IDENTIFICATION OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS IN THE APPLICATION OF ERP SYSTEMS IN BRAZILIAN PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

(1)

International Scientific Journal – ISSN: 1679-9844 Nº 3, volume 14, article nº 5, July/September 2019 D.O.I: http://dx.doi.org/10.6020/1679-9844/v14n3a5

Accepted: 26/12/2018 Published: 20/06/2019

IDENTIFICATION OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL CRITICAL SUCCESS

FACTORS IN THE APPLICATION OF ERP SYSTEMS IN BRAZILIAN

PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

Flávia Campos Fernandes Leandro1, Mirian Picinini Méxas2, Haydée Maria Correia da Silveira Batista3, Ana Claudia Dias4, Geisa Meirelles Drumond5

Mestrado em Engenharia de Produção pela Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF); Pós-graduado em Análise de Sistemas pela Universidade Cândido Mendes; Graduado em Engenharia Civil pela Universidade

Veiga de Almeida.

fcleandro@gmail.com

Doutorado em Engenharia Civil pela Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF). Mestrado em Engenharia de Sistemas e Computação pela COPPE-Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ). MBA em Administração de Empresas pela UFF. Pós-Graduação no Curso PIGEAD (Planejamento, Implementação

e Gestão da EaD), pela UFF. Graduação em Matemática (Bacharelado e Licenciatura) pela UFF. Certificação em Gerência de Projetos-PMP.

mirian_mexas@id.uff.br

Mestrado em Sistemas de Gestão/UFF, formação em Gestão de Negócios/UCAM, Pós-graduação em Marketing/ESPM, Filologia Românica/UP, com vários cursos internacionais de especialização na área de

Gestão nos EUA, França e Panamá.

haydeesilveira@id.uff.br

Mestre em Sistemas de Gestão pela UFF - Universidade Federal Fluminense. Especialista em Ciência da Informação pelo IBICT- Instituto Brasileiro de Informação em Ciência e Tecnologia. MBA em Gestão da

Qualidade. Curso de Docência Superior. Consultora com experiência em projetos de gestão de documentos. Professora de Arquivologia especializada em concursos públicos.

missdias@gmail.com

Doutoranda em Sistemas de Gestão Sustentáveis pela Universidade Federal Fluminense. Mestre em Sistemas de Gestão pela Universidade Federal Fluminense (2014). Possui Especialização nas áreas: Organização e Estratégia (2014); Gestão Estratégica e Qualidade (2008) e Informática na Educação (2003). Bibliotecária graduada pela Universidade Federal Fluminense. Possui também graduação em

Psicologia. meirellesdrumond@gmail.com

Abstract: This study was made through a literature review specially investigated on the use of ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) system in several organizations. The objective was to identify the Critical Success Factors (CSF) considered the most influential for the successful implementation of the above mentioned system, in the three stages of the project: pre-implementation, implementation and post-implementation. For such, 40 papers were studied on the Capes platform in the bibliographic databases Scopus and Web of Science. Based on this literature review was carried out a questionnaire that was submitted to specialists in ERP systems

(2)

of educational institutions. It was verified that the three CSF most cited as "very important" in the pre-implementation phase were: High Management Support, Project with Clear Goals and IT Used before the ERP System. In the implementation phase were: Training and Education, Supplier Support and Accuracy and Data Reliability. And in the post-implementation phase were: User Feedback Analysis, Data Accuracy and Reliability, and Supplier Support. It is worth mentioning that these three phases of the ERP system life cycle allow a very strict control of the organization's areas of performance, where the monitoring of its results can guarantee the productive performance of the ERP system implementation. It is expected that this research can contribute to researchers and managers to take advantage, with greater precision, of the study regarding the CSF in relation to the application of the ERP system in educational organizations. As a suggestion of future work it is proposed to observe and monitor always the Critical Success Factors in loco.

Keywords: Critical Success Factors (CSF); Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP); Educational Institutions; Implementation

1. Introduction

The IT resources are being sought by companies from all sectors, mainly by educational institutions. Alqashami and Mohammad (2015) say that ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) systems are the most used by these institutions.

For Morton and Hu (2008) ERP systems have become one of the most important tools used in the management of organizations. These systems contribute to enterprise efficiency through integrated resource management, process automation, and information flow optimization. In the view of Beheshti et al. (2014) these systems are composed of a set of interconnecting modules. The functional areas of an organization, such as finance, accounting, production, purchasing, and customer service, are interconnected in a single system with a common platform for information flow throughout the enterprise.

The application of the ERP system involves complexities, which can result in failures and difficulties in the implementation (RAM; WU; TAGG, 2014). On the other hand, when implemented properly it produces improvements in the performance of organizations.

The ERP tool has been extensively studied by researchers such as Umble, Haft and Umble (2003), Ehie and Madsen (2005), Finney and Corbett (2007) and Hart and Snaddon (2014), Bansal and Agarwal (2015), Kapur et al (2014), Ram, Corkindale and Wu (2013) and Beheshti et al. (2014). The Critical Success Factors

(3)

(FCS) for ERP systems were disclosed by Bullen and Rockart (1981). The authors emphasize the importance of knowing the institution deeply to be successful of the projects.

Given the above, the objective of this work is to identify the most influential FCS for the successful implementation of ERP systems in Brazilian public education institutions, considering three stages of the project - pre-implementation, implementation and post-implementation.

This article is divided into five sessions. The first session is the introduction where the work is contextualized. The second session aims to construct the theoretical framework for the study. The third session is the methodology when the method adopted for the development of the research is described. In the fourth session is the time of analysis and discussion of the study. The session describes the peculiarities of the study. The final considerations and the recommendations for future studies are presented in section five.

2. ERP Systems Concept

As an IT application, the ERP system is considered to one of the most important because it enables organizations to connect and interact with their administrative units allowing data management and coordination of internal procedures. Education institutions have been looking for ERP system resources, but many projects fail, go beyond schedule or face budget constraints. The failure rate of implementation of ERP systems in educational institutions is higher than in other sectors (ALQASHAMI; MOHAMMAD, 2015).

For Sun, Ni and Lam (2015) the implementation of the ERP system is a complex and usually produces transformations within the organization, whether they involve changes in the roles and responsibilities of people, or changes in relationships between departments.

In ERP systems information is centralized in a single database, and this centralization is advantageous, since it provides integration and data flow across all sectors of the organization, favoring managers to access information in a fast and reliable way (MÉXAS; QUELHAS; COSTA, 2012).

(4)

According to Tasevska, Damij and Damij (2014), ERP systems have been developed to integrate processes and business of organizations, producing as a final result, effective management of the entire company, however, their implementation is not an easy task.

Mendes and Escrivão Filho (2002) argue that the implementation of ERP systems should not only be seen as an exchange of technology within the organization, since this migration involves changes where the organizational structure starts to be anchored in internal processes of the company.

Implementations of ERP systems are difficult and are not always successful, Bernroider, Wong and Lai (2014) say. Many organizations appear to be unprepared for adequate planning for this project, resulting in partial success of implementation or abandonment of the project, even before its completion.

