# Understanding Public Sector Enterprise Resource Planning System Implementation in Developing Countries: A Literature Review

David Mpanga

► To cite this version:

David Mpanga. Understanding Public Sector Enterprise Resource Planning System Implementation in Developing Countries: A Literature Review. International Working Conference on Transfer and Diffusion of IT (TDIT), Jun 2019, Accra, Ghana. pp.255-273, 10.1007/978-3-030-20671-0_18 . hal-02294679

HAL Id: hal-02294679

https://inria.hal.science/hal-02294679

Submitted on 23 Sep 2019

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Understanding Public Sector Enterprise Resource Planning System Implementation in Developing Countries: A Literature Review

David Mpanga

Bugema University, P. O. Box 6529 Kampala, Uganda
d.mpanga@bugemauniv.ac.ug

**Abstract.** This paper is a literature review of articles on implementation of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) in public sector with a focus on developing countries. The aim of the paper is to present an in depth understanding of the implementation of ERP systems in developing countries public sector. It intends to help researchers interested in the topic to have a single source of reference, and to understand the state of ERP implementation in developing countries public sector. A systematic literature review methodology was adopted for an in-depth review of journals, conference proceedings and reviews. The review covered a range from 1998 to 2015; 72 articles relevant to public sector were reviewed and identified only 5.04% were related to ERP in developing countries, and not specific to public sector. The major themes identified include genesis of ERP, implementing ERP, CSF for implementing ERP, ERP implementing frameworks/methodologies, impact of ERP on Business Processes, ERP market, ERP cost and failure, and ERP trends. Findings on each theme are discussed. Areas are recommended that need to be understood in context of developing countries public sector; external and internal opposing factors, specific CSF/CFF, ERP implementing framework/methodologies, Total Cost of Ownership, ERP integration and ERP framework/architecture to ensure successful implementation of ERP and reduce cost.

**Keywords:** ERP, Public Sector, Developing Countries, Enterprise systems, CSF, CFF
# 1 Introduction

Many organizations have implemented information systems in order to improve efficiency in service delivery. However, information systems specific to given function area create distributed silos of heterogeneous data, inaccessible across the organization. This affects decision making at organizational level due to lack of access to organization wide real time information. Consequently the agility of the organization to promptly respond to business needs is constrained. Large organization in developed economies initiated implementation of enterprise information systems to overcome challenges caused by function-oriented information systems (Rajapakse and Seddon, 2005). Among the different types of enterprise information systems, Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system is the most popular. ERP design is based on widely accepted best practices in a given industry be it private or public sector. Implementation of ERP system in an organization is intended to integrate business processes across functional areas to enhance efficiency and effectiveness in service or product delivery in a manner universally accepted in a particular industry (Rajapakse and Seddon, 2005).

Feng, Hu and Huang (2011) argue that ERP implementations are the most difficult projects to undertake because of their complexity, high cost and adaptation risks. The complexity of ERP system originate from inherent business processes to ERP system. Often the recipient organization is required to redesign the organization business processes to fit ERP system. On the other hand customization of the ERP system could be carried out to fit the ERP system in the recipient organization business processes. Though numerous researchers have contributed to the field of ERP systems in regard to Critical Success Factors (CSF), Critical Failure Factors (CFF), and implementing methodologies, most of the research is private sector oriented, and from developed economies. Meaningful interaction with the citizenry and business requires integration of ERP system with other applications. Hence, there is a need to build capabilities to manage and improve relationships with business and citizenry in a seamless Government-to-Business (G2B) and Government-to-Citizenry (G2C) environment. Governments in developing countries promote Public-Private- Partnership (PPP) as strategy to increase efficiency in service delivery. The success of the public sector in developing countries to deliver quality services efficiently, will depend on the ability to integrate the diverse network of stakeholders’ relationships.

ERP systems are independent solutions that cannot integrate all interaction processes in public sector environment. An effective service delivery model in public sector organizations require leveraging the functionalities of the ERP system with another enterprise application (Baran, 2012).

Hence, an inevitable need arise to improve the interactions with suppliers of services and goods by integrating ERP with applications that provide interface with e-commerce solutions.
ERP systems in public sectors have to be extended to create links with other application like Customer Services Management (CSM) to manage service agreements, Supplier Relationship Management (SRM) to manage suppliers' relationships, and Citizenry Relationship Management (CRM) to manage citizens' interactions. These solutions are stand-alone systems with the aim to support different functions (Beal, 2017). Integration of ERP systems with another application that manage front-end processes eliminate duplication of information and reduce IT costs and expenses related to training (Kolisnyk, 2018).

ERP systems vendors are penetrating developing countries public sector, in anticipation to provide solutions that deliver efficiency similar to developed countries public sector. However, public sectors in developing countries are characterized by specific laws and government regulations, as well as specific ways of doing business that are different from those in the West (Bitsini, 2015). These unique characteristics are likely to cause technology, information and roles misalignments or misfits between the best practices of a Western-designed ERP system and the organizational context in developing countries (Bitsini, 2015).

Prior to this article, there is no literature review on implementing ERP systems in developing country public sector is identified. Hence, the article contributions to the knowledge of ERP systems implementation with a focus on public sector in developing countries. First, it is the first single source of reference for ERP systems implementation in developing country public sector. Secondary, the article provides a background for identifying areas that need to be understood to successfully implement ERP systems in developing countries public sector domain.

## Objective

The objective of the research was to collect and analyse literature on the implementation of ERP systems in developing countries public sectors. The question the article attempts to answer is; how successful is the implementation of ERP systems in developing countries public administration? It is important to understand ERP systems in context of public sectors in developing countries; ERP systems have transformed private sector organizations and now are gaining acceptance in the public sectors (Kelemen, 2014). Secondary, ERP systems were primarily targeted at private companies, though public organizations in developed economies have invested considerable resources in the implementation of these systems Alves and Matos (2011). Still the continued high failure rates with enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems remain a great concern (Dwivedi et al. 2015; Ram, Corkindale & Wu, 2013). Also many ERP systems' failures in developing countries are associated with the misalignment of requirements between ERP systems and implementing organizations (Dwivedi et al. 2013; Morton and Hu, 2008; Roseann and Weber, 2004; Strong and Volkoff, 2010).
## Overview of the Paper

In this article implementing ERP systems in developing countries public sector is analysed to identify the major themes researched. Secondly, the concept of cloud ERP systems is investigated in context of developing countries. A discussion of the finding is provided, and the article conclude with areas that need to be understood further.

