrates that the structure is olive-like, in which the risk of data import is on the top, and the risk of senior managers is on the bottom. They are the most important risk factors.
The possible risk factors during SAP Business One implementation were studied with depth interview. The results are then adjusted by experts. 20 categories of risk factors that are totally 49 factors were found. Based on the risk factors during the SAP Business One implementation, questionnaire was used to study the key risk factors of SAP Business One implementation. Results illustrate ten key risk factors, these are risk of senior managers leadership, risk of project management, risk of process improvement, risk of implementation team organization, risk of process analysis, risk of based data, risk of personnel coordination, risk of change management, risk of secondary development, and risk of data import. Focus on the key risks of SAP Business One implementation, the interpretative structural modeling approach is used to study the relationship between these factors and establish a seven-level hierarchical structure. The study illustrates that the structure is olive-like, in which the risk of data import is on the top, and the risk of senior managers is on the bottom. They are the most important risk factors.
Cite this paper
J. Wan and J. Hou, "Research on SAP Business One Implementation Risk Factors with Interpretive Structural Model," Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, Vol. 5 No. 3, 2012, pp. 147-155. doi: 10.4236/jsea.2012.53022.
J. Wan and J. Hou, "Research on SAP Business One Implementation Risk Factors with Interpretive Structural Model," Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, Vol. 5 No. 3, 2012, pp. 147-155. doi: 10.4236/jsea.2012.53022.
References
[1] W. H. Luo and D. M. Strong, “A Framework for Evaluating ERP Implementation Choices,” IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management, Vol. 51, No. 3, 2004, pp. 322-333. [2] C. C. Chen, C. C. H. Law and S. C. Yang, “Managing ERP Implementation Failure: A Project Management Perspective,” IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management, Vol. 56, No. 1, 2009, pp. 157-170. [3] C. Soh, S. S. Kien and J. Tay-Yap, “Cultural Fits and Misfits: Is ERP a Universal Solution?” Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, Vol. 43, No. 4, 2000, pp. 47-51. doi:10.1145/332051.332070 [4] H. Krasner, “Ensuring E-Business Success by Learning from ERP Failures,” IT Professional, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2000, pp. 22-27. doi:10.1109/6294.819935 [5] Y. van Everdingen, J. van Hillegersberg and E. Waarts, “ERP Adoption by European Midsize Companies,” Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, Vol. 43, No. 4, 2000, pp. 27-31. doi:10.1145/332051.332064 [6] A.-W. Scheer and F. Habermann, “Making ERP a Success,” Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, Vol. 43, No. 4, 2000, pp. 57-61. doi:10.1145/332051.332073 [7] M. L. Markus, C. Tanis and P. C. van Fenema, “Multisite ERP Implementations,” Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, Vol. 43, No. 4, 2000, pp. 42-46. [8] J. N. Warfield, “The Mathematics of Structure,” AJAR Publishing Company, 2003, pp. 345-366.
[1] W. H. Luo and D. M. Strong, “A Framework for Evaluating ERP Implementation Choices,” IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management, Vol. 51, No. 3, 2004, pp. 322-333. [2] C. C. Chen, C. C. H. Law and S. C. Yang, “Managing ERP Implementation Failure: A Project Management Perspective,” IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management, Vol. 56, No. 1, 2009, pp. 157-170. [3] C. Soh, S. S. Kien and J. Tay-Yap, “Cultural Fits and Misfits: Is ERP a Universal Solution?” Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, Vol. 43, No. 4, 2000, pp. 47-51. doi:10.1145/332051.332070 [4] H. Krasner, “Ensuring E-Business Success by Learning from ERP Failures,” IT Professional, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2000, pp. 22-27. doi:10.1109/6294.819935 [5] Y. van Everdingen, J. van Hillegersberg and E. Waarts, “ERP Adoption by European Midsize Companies,” Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, Vol. 43, No. 4, 2000, pp. 27-31. doi:10.1145/332051.332064 [6] A.-W. Scheer and F. Habermann, “Making ERP a Success,” Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, Vol. 43, No. 4, 2000, pp. 57-61. doi:10.1145/332051.332073 [7] M. L. Markus, C. Tanis and P. C. van Fenema, “Multisite ERP Implementations,” Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, Vol. 43, No. 4, 2000, pp. 42-46. [8] J. N. Warfield, “The Mathematics of Structure,” AJAR Publishing Company, 2003, pp. 345-366.