Ashja, Moghadam and Bidram (2015) have suggested the classification of the ERP system life cycle in three essential stages - pre-implementation, implementation and post-implementation.

Also, Dezdar and Sulaiman (2009) have done a study on the CSF taxonomy for ERP implementation projects and categorized them into five main factors: ERP software, ERP expertise, ERP user, ERP project and ERP organization.

3. Research Method

1. For the development of the study the following six phases were established:

2. On the first phase it was carried out a literature review. In this sense, searches were made in the bibliographic databases Scopus and Web of Science through the CAPES platform. On the second phase, it was analyzed a total of 20 CSF related to the implementation of ERP systems. On the third phase these 20 CSF were grouped into five categories. These 20 CSF were chosen to contemplate a better implementation of ERP systems in Brazilian public education institutions.

3. Based on the study by Ashja, Moghadam and Bidram (2015), this work also structured the CSF in the three stages of the ERP life cycle: pre-implementation, implementation and post-implementation, in order to observe the perception of the ERP systems in educational institutions, within these three phases.

(5)

4. On phase four, a questionnaire was carried out from the literature review, and submitted to specialists in ERP systems in educational institutions.The objective of this phase was to identify which CSF influences the most for the implementation of ERP in these institutions. Before the questionnaire was sent, a pre-test was carried out with five specialists in ERP systems.

5. Considering the respondents, 93% say they have participated of the implementation of a ERP project. Regarding participation in the ERP implementation phases, 90% of respondents participated of the pre-implementation phase, 94% participated of the implementation phase and 84% participated of the post-implementation phase. Considering the distribution by region of Brazil, the questionnaires answered came from specialists from all over the country, being 8% from the North region; 27% from the Northeast; 35% from the Southeast; 16% from the South region, and 14 % from the Central-West region of Brazil.

6. On phase five, the answers of the 70 specialists in ERP system implementations for Brazilian public education institutions were tabulated, aiming to obtain the degree of importance of the CSF in each phase of ERP implementation.

7. On phase six, the results of the analysis were presented through a frequency table, where the CSF was classified in dimensions, with the percentages related to their importance in the implementation phases. These factors were then analyzed in light of the literature review. Table 1 shows the CSF identified in the literature and its authors.

Table 1 – CSF vs Author Critical Success Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 T ERP organization Top Management Support X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 21 Effective Communication X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 19 Clear Targets Project X X X X X X X 7 Organizational Culture X X X X X X X X X X X 11 Business Mission and Vision X X X X X X X X X X 10 Adequate Infrastructure X X 2 Data Accuracy and Reliability X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 22 ERP project Project Management X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 21 Change Management X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 22

(6)

BRP X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 16 The Champion Role X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 6 Competent Project Team X X X X 4 Performance’s Monitoring and Evaluation X X 2 Crisis Management and Problem Solving X X 2 ERP Software IT Used Before

the ERP System

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 Minimal Customization X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 ERP user Training and Education X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 18 User Feedback Analysis X X X X 4 ERP expertise External Consultants, Qualified Consultancy X X X X X X X X X 9 Suppliers Support X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14

Source: The authors themselves

The following legend allows identifying the authors and factors showed in table 1: 1 Ashja et al. (2015); 2 = Bintoro et al (2015); 3 = Kapur et al. (2014); 4 = Beheshti et al. (2014); 5 = Hart and Snaddon (2014); 6 = Shaul et Tauber (2013); 7 = Ziemba and Obląk (2013); 8 = Ahmad, Haleem and Syed (2012); 9 = Oliveira and Hatakeyama (2012); 10 = Norton et al. (2013); 11 = Hanafizadeh et al. (2010); 12 = Françoise, Bourgalult and Pellerin (2009); 13 = Liu and Seddon (2009); 14 = Bologa et al. (2009); 15 = Ngai, Law and Wat (2008); 16 = Plant and Willcocks (2007); 17 = Nah, Islam and Tan (2007); 18 = Finney and Corbett (2007); 19 = Sun, Ni and Law (2015); 20 = Soja (2006); 21 = Nah and Delgado (2006); 22 = Gargeya and Brady (2005); 23 = Akkermans and Helden (2002); 24 = Ram, Corkindale and Wu (2013); 25 = Ahmad, Haleem and Syed (2012); 26 = Ehie and Madsen (2005); 27 = Umble et al. (2003); 28 = Oliveira and Hatakeyama (2012); 29 = Dezdar and Sulaiman (2009); 30 = Bradley (2008); 31 = Holland and Light (1999); 32 = Momoh, Roy and Shehab (2010).

4. Analysis of results

(7)

Table 2 presents the results of the data collected in the questionnaire and in the literature analysis considering CSF dimension of ERP organization.

8. Table 2 - CSF dimension of ERP organization

9. ERP Organization 10. 11.

12. Top Management Support

13. Pre-implementation 14. Implementation 15. Post-implementation

16. Too High 17. 66,15% 18. 41,54% 19. 32,31% 20. High 21. 16,92% 22. 30,77% 23. 26,15% 24. Average 25. 6,15% 26. 15,38% 27. 27,69% 28. Low 29. 6,15% 30. 7,69% 31. 10,77% 32. Too Low 33. 4,62% 34. 4,62% 35. 3,08% 36. Effective Communication, Interdepartmental Cooperation

40. Too High 41. 40,00% 42. 47,69% 43. 43,08% 44. High 45. 27,69% 46. 24,62% 47. 26,15% 48. Average 49. 23,08% 50. 16,92% 51. 20,00% 52. Low 53. 6,15% 54. 10,77% 55. 7,69% 56. Too Low 57. 3,08% 58. 0,00% 59. 3,08% 60. Clear Targets Project

64. Too High 65. 53,85% 66. 43,08% 67. 33,85% 68. High 69. 26,15% 70. 32,31% 71. 27,69% 72. Average 73. 7,69% 74. 15,38% 75. 24,62% 76. Low 77. 7,69% 78. 7,69% 79. 10,77% 80. Too Low 81. 4,62% 82. 1,54% 83. 3,08% 84. Organizational culture

88. Too High 89. 32,31% 90. 35,38% 91. 32,31% 92. High 93. 18,46% 94. 24,62% 95. 33,85% 96. Average 97. 26,15% 98. 30,77% 99. 26,15% 100. Low 101. 18,46% 102. 6,15% 103. 1,54% 104. Too Low 105. 4,62% 106. 3,08% 107. 6,15% 108. Business

Mission and Vision

112. Too High 113. 47,69% 114. 30,77% 115. 26,15% 116. High 117. 23,08% 118. 27,69% 119. 21,54% 120. Average 121. 15,38% 122. 24,62% 123. 32,31% 124. Low 125. 7,69% 126. 10,77% 127. 15,38% 128. Too Low 129. 6,15% 130. 6,15% 131. 4,62% 132. Adequate Infrastructure

136. Too High 137. 43,08% 138. 47,69% 139. 53,85% 140. High 141. 12,31% 142. 27,69% 143. 24,62% 144. Average 145. 23,08% 146. 16,92% 147. 10,77% 148. Low 149. 16,92% 150. 6,15% 151. 6,15% 152. Too Low 153. 4,62% 154. 1,54% 155. 4,62% 156. Data Accuracy and Reliability

160. Too High 161. 32,79% 162. 50,82% 163. 60,66% 164. High 165. 24,59% 166. 29,51% 167. 22,95% 168. Average 169. 19,67% 170. 14,75% 171. 13,11% 172. Low 173. 11,48% 174. 4,92% 175. 3,28% 176. Too Low 177. 11,48% 178. 0,00% 179. 0,00%

4.1.1. Top Management Support

180. It was noticed that great importance was given to CSF (Critical Success Factors) in " Top Management Support" in the pre-implementation phase of the project, with 83.07% classified as very important and important, whereas during the

(8)

implementation phase it decreased to 72,31% and in the post-implementation, to 58.46%. This is justified by the fact that there is a need for top management to offer support in the beginning of the project.