# 2 METHODOLOGY

A systematic literature review (SLR) methodology for conducting a high quality standalone literature review in Information Systems field was adopted as the author of the article didn't collect or analyze any primary data (Okoli, 2015). SLR methodology was considered the most appropriate for a rigorous review intended to summarize existing evidence, identify gaps in current research, and provide a basis for research endeavors in ERP systems in developing countries public sectors.

## 2.1 Sources of reviewed papers

Papers reviewed were accessed from 25 International journals indicated in table 1, four conference/conventional proceedings, and five international reviews listed in Table 2. The research covered articles in the range from 1998 to 2015. A list of search words including Enterprise systems, public sector ERP, Enterprise Resource Planning, developing countries public were used to search the literature using Google scholar

<table><caption>**Table 1. Journal sources**</caption><thead><tr><td>Journal title</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Journal of Enterprise Information Management</td></tr><tr><td>Journal of Business Administration and Management Sciences Research</td></tr><tr><td>Journal of the Association for Information Systems</td></tr><tr><td>European Journal of Information Systems</td></tr><tr><td>International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction</td></tr><tr><td>Business Process Management Journal</td></tr></tbody></table>
Information Systems Management
Journal of Enterprise Information Systems
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
Journal of Enterprise Resource Planning Studies
Journal of Business Administration and Management Sciences Research
Communications Of The ACM
Journal of Information Technology
Communications of the Association for Information Systems
Journal of Operations Management
Journal of Management Information Systems
The Journal of Systems and Software
Business & Information Systems Engineering
ACM Computing Surveys
International Journal of Human Computer Interaction
Communications of the IBIMA
OECD Journal on Budgeting
Journal of the Faculty of Economic & Administrative Sciences
Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management
Journal of Enterprise Resource Planning Studies

<table><caption>**Table 2. Reviews and Conferences**</caption><thead><tr><td>Reviews</td><td>Conventions/Conferences</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Public Administration Review</td><td>International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) 2004 Proceedings</td></tr><tr><td>Harvard Business Review</td><td>Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO), 2014 37th International Convention</td></tr><tr><td>American review of public administration</td><td>European Conference on Information Systems (2000)</td></tr><tr><td>Govern-ment Infor-</td><td>International Conference on System Sciences (2001)</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>mation Quarterly</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MIS Quarterly</td><td></td></tr></table>

Selection of papers was based on three key terms; ERP implementation, public sector ERP and ERP in developing countries/economies. Paper were categorized as relevant when the author talked about ERP systems and referred to public sector globally in the text, and papers selected in this category were 65. A second category was the contextual category; the article was about ERP systems in the context of a developing country, and the themes discussed are specifically focused on ERP in developing country. This category has 7 papers. A third category was the specific category; article fully dedicated to ERP systems in developing country public sector, and no paper identified in this category.

## 2.2 Themes identified

This section provides a critical review of the common themes discussed in various articles on ERP. Common themes identified in articles reviewed include the genesis of ERP systems, critical success factors for implementing ERP, ERP implementation cost and failure, ERP implementing frameworks/methodologies, ERP market and Trends in ERP systems. ERP themes that have no article related to developing countries are identified in table 2.

<table><caption>**Table 3.** Themes published about ERP by category</caption><thead><tr><td>Theme</td><td>Author</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>ERP Generally<br/>(one article related to public sector, but not in developing country context)</td><td>Sprecher (1999), Kumar and Hillsgersberg (2000), Periseraset al. (2000) Allen et al. (2002), Sally and Arnold, (2002), Huang et al. (2003), Wagner and Antonucci (2004), Alshawi (2004), Robert and Weston (2007), Tregear and Jenkins (2007), Feng, Hu and Huang (2011), Nazami et al. (2012), Bailey et al. (2015)</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>Implementing ERP<br>(three articles related to public sector and two of which refer to developing countries)</td><td>Klaus et al. (2000), Ahituv (2002), Ad-do-Tenkorang and Helo (2011), Abdelghaffar (2012), Sommer (2011), Abdelghaffar (2012), Ziemba and Oblak (2013), Columbus (2014), Kelemen (2014)</td></tr><tr><td>ERP implementation Critical Success Factors<br>(two article related to public sector in developing country context)</td><td>Esteves and Bohorques (2007), Frimpon (2012), Njihia and Mwirigi (2014), Kalema et al. (2014)<br>Simone, S., Célio, S., and Julliane, E. (2018).</td></tr><tr><td>ERP cost and failure rate<br>(Three article related to developing country public sector context)</td><td>Bancroft et al. (1998), Govindaraju (2002), Kamhawi (2008), Soja, (2009), Seddon et al. (2010), Hawari and Heeks (2010), Lutovac and Manojlov (2012), Roushania and Ravasan (2012), Ram, Corkindale and Wu, (2013), Harb and Twak (2015), Bitsini (2015)</td></tr><tr><td>ERP Market<br>(one article which mention developing country but not specifically public sector)</td><td>Dezdar and Ainin, (2011), Shaul and Tauber (2013)</td></tr><tr><td>ERP implementing frameworks/methodology<br>(One article related to public sector, but not in developing country context)</td><td>DiMaggio and Powell (1983), Levinson (1988), Govindaraju (2002), Parr and Shanks (2000), Shanks et al. (2000), Markus and Tanis (2000), Ross and Valtale's Model (2000), Somers and Nelson (2004), Benders, Batenburg and Van der Blonk (2006), Bjørn-Andersen and Johanson (2007), Baxter (2010), Dantes and Hassibuan (2011), Sommer (2011), Govindaraju (2012), Ziemba and Oblak (2013),</td></tr><tr><td>ERP trends<br>(One article mentioning developing</td><td>Bailey et al. (2010), Bernd and Arne (2012), Saini (2012), Tripti, 2013</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>countries, but not specifically public sector domain)</td><td></td></tr></table>