181. It is also possible to observe that the percentages of the high importance are bigger than the average, in the phases of pre-implementation and implementation. In the post-implementation the inverse occurs. The percentage of the average importance is bigger than the one of the discharge. It demonstrates that, in practice, more support of the high management is required in the initial phase of the project, confirming that CSF is relevant in the pre-implementation and in the implementation. Bologa et al. (2009) corroborate with this finding, stating that examples in the literature show that weak support from top management in the beginning of the project can mean a failure in ERP implementation.

182. Behetish et al. (2014) also corroborate with this result. In their work, the authors state that, at the outset, senior management support for the project plays a relevant role in the implementation of the ERP in the organization. Liu and Seddon (2009) argue that top management is not expected to have a complete understanding of the contracted software package in the smallest detail, but this management should be involved, setting clear objectives for the implementation project, and establishing organizational structures that ensure the functionality required for the project to run.

4.1.2. Effective Communication, Interdepartmental Cooperation

183. In CSF evaluation "very important" and "important" percentages in the three phases - pre-implementation, implementation and post-implementation - are very close: 67.69%, 72.31% and 69.23%, respectively. This is justified by the fact that, there is a need for effective interdepartmental communication and cooperation, not only at the beginning of the project, but also throughout the ERP life cycle, implementation and post-implementation.

184. It is also observed that the percentages of average importance are below the percentages of high importance, even though this difference is only around 5%. This fact demonstrates in practice, that there is a need for effective communication, interdepartmental cooperation throughout the project, confirming that this CSF is relevant.

(9)

185. Ngai, Law and Wat (2008) corroborate this result. According to the authors, clear and effective communication is necessary before and during the ERP implementation process at all levels of the organization. This communication should include the formal dissemination of the project and the implementation team, as well as announcements about the progress of the implementation project, for the entire organization.

186. Authors such as Finney and Corbett (2007), Ashja, Moghadam and Bidram (2015) and Ahmad, Haleem and Syed (2012) consider interdepartmental communication a relevant CSF and emphasize the importance of communication between the various functions and levels of the organization, especially between the IT staff. Françoise, Bourgalult and Pellerin (2009) argue that communication is a key factor in any project.

4.1.3. Clear Targets Project

In CSF evaluation "Clear Targets Project", presents percentages referring to "very important" and "important" degrees in the phases of pre-implementation and implementation very close to 80.0% and 75.39 % respectively. However, in the post-implementation there is a reduction of this percentage to 61.54%. It is confirmed that in ERP implementation project must be clear and well-defined and with its targets established from the outset, and also in the continuation of the project, since the loss of focus can lead to implementation failures.

It is also observed that the percentage of average importance in the post-implementation, 24.62% is very close to that of the high, 27.69%. With this, it is verified that, in practice, there is a need for the project with clear targets to be well defined in the pre-implementation and implementation phase, but in the post-implementation this CSF is not so relevant.

Ashja, Moghadam and Bidram (2015) corroborate this result, since they affirm that organizations must clearly define their targets, expectations and expected results for each phase of the project. In addition, project targets must be logical, measurable, and legitimate investments for ERP implementation.

Oliveira and Hatakeyama (2012) point out the need for a clear definition of the project's plans and objectives, as this will contribute to a better structured enterprise, allowing anticipating the difficulties that compromise the budget, as well as other issues that involve implementation.

(10)

4.1.4. Organizational Culture

In the evaluation of CSF "Organizational Culture", the percentages referring to "very important" and "important" degrees in the three phases, pre-implementation, implementation and post-implementation, are a little close, 50.77% 60.0% and 66.16%, respectively. It is observed, however, that in the phases of implementation and post-implementation the percentage is higher than in pre-implementation. This is justified by the fact that there is a need to cultivate, throughout the implementation and post-implementation, a good acceptance of the employees to the new technology in the organization and to the innovations that the arrival of the ERP system implies.

It is also observed that the percentage values referring to the degree of average importance are not small, when compared with those of the high importance. In the scientific literature there are no reasons for these percentage values, where it can be deduced that, possibly, the resistances coming from the organizational culture are not a reality experienced in the Brazilian public institutions studied.

Ashja, Moghadam and Bidram (2015) state that the organizational culture can be translated as a set of assumptions and understandings about the functioning of the organization. Beheshti et al. (2014) argue that organizational culture can facilitate or inhibit the integration of ERP systems. In their research, the authors observed that organizational culture is a fundamental factor for ERP implementation

4.1.5. Business Mission and Vision

It was noticed that great importance was given to the "Business Mission and Vision" factor in the pre-implementation phase, with 70.77% classified as very important and important, while during the implementation phase it was reduced to 58, 46%, and in the post-implementation, to 47.69%. This is justified by the need for a clear understanding of the mission and vision of business in the beginning of the project. It is also observed that the percentages of the high importance are bigger than the average, both in pre-implementation and implementation. In the post-implementation the inverse occurs, that is, the percentage of the average importance is higher than the one of the discharge. Thus, in practice, there is a real need to understand the mission and vision of business already in the initial phase of the project, confirming

(11)

that this CSF is indeed relevant in the pre-implementation and in the implementation. Ashja, Moghadam and Bidram (2015) argue that organizations must have a clear definition of their mission and vision, and there must be a consensus on this, as the mission and business vision can greatly affect the successful ERP project.

Ahmad, Haleem, and Syed (2012) state that the mission and vision of business must be articulated to the goals, objectives, and strategies of the project.

4.1.6. Adequate Infrastructure

In the evaluation of the CSF regarding "Adequate Infrastructure", is noticed that the percentages referring to the "very important" and "important" degrees in the implementation and post-implementation phases are very close and high, 75.38% and 78.47%, respectively. It is observed, however, that in the pre-implementation phase the percentage is lower, 55.39%. This is justified by the fact that, there is a need of adjustments in IT structure for the continuation of the ERP project in the organization throughout the implementation and post-implementation stages.

Also it is observed that the percentages of average importance are below the percentages of high importance, in the phases of the implementation and post-implementation, not occurring in the pre-implementation. This fact demonstrates that there really is a need for adherence to the CSF for proper infrastructure, especially at the implementation and post-implementation phases.

Finney and Corbett (2007) argue that it is critical to assess the organization's IT availability, including architecture and skills. Soja (2006) comments that especially for long ERP implementation projects, the IT infrastructure factor has a strong influence. Holland and Light (1999) affirm that an effective IT infrastructure can support the organization's vision and strategy.

4.1.7. Data Accuracy and Reliability

In the evaluation of the CSF considering "Data Accuracy and Reliability", it is observed that the percentages referring to the "very important" and "important" degrees in the implementation and post-implementation phases are very close, 80.33% and 83.61 %, respectively, however, compared to the pre-implementation, the percentage is lower, with a value of 57.38%. These percentages reflect the fact that there is a need for accuracy and precision of data entry into the system, not only

(12)

at the beginning of the project but mainly throughout the implementation and post-implementation.

Shaul and Tauber (2013) corroborate this result. They contend that corrections of data errors after system implementation lead to increased operating costs, reduce effectiveness, and limit competitive advantage, as they can undermine strategic initiatives and customer responsiveness. According to the authors, the existence of imprecise, incomplete, inconsistent, inaccessible or doubtful data can negatively impact any implementation, because the ERP is widely used throughout the organization. Therefore, the researchers point out that the identification of data quality requirements is indisputable, as long as problems in ERP implementation can arise due to the lack of control over the quality of the data.

Umble, Haft and Umble (2003) state that data accuracy is absolutely necessary for an ERP system to function properly. Therefore, educating users on the importance of data accuracy and correct data entry procedures should be a priority in an ERP implementation.

According to Momoh, Roy and Shehab (2010), the integrity of data used to operate and make decisions in a business affects operations-related efficiency and quality of decision making, thus protecting data integrity is a challenging task.

4.2. ERP project

Table 3 shows the results of the data collected in the questionnaire and in the literature analysis considering CSF dimension – ERP project.

187.

188. Table 3- CSF dimension – ERP project

189. ERP Project 190. 191.

192. Project management

196. Too High 197. 46,67% 198. 46,67% 199. 31,67% 200. High 201. 33,33% 202. 35,00% 203. 28,33% 204. Average 205. 11,67% 206. 8,33% 207. 26,67% 208. Low 209. 5,00% 210. 10,00% 211. 10,00% 212. Too Low 213. 3,33% 214. 0,00% 215. 3,33% 216. Change Management

240. BPR 241. Pre-implementation 242. Implementation 243. Post-implementation 244. Too High 245. 45,00% 246. 28,33% 247. 33,33%

248. High 249. 23,33% 250. 40,00% 251. 35,00% 252. Average 253. 13,33% 254. 15,00% 255. 11,67% 256. Low 257. 8,33% 258. 3,33% 259. 8,33% 260. Too Low 261. 10,00% 262. 13,33% 263. 11,67%

(13)

264. The Champion Role

268. Too High 269. 36,67% 270. 26,67% 271. 15,00% 272. High 273. 26,67% 274. 25,00% 275. 31,67% 276. Average 277. 16,67% 278. 30,00% 279. 26,67% 280. Low 281. 13,33% 282. 10,00% 283. 15,00% 284. Too Low 285. 6,67% 286. 8,33% 287. 11,67% 288. Competent Project Team

292. Too High 293. 48,33% 294. 46,67% 295. 40,00% 296. High 297. 26,67% 298. 33,33% 299. 31,67% 300. Average 301. 13,33% 302. 10,00% 303. 16,67% 304. Low 305. 6,67% 306. 5,00% 307. 6,67% 308. Too Low 309. 5,00% 310. 5,00% 311. 5,00% 312. Performance ’s Monitoring and Evaluation

316. Too High 317. 28,33% 318. 31,67% 319. 41,67% 320. High 321. 21,67% 322. 31,67% 323. 23,33% 324. Average 325. 23,33% 326. 26,67% 327. 25,00% 328. Low 329. 11,67% 330. 5,00% 331. 5,00% 332. Too Low 333. 15,00% 334. 5,00% 335. 5,00% 336. Crisis Management and Problem Solving

4.2.1. Project management

In the evaluation of the CSF regarding "Project Management", it is observed that "very important" and "important" percentages in the pre-implementation and implementation stages are very close and high, 80.0% and 81,67%, respectively. However, in the post-implementation the percentage is reduced to 60.0%. The accentuated percentages, in the pre-implementation and implementation phases, reflect the fact that there is a need for a concentrated planning, for the arrival of the ERP in the organization, as well as during the implementation of the project.

Ashley, Moghadam and Bidram, (2015), Finney and Corbett (2007) and Ahmad, Haleem and Syed (2012) state that project management concerns the day-to-day management of the ERP implementation plan and this involves not only planning, but also responsibility assignments, goal setting, training, human resource planning, and the determination of expected results.

Since ERP implementation is complex, it combines hardware, software, and organizational issues, effective project management provides companies with the conditions for planning, coordinating and monitoring various activities at different stages of implementation. Clear and defined project management including goals, objectives, strategy, scope, agenda, and so on was a frequently cited CSF for ERP

(14)

implementation in almost all regions and countries examined (NGAI; LAW; WAT, 2008).

According to Ram, Wu and Tagg (2014), CSF project management has had a well-defined role in influencing the success of ERP implementations. Project management maturity through the use of established procedures, practices, and guidelines can allow organizations to realize the expected benefits of projects. Researchers also point out that evidence suggests that project management maturity is critical to gaining strategic advantage.

Ahmad, Haleem and Syed (2012) emphasize the development of the work plan and a project resource and progress plan, containing a formal implementation plan, deadlines, periodic meetings and project leadership is absolutely important.

4.2.2. Change Management

In the evaluation of the CSF regarding "Change Management" the percentages for "very high" and "high" importance grades are 58.34% in pre-implementation, 75% in implementation and 68.33% in post-implementation. It is observed that the percentage referring to the stage of the implementation is higher in relation to the percentages of the pre-implementation phase and the post-implementation phase. This result demonstrates that good change management during implementation will ensure ERP success in the organization.

Also it is verified that the percentages of the degree of average importance are below the percentages of the degree of high importance, in the phases of the implementation and post-implementation. As in the pre-implementation the percentage of the degree of the average importance is higher than the one of the discharge, this fact demonstrates that the CSF "Management of the Change" must be observed, mainly in the phase of the implementation and post-implementation.

Finney and Corbett (2007), Beheshti et al. (2014) and Hanafizadeh et al. (2010) state that change management is in the group of CSF most often cited for successful ERP implementations. The concept of change management, according to Finney and Corbett (2007), refers to the need for the implementation team to formally prepare a change management program, aware of the need to consider the implications that involve such a project within the organization. To build this user acceptance, one must be assured of the involvement and support of leaders throughout the organization.