# 3 LITERATURE REVIEW

## 3.1 Genesis of ERP systems

Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) was coined in the early 1990 by Gartner Group (Robert and Weston (2007). In private sectors both ERP software vendors and users understand technical, human resource, and financial resources requirements for ERP systems implementation. According to Columbus (2014) a successful ERP systems implementation requires strategic, innovative implementation and deployment approaches that incorporate business process management. ERP systems provide real-time access to information from various business processes integrating different functions (Nah et al., 2001, Al-Mashari, 2003; Alsene, 2007). Introduction of ERP systems in developing countries can be traced way back in 1990s. Since mid-1990's, many public sector organizations have followed the private sector to implement pre-packaged commercial ERP solutions in favor of a proprietary systems (Sommer, 2011).

## 3.2 Implementing ERP system

Literature reveals an increasing demand for quality services in both public and private sectors. Periseras et al. (2000) and Liu et al. (2004) observed that citizens in many countries expect public administration to provide quality services at the lowest cost. The need exists to implement technology that can increase efficiency, enhance process transparency and communication within public administration. Thus, in developing countries, enterprise systems are increasingly gaining popularity in public administration. However, according to Seddon et al. (2010) traditional implementation of ERP systems often cost millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars. Ziemba and Oblak (2013) state that information system implementation is a complex exercise in technology innovation. Organizational change management is also difficult in enterprises (Kumar, Maheshwari and Kumar 2002; Markus and Tanis, 2000).

Successful implementation of enterprise system may not easily be completed in short term. Hence, it requires top-level political will as any change in the existing public sector practices requires a review of legal framework. Most government agencies utilize experiences from private sectors to implement enterprise systems (Watson et al. 2003). As a result, public sectors often adopt generalized private sector ERP implementation approaches. In developed countries, the public sector administration and
business processes are reformed to reflect those in the private sectors; hence, it is
appropriate to adopt private sector ERP implementing approaches developing country
environment. The public sector environment in developing countries is characterized
by unique cultural, structural, political, and economic complexities.
Management of information systems in public sector organizations vary significantly from those of the private organizations (Bozeman et al., 1986; Bretschneider, 1990). According to Bretschneider (1990) and Cats-Barilet al. (1995) variations of public sectors from private sectors can be attributed to a number of characteristics. These include interdependencies across the organizational boundaries, higher levels of red-tape, different evaluation criteria for purchasing software, extra organizational linkages, and top-level implementation management officials. In many developing countries, public sector management activities experience strong external forces. The significant forces that influence public administration functions include legislations and regulations, international funding agencies and political interference. Hence, the public sector environment in many developing countries is different from the public and private sectors in developed countries.

Bozeman and Bretschneider (1986) suggested four “models of publicness” that distinguish between public and private sector information systems. In the functioning of public administration, economic authority model play a secondary role. In private sector the emphasis is on productivity, bureaucratic regulations in public sector and political authority model, the emphasis is on political influence and monitoring mechanisms.

Bingi et al. (2007) and Davenport (1998) state that ERP system implementations generally involve massive organizational changes. The changes are a result of the shift from existing business processes to best practices inherent in ERP systems. Organizational changes required to implement ERP system include strategic areas to eliminate data silos, technology infrastructure, organization culture, management systems, human resources skills and structures (Al-Mashari, 2003). These changes have widespread impacts on various departments or agencies of the organization. The strong interdependence of government entities pose a high risk failure to ERP system implementation. Successful ERP system implementations require top management commitment. (Huang et al., 2004; Somers et al., 2001; Grossman et al., 2004; Umble at al., 2002).

Documented models of ERP systems implementation comprise of different stages. Some researchers suggest a three-stage model (Parr and Shanks, 2000; Neumann and Zviran 2002). Markus and Tanis (1999) proposed a four-stage model. Most of the proposed models categorize activities into: before the project, the project stage and post-project undertakings. ERP implementation studies are commonly conducted in two approaches. The variance approach is focused on critical success factors for successful implementation of an ERP system. The process approach focuses on the change management process by identifying the dialectic forces that cause change during the ERP implementation process (Robey et al. 2002). The process approach highlights the difficulties in business process mapping, infra-structure problems, lack of technical knowledge of the key-users, difficulties in procurement of hardware,
codification of master data, difficulties in collection of data, and change of implemen-
tation partners (Madhayi, 2008).

According to Akkermans and Helden (2002) ERP implementations are usually large and complex projects. Faced with many unforeseen developments and resources, and involve big groups of people work under considerable time pressure. Not surprisingly, many of these implementations turn out to be less successful than originally intended (Davenport, 1998; Avnet, 1999; Buckhout et al, 1999).

Integrated information flows can support government processes in numerous ways to improve service delivery, accountability, and managing for results. Unfortunately, most of the literature on ERP implementation is limited to the private sector, and as such neglects a substantial uniqueness of the public sector constraint. Gulledge and Sommer (2003) argue that there is nothing special about public sector business processes that insulate them from modern private sector management methods. However, it should be noted that this argument is made in context of developed economies, where the public sector undertook the initiative to adopt private sector management structure. This is not the same experience in developing economies where skills, financing, political influences, and entrenched bureaucracy, are critical constraints in public administration.