(15)

Bintoro et al. (2015) emphasize that change management during ERP implementation means managing the interaction between the actors involved in each step of this implementation. Beheshti et al. (2014) argue that the more complex the ERP system, the greater the degree of change required in the organization, and the lack of attention to the human element within the enterprise change can cause implementation project failures.

4.2.3. BPR (Business Process Reengineering)

In the evaluation of the CSF "BPR" - Business Process Reengineering, the sum of the percentages related to "very high" and "high" grades in the three phases of the ERP are exactly the same: 68.33% in the pre-implementation, 68.33% in implementation and 68.33% in post-implementation. It means that the arrival of the ERP in the organization requires a reengineering in the processes. Ram, Wu, and Tagg (2014) state that BPR is cited in several surveys as an important factor influencing the success of ERP because restructuring organizational processes yields performance, improvements, and benefits in the efficiency of internal processes.

Ashja, Moghadam and Bidram (2015) argue that one of the advantages associated with ERP is that best practices are introduced into the organization through the system. Researchers suggest that organizations restructure their processes to fit the processes defined in the selected software. Ram, Wu, and Tagg (2014) argue that BPR is designed to restructure operations, reduce the complexity of organizational processes, and eliminate inefficient processes. Ram, Corkindale and Wu (2013) state that it is not surprising that BPR has been assessed as a critical factor in the early stages of the ERP implementation process.

According to Hanafizadeh et al. (2010) it is fundamental that an in-depth rethinking of the organization's processes takes place in order to achieve performance improvements when implementing ERP. BPR is the radical redesign of business processes, so that relevant organizational performance improvements such as cost, quality, service and speed can be achieved. Implementing an ERP system should involve reengineering existing business processes to align the best business standards.

Françoise, Bourgalult and Pellerin (2009) emphasize that reengineering and process customization are crucial phases of the project. ERP projects force

(16)

organizations to review their business processes and explore new ways of doing business, seeking the best practices embedded in the system.

For Ngai, Law and Wat (2008) a certain level of BPR should be applied in the implementation of the ERP, since the software package may have some incompatibility with the needs and business processes of the organization. The purpose of BPR is to improve software functionality according to the needs of the organization, which must restructure its business processes in order to adjust to the software.

4.2.4. The Champion Role

Regarding the CSF "The Champion Role", it is noticed that great importance was given to this factor in the pre-implementation phase, with 63.34% classified as very important and important, and in the implementation phase, with 51.67%. In the post-implementation phase there was a reduction to 46.67%. This is justified by the fact that there is a need for project leader participation in involving the entire organization for ERP implementation, but mainly in the pre-implementation and implementation phases.

Ashja, Moghadam and Bidram (2015) state that there must be at least one person within an organization who is recognized as the "champion" of the ERP. Some research defines the champion's role as an extremely critical factor for successful implementation. The champion must be a respected person among the different stakeholders and defend the ERP project in the company.

Françoise, Bourgalult and Pellerin (2009) also state that the project champion is essential for ERP implementation. Through its persuasiveness, the champion promotes team motivation helps create enthusiasm and convergence around common goals. Finally, in addition to promoting the project from the base of the company, the champion must participate in the activities of monitoring and monitoring the progress of the project and be involved in the execution of the entire project.

According to Bologa et al. (2009), in a teaching institution, a very important role in an ERP implementation project is that of a "project champion". He is the person who makes the project move forward therefore it should be chosen with much responsibility and care. He must also have special human qualities, such as creativity and energy, and thereby bring life to the project.

(17)

4.2.5. Competent Project Team

In the evaluation of the CSF "Competent Project Team", the percentages related to "very high" and "high" importance levels are 75% in the pre-implementation, 80% in the implementation and 71.67% in the post-implementation. It is observed that the percentage referring to the stage of the implementation is more pronounced in relation to the percentages of the phase of the pre-implementation and the post-implementation. This result demonstrates that a good, competent project team during implementation will ensure the smooth running of the ERP project in the post-implementation phase. Ehie and Madsen (2005) argue that having an implementation team that acts from the outset facilitates the implementation process and leads to a rapid and successful implementation.

Ashja, Moghadam and Bidram (2015) argue that having a competent project team is an essential feature for successful project management. Bologa et al. (2009) affirm that the project team structure should contain both IT people and management representatives in order to ensure project acceptance and create maximum synergy in the performance of activities within the organization An important success factor for the project is the ability to form a team composed of different groups, where there are no divisions and rivalries; the technical and functional management must establish a true working partnership.

4.2.6. Performance’s Monitoring and Evaluation

In evaluation of CSF "Performance’s Monitoring and Evaluation" (PME), the "very important" and "important" grades in the three phases of implementation: pre-implementation, implementation and post-implementation are close: 50%, 63.34%, and 65%, respectively. This is justified by the fact that there is a need to monitor and evaluate the performance of the system in the organization from the outset, but especially in the post-implementation phase. Finney and Corbett (2007) state that no project is complete without some kind of evaluation in the final phase of the implementation project.

Ngai, Law and Wat (2008) state that performance monitoring and evaluation is a critical factor for the success of any IT system, including ERP systems. Françoise, Bourgalult and Pellerin (2009) also argue that it is necessary to monitor and evaluate project performance. All the actors involved should participate in the

(18)

monitoring and monitoring of tasks in this type of project, considering that the level of uncertainty in this projects is very high.

Françoise, Bourgalult and Pellerin (2009) and Umble, Haft and Umble (2003) suggest that updates must be made regularly and associated with the corrections and adjustments requested. The project must be carefully monitored until implementation is complete.

4.2.7. Crisis Management and Problem Solving

In the evaluation of CSF "Crisis Management and Problem Solving", it is observed that the percentages referring to the "very important" and "important" degrees in the phases of implementation and post-implementation are identical, both with 75%. In the phase of the pre-implementation it was 55.39%. This is justified by the fact that throughout the implementation and post-implementation stages, crisis management and problem solving to be in place for the continuation of the ERP project in the organization. Ahmad, Haleem, and Syed (2012) and Liu and Seddon (2009) state that problem solving and crisis management are concerned not only with the identification of problems but with the determined search for solutions to them. It is essential to predict areas where problems will occur, deal with uncertainties and challenges, and try to learn from failures.

Ngai, Law, and Wat (2008) argue that solving problems or errors is particularly critical. Organizations implementing ERP systems should work closely with consultants to address problems that may arise during implementation.

Françoise, Bourgalult and Pellerin (2009) state that testing and troubleshooting ERP implementation is a critical step, especially in cases where the software has been modified or reconfigured. Gargeya and Brady (2005) also point out that the testing phase of the system proved to be a key success factor for some companies.

4.3. ERP Software

Table 4 presents the results of the data collected in the questionnaire and in the literature analysis considering CSF Dimension - ERP Software.