The hierarchical organizational structure in the public sector is quite different from organizational structure in private sector. Majchrzak and Wang (1996) state that it is extremely difficult to implement process management in hierarchically managed organizations. Sommer (2011) argue that public administration has characteristics including; cultural, political, and organizational factors that negatively influence successful ERP implementation in local government administration. Tregear and Jenkins (2007) presents a list of nine key differences between the public sector and private sector. The differences include public interest, accountability, political sensitivity, whole-of-government ecosystem, budget cycle complexity, information exchange, regulating society, machinery of government changes, and culture. These differences should be considered when developing approaches to process-based management and ERP implementation in a developing country public sector organization.

One of the major changes at different levels of government is the attempt to imple-
ment “best practices modeled after those of the private sector (Caudle, 1996). The
private or public sectors’ best practices from developed countries imbedded in the
ERP systems are far different from developing countries environment. Raymond et al.
(2005) argue that each sector is confronted with specific environmental constraints,
the transfer of IT practices from the private to the public sector would not occur au-
tomatically. Ziemba and Oblak (2013) indicated that processes in public administra-
tion have completely different characteristics compared to private organizations. Con-
trary to public sector, private sector processes can be improved almost anytime as
organization’s need emerge (Schäfermey-er and Holten, 2012). ERP systems are gen-
erally designed for private sector and do not meet specific public administration re-
quirements (Ziemba and Oblak, 2013).

3.3 ERP implementing framework/methodologies

Govindaraju (2012) suggested an organizational perspective framework for imple-
menting ES; focusing on two stages in ES implementation process including project
stage and post project stage. Further recommend that enterprise system implementa-
tion effectiveness need to be analyzed at two levels: short term implementation effec-
tiveness, related to the outcome of the project stage, and the long-term implementa-
tion effectiveness, related to the outcome of the post-project stage.

Dantes and Hasibuan (2011) proposed an ERP implementing conceptual framework considering two dimensions. The ERP implementation process that have five stages: project preparation, technology selection, project formulation, implementation and post-implementation. Somers and Nelson (2004) identified six stages of ERP implementation process: initiation, adoption, adaptation, acceptance, routinization, and infusion.

Ahituv (2002) developed a generic hybrid ERP implementation methodology combin-
ing three structured approaches: Structured Development Life Cycle (SDLC), Proto-
typing and application package model. He contend that the uniqueness of ERP system
renders any of the three models inadequate to be adopted solely in implementation of
ERP system.

Most ERP vendors propose frameworks specific to their ERP solution to simplify the implementation process. Some of the major vendor specific frameworks include: Accelerated SAP (ASAP) by SAP, Application Implementation Method (AIM) by Oracle, Direct Path by PeopleSoft and Dynamic Enterprise Modeler by BAAN (Benders, Batenburg & Van der Blonk, 2006). Vendor specific frameworks coerce client organizations to compromise their core business processes for the sake of conforming to the vendor's prescribed implementing framework; a concept of isomorphism, DiMaggio and Powell (1983).

3.4 ERP market

Despite the wide adoption of ERP systems, the biggest share is in developed econo-
mies, and the adoption rate in developing countries is very low more so in Africa.
Shaul and Tauber (2013) indicated that ERP market was occupied 66% by North
America; Europe had 22%, whereas the whole of Asia was at 9 %, Africa share an
estimate of only 3%.
## 3.5 Impact of ERP on Business Processes

Literature cite Bozeman (1993) arguing that one of the main characteristics of the public sector is the large number of formal processes that appear to be essential to ensure that the public sector functions. Successful Information System implementation requires sufficient attention to policy, processes, structure, laws, and regulations (Rose and Grant, 2010). ERP systems provide an environment for business process alignment and management, and seamless flow of data and information across silo function areas. Gulledge and Sommer (2003) noted that process management is a prerequisite for successful implementation of business process-oriented enterprise systems. Localized implementations of process management have been prevalent for years (Grass, 1956).

Technology adaptation in public or private sector, should be considered only to provide capabilities to support business processes deliver efficiency and effectiveness to service delivery, and deliver value to the customer (Davenport and Short, 1990). Hence, the public sector should consider the primary benefits of process management to ensure alignment of cross-functional processes prior to implementation of a technology solution to support enterprise functions (Gulledge, and Sommer, 2002). Columbus (2014) observed that successful ERP systems implementation requires strategic, innovative implementation and deployment approaches that incorporate business process management.

According to Gulledge and Sommer (2002) business process management has received much attention in the private sector management literature, and its benefits are well known; much less has been written in the public sector management literature, and what has been written has been very general.

## 3.6 Trends in ERP system

Hawari and Heeks (2010) argued that the designer of the ERP software package assumed the existence of a strong local area network, servers, personal computers and broadband internet connections. Many developing countries, more so the public sectors are not yet at the level of developed countries when it comes to technology and related infrastructure. According to Saini, Sain and Khandage (2011) cloud computing is a new paradigm in which computing resources such as processing, memory, and storage are not physically present at the user's location. Instead, a service provider owns and manages these resources, and users access them via the Internet. The greatest challenge of ERPs is the costs related to these systems implementation which includes investing to acquire software, hardware, consultant fees, in-house staff (in charge of the installation process), staff operating on the system and the user training (Trimi et al., 2005). Armbrust et al. (2010) stated that these ERP systems can be provided in an easier and more attractive way by their provision over the cloud. Lechesa et al. (2012) stated that ERP systems are also delivered as SaaS (Software as a Service), and is increasingly adopted in the global market.
Baxter (2010) indicated that there does not appear to be one best model for the im-
plementation of ERP system, and suggest that applying traditional methods to an ERP
development project does not work. Navaneethakrishnan (2013) suggest that cloud
computing gives organization all the services of computing, networking and data
storage from a distinct location. Public authorities or government could benefit from
these advantages by adopting cloud computing (Bernd and Arne, 2012). The analysis
of Alford (2009) as cited by Bernd and Arne (2012) implies that over a 13-years
lifecycle the implementation costs for cloud computing would be more than 60%
lower than setting up a traditional data center. Bernd and Arne (2012) argued that
these advantages make cloud computing also very interesting to be adopted in the
public sector and e-Government.

One of the benefits of Cloud technology to public administration is to eliminate the necessity of setting up an own IT infrastructure, hence, decreasing investment and administrative expenditures (Bernd and Arne 2012). More benefits of cloud computing for government are listed by Bhisikar (2011) including increased flexibility, access everywhere, elastic scalability and pay-as-you-go, easy implementation, service quality, sharing documents and group collaboration, data recovery, distributed data centers and availability of software updates. Maliza et al. (2012) cites Mozammel-Bin-Motalab and Shohag (2011) who argued that cloud enterprise systems is simple to deploy, and it represents the latest, greatest, and most influential IT change in years.

Vendors of Cloud ERP Systems manage, maintain and deploy IT infrastructure. Con-
sequently, reduce the IT complexity that users face when implementing an enterprise
system (Maliza et al., 2012). In the same line, Beaubouef (2011) argued that no fur-
ther IT investment is required in terms of infrastructure, software and support re-
sources upgrading. According to Bailey et al. (2010) local government administration
should move aggressively to cloud computing in order to achieve service improve-
ments and cost efficiencies.

3.7 CSF for implementing ES

Enterprise systems CSFs in the public sector domain are grouped into: procurement procedure, government processes management, project team competence, and project management process (Ziemba and Oblak, 2013; Hasibuan and Dantes, 2012). Wang et al. (2008) further considered the importance of: top management support, vender’s support, consultant’s competence, users’ support, IT capability, and project management leadership; to mitigate the costly failure of ERP system implementation. Usta-süleyman and Percin (2010) considers project management, consultant planning activities and internal audit to be significant in predicting the ERP implementation success. Many developing countries still experience severe constraints in these dimensions.
During the implementation of enterprise systems, often the business must be modified to fit the system (Davenport, 1998). This means the organizations' business processes need to be reengineered to fit the best practices that comprise the system. This considerably add to the expense and risk of introducing enterprise systems (Kumar and Van Hillegersberg, 2000; Markus and Tanis, 2000). Moreover, vendors try to structure the systems to reflect best practices, but it is the vendor, not the customer who define what "best" means (Davenport, 1998). Hence, the adopting organization is dependent on the vendor for updates of the package (Markus and Tanis, 2000).

Abdelghaffar (2012) identified ten factors which had impact on ERP implementation in Egypt. Authors identified different CSFs, and also categorized them differently: Kalema et al. (2014) proposed 37; Frimpon (2012) identified 28, all obtained from literature review, and Frimpon (2012) identified 5 from SMEs in Kenya. However, ERP system design assumes a set of organizational processes that match the best practice in the industry (Strong and Volkoff, 2010). Hence, the importance of a factor may differ from one context to another (Momoh and Shehab, 2010).

## 3.8 ERP implementation cost and failure

Implementation of ERP systems in the public sector is considered to be challenging and require enormous investment and still with risk of failure (Kelemen, 2014). According to Bjørn-Andersen and Johansson (2007) the implementation of ERP project itself is far more expensive than the costs of the software licenses. Organizations leaders usually were unsatisfied with ERP implementation timelines, regularly exceeding two years (Bozaa et al. 2014). Exceeding timelines is caused by: inadequate preparation, lack of knowledge and experience, inability to predict and find an appropriate solution. According to Rouhania and Ravasan (2012) these projects are on average 178% over budget, take 2.5 times longer than intended, and deliver only 30% of the promised benefit. Harb and Twak, (2015) further cite Lutovac and Manojlov (2012) that more than 80% of companies in Indonesia failed to implement ERP and 50% of companies in the world failed to obtain the optimal return value. Wu et al. (2008) and Kwahk et al. (2010) and Salmeron et al. (2010) list a number of failed ERP systems implementations with magnitude of financial losses; resulted from not properly implementing ERP systems. Most developing countries public sector administration often rely on borrowed or donor funds. Hence, ERP systems implementation projects require extra caution to mitigate ES implementation failure.

Nazemi et al. (2012) found out that the total cost including: hardware, software, professional services, training, and internal staff costs could range between $300 and $400 million with an average of $15 million. This average cost is close to the US $ 30 to US$70 stated by (Rodin-Brown, 2008). As a consequence some developing countries continue to run enterprise systems not successfully implemented that constrain the ES efficiency (Rodin-Brown, 2008).
The continued high failure rates with enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems remain a great concern (Ram, Corkindale and Wu, 2013). Most of ERP systems' failures in developing countries are attributed to misalignment of requirements between ERP systems and implementing organizations (Morton and Hu, 2008; Roseann and Weber, 2004; Strong and Volkoff, 2010). Misalignment originate from mismatches in different contexts where ERP system is developed. Deodar and Aiming (2011) argued that when organizations implement an ERP system that was developed in a different social context, they are more likely to experience misalignment or misfit embedded within software packages with business models designers believe represent the best practice in certain contexts (Roseann et al, 2004). Software packages are subjected to institutional procedures, processes and forces that set rules of rationality (Gosain, 2004). The standard practice in many ERP implementations force a match between client business processes and ERP system design through business process reengineering (BPR) resulting into massive changes and ultimately lead to failure (Hawari and Heeks, 2010).

Nevertheless, Information Technology (IT) governance and Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) could be another source of ERP system implementation failure. IT governance has two aspects, information technology resource management and performance measurement, that impact the alignment of the organization and the IT solutions. These IT governance components have significant positive impact on alignment of IT with business strategies (Mohammad, 2012). IT governance provides a description of the deployment of information technology in an organization. The IT governance also provides the leadership, organizational structure and processes to ensure that the implemented IT sustain and support organization's strategy (Broadbent 2000; IT Governance Institute, 2003). During the implementation of ERP system, IT governance team assess the IT infrastructure, and implement a framework to calculate the ERP system TCO. TCO is a comprehensive system approach that enable management make better decisions in regard to direct and indirect costs associated with IT resources. Any organization attempting to implement ERP system need a TCO framework to enable better decision making in regard to ERP implementation project. Though in many cases the TCO is considered under the purchasing cost, underestimating hidden costs of technology solutions can result into implementation failure. A comprehensive TCO framework captures ERP implementation cost from the onset to post implementation of the project. Literature on ERP system TCO is sparse, hence, lack of clear understanding of ERP TCO is likely to be one of the major causes of budget overrun.