360. Table 4 - CSF Dimension - ERP Software

(19)

364. IT Used Before the ERP System

365. Pre-implementation 366. Implementation 367. Post-implementation 368. Too High 369. 48,33% 370. 40,00% 371. 26,67% 372. High 373. 28,33% 374. 40,00% 375. 33,33% 376. Average 377. 21,67% 378. 18,33% 379. 33,33% 380. Low 381. 0,00% 382. 0,00% 383. 5,00% 384. Too Low 385. 1,67% 386. 1,67% 387. 1,67%

388. Minimal Customization 389. Pre-implementation 390. Implementation 391. Post-implementation 392. Too High 393. 33,33% 394. 28,33% 395. 26,67% 396. High 397. 30,00% 398. 45,00% 399. 30,00% 400. Average 401. 21,67% 402. 21,67% 403. 30,00% 404. Low 405. 10,00% 406. 3,33% 407. 10,00% 408. Too Low 409. 5,00% 410. 1,67% 411. 3,33%

4.3.1. IT Used Before the ERP System

In the evaluation of CSF "IT used before the ERP system", it is observed that "very important" and "important" percentages in the pre-implementation and implementation stages are very close and high, 76.66 % and 80.0%, respectively. However, in the post-implementation the percentage is reduced to 60.0%. The accentuated percentages, in the pre-implementation and implementation phases, reflect the fact that there is a need for a concentrated planning, for the arrival of the ERP in the organization, observing the existing legacy system, to avoid conflicts in IT during the implementation of the project, correctly managing the transition and adaptation of the existing system to the ERP system.

Nah and Delgado (2006) argue that for an ERP implementation to be successful, the complexities of existing legacy systems must be managed successfully.

Ahmad, Haleem, and Syed (2012) and Holland and Light (1999) consider that legacy systems are not only the existing IT infrastructure, but also business processes, organizational structure and culture, are part of legacy systems.

Ahmad, Haleem and Syed (2012) suggest that the systematized study of the legacy system should be a starting point because in some cases it can bring out many potential problems and insoluble gaps within the organization. The poorer the legacy system the greater the effort to implement the ERP.

Holland and Light (1999) argue that legacy systems dictate the starting point for implementation.

(20)

4.3.2. Minimal Customization

In the evaluation of CSF "Minimal Customization", it is observed that the percentage value referring to "very important" and "important" degrees in the implementation phase is slightly higher than the others, namely 73.33%. Already the percentages of pre-implementation and post-implementation are closer and slightly lower, 63.33% and 57.67%, respectively. The presentation of a slightly higher percentage in the implementation, translates to the fact that there is a need for focused care, especially in the implementation phase, controlling the organizational processes, to avoid that there are customizations of the ERP in the organization.

Ashja, Moghadam um and Bidram (2015) and Umble, Hafte umble (2003) argue that if managers implement the standardized ERP package, this will lead to less customization of system coding, reducing project complexity, and leading the organization to be able to complete the ERP project on schedule. Some researchers recommend selecting a software package that best fits organizational requirements, rather than changing the package software code.

Ngai, Law and Wat (2008) state that the adjustment between the ERP and the company's business processes is a critical factor widely quoted in the ERP implementation literature. Selecting a package with few gaps and a high degree of tuning will minimize the effort, time and risk, reducing its downside through changes to either business processes or customization later on.

4.4. ERP user

Table 5 presents the results of the data collected in the questionnaire and in the literature analysis considering CSF dimension - ERP user.

412. Table 5 - CSF dimension - ERP user

413. ERP user 414. 415.

416. Training and Education

420. Too High 421. 37,21% 422. 53,49% 423. 51,16% 424. High 425. 6,98% 426. 20,93% 427. 20,93% 428. Average 429. 25,58% 430. 20,93% 431. 13,95% 432. Low 433. 18,60% 434. 2,33% 435. 11,63% 436. Too Low 437. 11,63% 438. 2,33% 439. 2,33% 440. User Feedback Analysis

(21)

444. Too High 445. 25,58% 446. 39,53% 447. 67,44%

448. High 449. 11,63% 450. 37,21% 451. 16,28%

452. Average 453. 30,23% 454. 16,28% 455. 9,30%

456. Low 457. 16,28% 458. 2,33% 459. 4,65%

460. Too Low 461. 16,28% 462. 4,65% 463. 2,33%

4.4.1. Training and Education

In the evaluation of CSF "Training and Education", it can be seen that the percentages referring to "very important" and "important" degrees in the implementation and post-implementation phases are very close and high, 74.42% and 72.09 %, respectively. It is observed, however, that in the pre-implementation phase the percentage is lower, 44.19%. This is justified by the fact that there is a need for implementation, training and education to be implemented, and, in the post-implementation, this program is in place to guarantee good practice in the use of system within the organization. Ram, Wu and Tagg (2014) suggest that having effective training programs can lead to post-implementation organizational benefits. Training and education is often considered as a success factor for ERP implementation and also, crucial for user acceptance to the system.

Ashja, Moghadam and Bidram (2015) argue that the main reason for training programs is to make easier for users to use ERP, increasing their knowledge and qualification levels relevant to the system. The authors suggest that organizations have a detailed formal plan for training programs. During formal education programs, users must learn the skills necessary to use the system correctly, and must know the organization's obligations, the objectives of the ERP implementation and the new processes to be adopted in the company.

Ram, Wu and Tagg (2014) stress that effective training is positively associated with organizational performance. Training and education have a direct influence on user satisfaction, which, in turn, has influence on long-term organizational performance.

Oliveira and Hatakeyama (2012) and Ahmad, Haleem and Syed (2012) state that perhaps this is the most important CSF in ERP implementation and one of the reasons for failure of ERP projects. It is common for executives to underestimate the level of skill required by users. Organizations can not realize the full benefits of the ERP system

(22)

4.4.2. User Feedback Analysis

In the evaluation of CSF "User Feedback Analysis", is observed that the percentages referring to "very important" and "important" degrees in the implementation and post-implementation phases are quite high, 76.74% and 83.72 %, respectively; however, the pre-implementation has a very small percentage, estimated at 37.21%. These percentages reflect the fact that there is a need for user feedback in the use of the ERP system, and especially in the implementation and post-implementation phases.

According to Nah and Delgado (2006) any feedback offered by users should be considered, since user feedback and involvement are important. Shaul and Tauber (2013) argue that companies often encounter resistance from users to the ERP system. Constant feedback procedures make possible to evaluate the project itself and all stakeholders involved.

Ngai, Law and Wat (2008) affirm that the progress of ERP implementation must be regularly measured for more efficient and effective control.

4.5. ERP expertise

Table 6 presents the results of the data collected in the questionnaire and in the literature analysis considering CSF dimension - ERP expertise.