# 4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Though there is an increase in ERP adoption in the public sector, in many aspects
developing countries are far less than developed countries; caused by differences in
technological advancements and supporting infrastructure. The growth of ERP im-
plementation in developing countries is not supported by literature indicating reduc-
tion in failure rate. Factors associated with lack of skills and technology, absence of
good quality data, lack of money, user resistance and cultural issues identified by
Hawari and Heeks (2010), Kamhawi (2008) and Soja (2009) and are still prevailing.
The ERP design – reality gap identified by Hawari and Heeks (2010) is still one of the
key causes of ERP implementation failures in developing countries due to adoption of
developed country perspective solutions. The challenges are even more pronounced in
developing countries public domain, where business processes are highly hieratical;
culture and business practices reinforced by poor motivation. The practice of reengi-
neering business process to fit the recipient organization into ERP best practice
framework reinforce the challenge. Hawari and Heeks, (2010) argue that Standard
practice in many ERP implementations has been to force a match between client busi-
ness processes and ERP system design through business process reengineering (BPR)
which results in too much change and ultimately leads to failure. Understanding the
critical success factors or rather critical failure factors for implementing ERP systems
in developing countries public sector in critical to reduce the design- reality gap.
Understanding ERP system has to be contextualized because of the conflicting ideas
that emanate from the fact that there are no universal best practices that fit different
industries and environments, and particularly developing countries (Bitsini, 2015).

Though the impact of ERP system on business processes and job environments are
not among the identified themes discussed in the context of public sector, they promi-
nently future in private sector. ERP fundamentally impact on the business processes
and the work practices. In public sector environment more so in developing countries
where political, legislative, and financial constraint are high, a successful implementa-
tion of ERP in such environment require an attention on public sector business pro-
cesses. Columbus (2014) observed that successful ERP systems implementation re-
quires strategic, innovative implementation and deployment approaches that incorpo-
rate business process management. Bailey et al. (2015) found that ERP systems affect
the quality of work life, in a study from African countries. This is likely to be caused
by business process improvement, which result into the demand of new set of skills
and different work practices.

Implementation of ERP system touches the core process of the business. Hence, adop-
tion of a hybrid methodology universally is likely to result into unexpected failure due
to cultural, organizational and political influences experienced in environments that
are characteristically different. Existing frameworks/methodologies are private sector
based and focus on what should be done at a particular stage with no consideration of
variations in different domains. Characteristic variations between private sector and
public sector significantly impact on the way activities are carried out in a given envi-
ronment. ERP implementation in developing countries should also take into account
the fact that developing countries have limited resources unlike the developed coun-
tries. Hence, ERP systems implementation process should be administered differently
as suggested by Addo-Tenkorang and Helo (2011). Sommer (2011) state that public
administration has characteristics including: cultural, political, and organizational
factors that negatively influence successful ERP implementation in local government
administration.

Research implication

Shaul and Tauber, (2013) findings indicated that ERP market was occupied 66% by North America; Europe had 22%, whereas the whole of Asia was at 9 %, Africa share an estimate of only 3%. this gives an indication on why ERP issues in developing countries are not well researched, hence, not well understood. Dwivedi et al. (2014) envisaged the need to extend ERP research focus to include further public sector ERP systems implementation. The market percentage also don't separate the private from public sectors. However, from a business perspective this gives an indication on the ERP market trend being focused towards developing countries as they provide unsaturated market. Hence, developing countries have become a major target for ERP vendors (Dezdar and Ainin, 2011). The academic perspective, a percentage of only 5.04 research work done on ERP subject in developing countries, is an indicator of inadequate understanding of the subject in various aspects. Developing countries are still highly constrained with Information Technology infrastructure required to implement ERP systems. However, the proliferation of cloud computing technology promise ERP systems provisioning opportunities. It is important to understand how cloud facility with “pay-as-use” and SaaS provisioning present opportunities of implementing ERP in developing countries public sector at far lower infrastructure costs and skills requirements despite other underlying issues. Though literature promote cloud computing benefits to be adopted in the public sector and e-Government (Bernd and Arne, 2012).

5 CONCLUSION

In this paper a review of 74 articles ranging from 1998 to 2018 with relevance to pub-
lic sector was done and identified only 5.04% of these articles were related to ERP in
developing countries. However, the major themes identified include; genesis of ERP,
CSF/CFF, ERP implementation cost and failure, ERP implementation frame-
works/Methodologies, ERP market and trends. A critical analysis of these themes is
carried out to highlight the available knowledge and gaps on ERP in public sectors in
developing countries.

Limitations and feature research
The search didn't reveal substantial literature on developing country public sector issues. Identified literature does not also clearly distinguish public sector organisations, like agencies or authorities, from public sector administrations like local governments. Policies, regulations, business processes and mandates of public sector institutions differ from those of public administration. Most of the identified research on developing country public sectors focus on non-administrative public sectors (Simone, Célio and Julliane, 2018). Successful implementation of ERP systems in developing countries public sectors requires understanding of: the policy and regulatory frameworks relevant to developing country unique challenges; impacts caused by external influences like donor funding and vendor's highly inscribed designs; comprehensive CSF/CFF specific to developing country public sectors, Total Cost of Ownership framework, ERP integration with other application, and contextualized ERP implementation frameworks. An ERP architecture grounded on local business processes rather than considering universal best practices is critical to successful implementation of ERP system. A study on an alternative architecture that can harness capabilities of other technologies like Multi-Agent Systems and SOA could help to develop ERP systems that minimize on business process improvement, which is highly disruptive in developing countries public sectors. This could reduce the ERP system implementation cost and failure rate. The listed research dimensions contribute to the fact that despite the wide adoption of ERP systems, the biggest share is in developed economies; the adoption rate in developing countries is still very low more so in Africa. Hence, the studies are recommended to create knowledge on implementation of ERP systems in developing country public sectors.