464. Table 6 - CSF dimension - ERP expertise

465. ERP expertise 466. 467.

468. External Consultants, Qualified Consultancy

469. Pre-implementation 470. Implementation 471. Post-implementation 472. Too High 473. 37,21% 474. 32,56% 475. 25,58% 476. High 477. 23,26% 478. 32,56% 479. 25,58% 480. Average 481. 20,93% 482. 23,26% 483. 25,58% 484. Low 485. 11,63% 486. 4,65% 487. 6,98% 488. Too Low 489. 6,98% 490. 6,98% 491. 16,28%

492. Suppliers Support 493. Pre-implementation 494. Implementation 495. Post-implementation 496. Too High 497. 30,23% 498. 51,16% 499. 58,14% 500. High 501. 30,23% 502. 20,93% 503. 25,58% 504. Average 505. 23,26% 506. 20,93% 507. 6,98% 508. Low 509. 6,98% 510. 4,65% 511. 4,65% 512. Too Low 513. 9,30% 514. 2,33% 515. 4,65%

(23)

4.5.1. External Consultants, Qualified Consultancy

In the evaluation of CSF "External Consultants, Qualified Consulting", is noticed that the percentages referring to "very important" and "important" degrees in the three phases of the ERP - pre-implementation, implementation and post-implementation, are relatively close: 60,47%, 65.12% and 51.16%, respectively. This is justified by the fact that, there is a need for qualified consultancy throughout the phases of ERP implementation. Ashja, Moghadam and Bidram (2015) state that the external consultant can assist companies during the entire implementation of ERP and project management.

Liu and Seddon (2009) and Bologa et al. (2009) argue that including consultants in ERP implementation facilitates the process and generates knowledge transfer within the organization. It is important to use external consultants not only to obtain complementary knowledge but also to facilitate planning throughout the implementation and to validate the work done during the implementation of the system.

4.5.2. Suppliers Support

In the evaluation of CSF "Suppliers' Support", the percentages referring to "very important" and "important" grades in the implementation and post-implementation phases are very high, 72.09% and 83.72% respectively. It is observed, however, that in the pre-implementation phase the percentage is lower, 60.46%. This is justified by the fact that, there is a need for the support of the suppliers to contribute to the implementation of the ERP project in the organization throughout the implementation and post-implementation stages. Ahmad, Haleem and Syed (2012) state that vendors offer tools and accelerators that can be used during system implementation, whether in reengineering or updating software, in addition, they can help to correct software defects.

Ashja, Moghadam and Bidram (2015) and Ahmad, Haleem and Syed (2012) state that as with any software, ERP also demands constant support from its supplier, and in addition, ERP systems require continuous investment in many companies. new modules and upgrades. Consequently, the seller's support with the company also involves technical assistance, emergency maintenance, upgrades, and user training, which is a crucial factor.

(24)

5. Conclusions

The objective of this study was to obtain the perception of specialists in ERP systems in Brazilian public education institutions regarding the Critical Success Factors for the implementation of ERP systems in Brazilian public education institutions, from the perspective of 3 stages of implementation: pre-implementation, implementation, and post-implementation.

Initially, a literature review was done with the purpose of searching for the Critical Success Factors cited by the authors for ERP system implementations. In this literature review 20 CSF were selected for research and grouped into five categories: ERP software, ERP expertise, ERP user, ERP project and ERP organization. This grouping allows those responsible for the ERP system implementation project to have an easy understanding of what area problems may be occurring in the implementation of the ERP system within the company.

Based on the literature review, the field research was elaborated through an electronic questionnaire, requesting the perception of the importance of the 20 CSF in the pre-implementation, implementation and post-implementation stages of specialists in ERP systems in public education institutions Brazilians, on a Likert scale, in order to observe the very high CSF.

The questionnaire was sent to 356 e-mails, of which 70 were completed. By tabulation of the results, it can be observed that the respondents belong to Brazilian public education institutions, most of them have more than 10 years of experience, have participated in the 3 phases of the implementation of the ERP system and belong to the Southeast region.

Regarding the perception of the degree of importance of the CSF, an analysis was elaborated in light of the literature review. It was verified that the 3 CSF most cited as "very important" in the pre-implementation phase were: High Management Support, Project with Clear Targets and IT Used Before ERP System. In the implementation phase were: Training and Education, Supplier Support and Accuracy and Data Reliability. Finally, in the post-implementation stage, the 3 most-cited CSFs as "very important" were: User Feedback Analysis, Data Accuracy and Reliability, and Supplier Support. Thus, the answer to the fourth and last question of this research was obtained.

(25)

It is worth mentioning that the three phases of the ERP system life cycle: pre-implementation, implementation and post-pre-implementation, allows an even more rigorous control of the organization's areas of activity, where monitoring of its results can ensure productive performance in the implementation of the ERP system.

It is hoped that this research can contribute to researchers and managers to apply more accurately studies about CSF to the success in implementations of the ERP system in educational organizations.

This research can contribute to the debate about the success of implementations of ERP systems among the researchers, offering other points of view of the theme that is intended to develop.

As a suggestion of future work, it is proposed to observe and monitor the Critical Success Factors in loco, demonstrating the need or not of adjustments to the initial proposal of CSF presented in this work, ERP system implementations in the context of teaching organizations, from the grouping proposed in this research and within the 3 stages of implementation, also suggested in this research.

References

AHMAD, N.; HALEEM, A.; SYED, A.A. Compilation of Critical Success Factors in Implementation of Enterprise Systems: A Study on Indian Organisations. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, v. 13, n. 4, p. 217–232, 2012. doi:10.1007/s40171-013-0019-8

AKKERMANS, H.; Van HELDEN, K. Vicious and virtuous cycles in ERP implementation: a case of interrelations between critical success factors. European Journal of Information Systems, v. 11, n. 1, p. 35-46, 2002. doi:10.1057/palgrave/ejis/3000418

ALQASHAMI, A.; MOHAMMAD, H. Critical Success Factors for Implementing an ERP System within University Context: Concepts and Literature Review. International Journal

of Managing Information Technology, v. 7, n.. 4, p. 01–19, 2015.

doi:10.5121/ijmit.2015.7401

ASHJA, M.; MOGHADAM, A.H.; BIDRAM, H. Comparative study of large information systems’ CSFs during their life cycle. Information Systems Frontiers, v. 17, n. 3, p. 619–628, 2015. doi:10.1007/s10796-013-9445-6

BANSAL, V.; AGARWAL, A. Enterprise resource planning: identifying relationships among critical success factors. Business Process Management Journal, v. 21, n. 6, p. 1337– 1352, 2015. doi:10.1108/BPMJ-12-2014-0128

BEHESHTI, H. M. et al. Selection and critical success factors in successful ERP implementation. Competitiveness Review, v. 24, n. 4, p. 357–375, 2014. doi:10.1108/CR-10-2013-0082

(26)

BERNROIDER, E. W. N.; WONG, C. W.Y.; LAI, K.H. From dynamic capabilities to ERP enabled business improvements: The mediating effect of the implementation project. International Journal of Project Management, v. 32, n. 2, p. 350–362, 2014. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.05.006

BINTORO, B. P. K. et al. Actors’ interaction in the ERP implementation literature. Business Process Management Journal, v. 21, n. 2, p. 222–249, 2015. doi:10.1108/BPMJ-11-2013-0142

BOLOGA, A. R. et al. Higher education ERPs: Implementation factors and their interdependencies. WSEAS Transactions on Computers, v. 8, n. 4, p. 651–660, 2009. BRADLEY, J. Management based critical success factors in the implementation of Enterprise

Resource Planning systems. International Journal Accounting Information Systems, v. 9, n. 3, p. 175–200, 2008. doi:10.1016/j.accinf.2008.04.001

BEHESHTI, H. M. et al. Selection and critical success factors in successful ERP implementation. Competitiveness Review, v. 24, n. 4, p. 357–375, 2014. doi:10.1108/CR-10-2013-0082

BULLEN, C. V.; ROCKART, J. F. A primer on critical success factors. Sloan Work Paper; 1220-81; CISR n. 69, 1981.