# 6 REFERENCE

1. Akkermans, H., Helden, K.: Vicious and virtuous cycles in ERP implementation: a case study of interrelations between critical success factors, European Journal of Information Systems, 35–46. (2002).

2. Al-Mashari, M.: A process change-oriented model for ERP Application.

3. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 16(1), 39–55. (2003).

4. Alsene, E.: ERP systems and the coordination of the enterprise. Business Process Management Journal, 13(3), 417–432. (2007).

5. Alves, M., C., Matos, S., I.: An Investigation into the Use of ERP Systems in the Public Sector, Journal of Enterprise Resource Planning Studies, Vol. 2011. (2011). Article ID 950191, DOI: 10.5171/2011.950191

6. Avnet: ERP not living up to promise. Global Supply Chain 2, 7. (1999).

7. Baran, R.: ERP vs. CRM software – What is the difference?. (2012). http://www.positivevision.biz/blog/bid/132694/erp-vs-crm-software-what-s-the-difference. (Accessed 03/04/2019)

8. Baxter, G.: White paper: Key issues in ERP system implementation, the UK national research and training initiative. (2010).
9. Beal, V.: The Difference between CRM and ERP. (2017) https://www.webopedia.com/DidYouKnow/Hardware_Software/the-difference-between-crm-and-erp.html. (Accessed 03/04/2019)

10. Bingi, P., Sharma, M., Godla, J.: Critical issues affecting an ERP implementation. Information Systems Management, 16(3), 7-14. (1999).

11. Bitsini, N.: Investigating ERP Misalignment between, ERP Systems and Implementing, Organizations in Developing Countries, Journal of Enterprise Resource Planning Studies. (2015). DOI: 10.5171/2015.570821

12. Bjørn-Andersen, N., Johansson, B.: Identifying Requirements for Future ERP systems. (2007). www.3gerp.org.

13. Blick, G., Gulledge, T., Sommer, R.: "Defining business process requirements for large scale publicsector ERP implementations: a case study", Proceedings of theEuropean Conference on Information Systems, Wirtschafts Universita¨t, Wien. (2000).

14. Blick, G., Gulledge, T., Sommer, R.: Defining Business Process Requirements for Large-Scale Public Sector ERP Implementations: A Case Study. (unpublished)

15. Bozaa, A., Cuenca, L., Polera, R., Michaelides, Z.: The interoperability force in the ERP field, Research Centre on Production Management and Engineering (CIGIP),pp. 257-278 Enterprise Information SystemsVol.(9)3, Published online: Liverpool, UK. (2015)

16. Bozeman, B.: A Theory of Government Red Tape, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3(3), 273-303. (1993).

17. Bozeman, B., Bretschneider, S. Public management information systems: Theory and prescription.Public Administration Review, 46(6), 475-487. (1986).

18. Bretschneider, S.: Management information systems in public and private organizations: An empirical test. Public Administration Review, 50(5). (1990).

19. Broadbent, M.: Creating Effective IT Governance. Gartner Symposium IT EXPO, Orlando, Florida. (2002).

20. Buckhout, S.,E., Frey, J., Nemec, J. R.: *Making ERP succeed; turning fear into promise.* *Strategy and Business*, 2nd quarter. Booz-Allen and Hamilton, http://www.strategybusiness.com. (1999).

21. Cats-Baril, W., Thompson, R. (1995). Managing information technology projects in the public sector. *Public Administration Review*. **55**(6), 559-566.

22. Claude, R., Joris, P., Adrien, P.: Digitizing the Public Organization: Information System Architecture as a Key Competency to Foster Innovation Capabilities in Public Administration. Halduskultuur Administrative Culture 13 (1), 49-66. (2012).

23. Columbus: Seven ways that business process management can improve your ERP implementation, special report series, ERP in 2014 and beyond. (2014). http://www.columbusnc.dk/daDK/DynamicsNAV/~/media/90634D9A7 EE4D3FBB3 60D6330189D7.pdf

24. Davenport, T. H.: Putting the Enterprise into the Enterprise System. *Harvard Business Review*, 76(4), 121-131. (1998).

25. Diamond, J., Khemani, P.: Introducing Financial Management Information Systems in Developing Countries, IMF Working paper, WP/05/196. (2005).

26. Dwivedi, Y. K., Wastell, D., Laumer, S., Henriksen, H. Z., Myers, M. D., Bunker, D., ... & Srivastava, S. C. (2015). Research on information systems failures and successes: Status update and future directions. *Information Systems Frontiers*, 17(1), 143-157.

27. Dwivedi, Y. K., Ramdani, B., Williams, M. D., Mitra, A., Sukumar, R., & Williams, J. (2013). Factors contributing to successful ERP implementation in locally-owned and multinational firms in India. *International Journal of Indian Culture and Business Management*, 6(4), 458-476.
28. Garvin, D.: Leveraging processes for strategic advantage, *Harvard Business Review*, Vol. 73 No. 5, pp. 77-90. (1995).

29. Gosain, S.: Enterprise Information Systems as Objects and Carriers of Institutional Forces: The New IronCage? *Journal of the Association for Information Systems*, 5(4), 6. (2004).

30. Grass, I.: Processing and operation planning", in Maynard, H. (Ed.), *Industrial Engineering Handbook*, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. (1956).

31. Grossman, T., Walsh, J.: Avoiding the pitfalls of ERP system implementation. *Information Systems Management*, 20(2), 38-42. (2004).

32. Gulledge, T., R., Sommer, R., A.: Business process management: public sector implications, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 364-376. (2002).

33. Gulledge, T., R., Sommer, R., A. *Public sector enterprise resource planning* Industrial Management & Data Systems 103/7 471-483. (2003). DOI 10.1108/02635570310489179

34. Hawari, A., Heeks, R.: Explaining ERP Failure in A Developing Country: A Jordanian Case Study, *Journal of Enterprise Information Management*, 23(2), 135-160. (2010).