DEZDAR, S.; SULAIMAN, A. Successful enterprise resource planning implementation: Taxonomy of critical factors. Industrial Management & Data Systems, v. 109, n. 8, p. 1037–1052, 2009. doi:10.1108/02635570910991283

EHIE, I. C.; MADSEN, M. Identifying critical issues in enterprise resource planning (ERP) implementation. Computers in Industry, v. 56, n. 6, p.545–557, 2005. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2005.02.006

FINNEY, S.; CORBETT, M. ERP implementation: a compilation and analysis of critical success factors. Business Process Management Journal, v. 13, n. 3, p. 329–347, 2007. doi:10.1108/14637150710752272

FRANÇOISE, O., BOURGALULT, M., PELLERIN, P. (2009), ―ERP implementation through critical success factors management‖, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 15 No.3, pp.371–394. doi:10.1108/14637150910960620

GARGEYA, V. B.; BRADY, C. Success and failure factors of adopting SAP in ERP system implementation. Business Process Management Journal, v. 11, n. 5, p. 501–516, 2005. doi:10.1108/14637150510619858

HANAFIZADEH, P. et al. The Core Critical Success Factors in Implementation of Enterprise Resource Planning Systems. International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems, v. 6, n. 2, p. 82–111, 2010. doi:10.4018/jeis.2010040105

HART, C. A.; SNADDON, D. R. The organisational performance impact of erp systems on selected companies. South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, v. 25, n. 1, p. 14– 28, 2014. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.7166/25-1-615

HOLLAND, C. P.; LIGHT, B. A Critical Success Factors Model For ERP Implementation. IEEE Software, v. 16, n. .3, p 30–36, 1999. doi:10.1109/52.765784

KAPUR, P. K. et al. Critical success factor utility based tool for ERP health assessment: a general framework. International Journal System Assurance Engineering and

(27)

Management, v. 5, n. 2, p.133–148, 2014. doi:10.1007/s13198-014-0223-8

LIU, A. Z.; SEDDON, P. B. Understanding how project critical success factors affect organizational benefits from enterprise systems. Business Process Management Journal, v. 15, n. 5, p.716–743, 2009. doi:10.1108/14637150910987928

MENDES, J. V.; ESCRIVÃO FILHO, E. Sistemas integrados de gestão ERP em pequenas empresas: um confronto entre o referencial teórico e a prática empresarial. Gestão & Produção, v. 9, n. 3, p. 1–20, 2002. doi:10.1590/S0104-530X2002000300006

MÉXAS, M. P.; QUELHAS, O.L.G.; COSTA, H. G. Prioritization of enterprise resource planning systems criteria: Focusing on construction industry. International Journal of Production Economics, v. 139, n. 1, p. 340–350, 2012. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.05.025 MOMOH, A.; ROY, R.; SHEHAB, E. Challenges in enterprise resource planning

implementation: State-of-the-art. Business Process Management Journal, v. 16, n. 4, p. 537-565, 2010. doi:10.1108/14637151011065919

MORTON, N. A.; HU, Q. Implications of the fit between organizational structure and ERP: A structural contingency theory perspective. International Journal of Information

Management, v. 28, n. 5, p. 391–402, 2008.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2008.01.008

NAH, F. F-H.; ISLAM, Z.; TAN, M. Empirical Assessment of Factors Influencing Success of Enterprise Resource Planning Implementations. Journal of Database Management, v. 18, n. 4, p.26–50, 2007. doi:10.4018/jdm.2007100102

NAH, F.; DELGADO, S. Critical Success Factors for Enterprise Resource Planning Implementation and Upgrade. Journal of Computer Information Systems, v. 46, n. 5, p. 99–113, 2006. doi:10.1080/08874417.2006.11645928

NGAI, E. W. T.; LAW, C. C. H.; WAT, F. K. T. Examining the critical success factors in the adoption of enterprise resource planning. Computers in Industry, v. 59, n. 6, p. 548–564, 2008. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2007.12.001

NORTON, A. L. et al. Ensuring benefits realisation from ERP II: the CSF phasing model. Journal Enterprise Information Management, v. 26, n. 3, p. 218–234, 2013. doi:10.1108/17410391311325207

OLIVEIRA, L. S.; HATAKEYAMA, K.. Um estudo sobre a implantação de sistemas ERP: pesquisa realizada em grandes empresas industriais. Produção, v. 22, n. 3, p. 596–611, 2012. doi:10.1590/S0103-65132012005000052

PLANT, R.; WILLCOCKS, L. Critical success factors in International ERP implementations: a case research approach. Journal of Computer Information Systems, v. 47, n. 3, p. 60– 70, 2007. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.05.008

RAM, J.; CORKINDALE, D.; WU, M.L. Implementation critical success factors (CSFs) for ERP: Do they contribute to implementation success and post-implementation performance?. International Journal of Production Economics, v. 144, n. 1, p. 157–174, 2013. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.01.032

RAM, J.; WU, M. L.; TAGG, R. Competitive advantage from ERP projects: Examining the role of key implementation drivers. International Journal of Project Management, v. 32, n. 4, p. 663–675, 2014. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.08.004

(28)

SHAUL, L.; TAUBER, D. Critical success factors in enterprise resource planning systems: Review of the last decade. ACM Computing Surveys, v. 45, n. 4, p. 1–39, 2013. doi:10.1145/2501654.2501669

SOJA, P. Success factors in ERP systems implementations: Lessons from practice. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, v. 19, n. 4, p. 418–433, 2006. doi:10.1108/17410390610708517

SUN, H;, NI, W.; LAM, R. A step-by-step performance assessment and improvement method for ERP implementation: Action case studies in Chinese companies. Computers in Industry, v. 68, p. 40–52, 2015. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2014.12.005

TASEVSKA, F.; DAMIJ, T.; DAMIJ, N. Project planning practices based on enterprise resource planning systems in small and medium enterprises — A case study from the Republic of Macedonia. International Journal of Project Management, v. 32, n. 3, p. 529–539, 2014. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.08.001

UMBLE, E. J.; HAFT, R. R.; UMBLE, M.M. Enterprise resource planning: Implementation procedures and critical success factors. European Journal Operation Research, v. 146, n. 2, p. 241–257, 2003. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00547-7

ZIEMBA, E.; OBLACK, I. Critical Success Factors for ERP Systems Implementation in Public Administration. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge and Management, v. 8, p. 1–19, 2013.