35. Hasibuan, Z., Dantes, G. 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. (2012).

36. Hopelain, D.G.: The Structure of Information Systems Design: Five Axioms for the Management of Systems Development," in T. M. A. Bemelmans (ed) Beyond productivity: Information Systems Development for organizational Effectiveness, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., pp. 147-56. (1984).

37. Huang, S. M, Chang, I. C, Li, S. H., Lin, M. T.: Accessing risk in ERP projects: Identify and prioritize the factors. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 104(8), 681-688. (2004).

38. Kaunda, M., J., Kennedy, O.: Factors Influencing Adoption and Use of Information and Communication Technology at the Ethics and Anticorruption Commission of Kenya, Journal of Business Administration and Management Sciences Research, 2(11), 224-309. (2013).

39. Kelemen, R.: ERP Systems in Public Sector, Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO): 37th International Convention on *Microelectronics*, 1537-1543. (2014).

40. Kolinsky, M.: The Relationship between ERP and CRM. https://diceus.com/a-relationship-between-erp-and-crm/. (2018). (Accessed 03/04/2019).

41. Kumar, K., Van Hillegersberg, J.: ERP experiences And Evolution. Communications Of The ACM, 43(4), 22-26. (2000).

42. Kwahk, K., Ahn, H.: Moderating Effects of Localization Differences on ERP Use: A Socio Technical Systems Perspective Computers in Human Behavior, Vol.26, pp.186-198. (2010).

43. Liu, H., Lai, P.: Managing process centred e-government in Taiwan: a customer relationship management approach. Electronic Government, 1 (4): 398-419. (2004).

44. Mohammad, J.: The role and relevance of IT governance and IT capability in Business-IT alignment in medium and large companies. Academy of Taiwan Business Management Review, Vol. 2(6) pp. 16 – 23. (2012).

45. Markus, L.M., Axline, S. P., Tanis, C.: Learning from adopter's experience with ERP: problems encountered and success achieved. Journal of Information Technology, 15, 24-265. (2000).

46. Mullee, W., Porter, D.: Process chart procedures. Industrial Engineering Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. (1956).
47. Nah, F.F-H., Lau, J.L-S., Kuang, J.: Critical factors for successful implementation of enterprise systems. Business Process Management Journal, 7(3), 285-298. (2001).

48. Okoli, C.: A Guide to Conducting a Standalone Systematic Literature Review, Communications of the Association for Information Systems: Vol. 37 (43). (2015).

49. Parr, A., Shanks, G.: A model of ERP implementation. Journal of Information Technology, 15, 289-303. (2000).

50. Peterson, S., Kinyeki, C., Mutai, J., Ngungu, C.: Computerized Accounting Systems in Developing Bureaucracies: Lessons from Kenya, "Public Budgeting and Finance, Vol.16 (4), pp. 45-58. (1996).

51. Periseraset, V., Tarabanis, K.: Towards enterprise architecture for public administration using a top-down approach. European Journal of Information Systems, 9(4): 252-260. (2000).

52. Raymond, L., et al.: ERP adoption for E-Government: An analysis of motivations, "Paper presented at the Proceedings eGovernment Workshop, West London UK, Brunel University. (2005).

53. Robert, J., Weston, T.: Enterprise resource planning (ERP)- A brief history, Journal of Operations Management Vol.25, 357 – 363. (2007).

54. Robey, D., Ross, J.W., Boudreau, M. C.: Learning to implement enterprise systems: An exploratory study of the dialectics of change. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(1), 17-46. (2002).

55. Rose, W. R., Grant, G.: Critical issues pertaining to the planning and implementation of e-government initiatives. Government Information Quarterly 27, 26-33. (2010).

56. Rosemann, M., Vessey, I., Weber, R.: Alignment in Enterprise Systems Implementa-
tions: The Role of Ontological Distance, *International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) Proceedings*. (2004).

57. Rouhani, S., Ravasan, B.: ERP success prediction: An artificial neural network approach.
Scienti Iranica, Vol. 20(3), PP.992-1001. (2012).

58. Salmeron, J., Lopez, C.: Multicriteria Approach for Risks Assessment in ERP Maintenance. The Journal of Systems and Software 83, pp.1941–1953. (2010).

59. Schäfermeyer, M., Rosenkranz, Ch., Holten, R.: The impact of business process complexity on business process standardization. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 4(5), 261-270. (2012). doi: 10.1007/s12599-012-0224-6

60. Seddon, P. et al.: A Multi-project model of key factors affecting organizational benefits from enterprise systems, *MIS Quarterly*, vol. 34, p. 305. (2010).

61. Shaul, L., Tauber, D. Critical Success Factors in Enterprise Resource Planning

62. Systems. ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 45 (4), pp.55-55. (2013).

63. Siau, K., Messersmith, J.: Analyzing ERP implementation at a public university using the innovation strategy model. International Journal of Human Computer Interaction, 16(1), 57-80. (2003).

64. Simone,S., Célio, S., Julliane, E.: CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS FOR ERP IMPLEMENTATION IN SECTOR PUBLIC: AN ANALYSIS BASED ON LITERATURE AND A REAL CASE. Twenty-Sixth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2018), Portsmouth, UK (2018).

65. Strassmann, P.A.: Information Payoff: The Transformation of Work in the Electronic Age, New York Free Press. (1985).

66. Somers, T.M., Nelson, K.: The impact of critical success factors across the stages of enterprise resource planning implementations. Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, Hawaii. (2001).
67. Sommer, R.: Public Sector ERP Implementation: Successfully Engaging Middle Management! Communications of the IBIMA, Vol. 2011, Article ID 162439. (2011). DOI:10.5171/2011.162439

68. Somers, T., M., Nelson, K.G.: A taxonomy of players and activities across the ERP project life cycle. Information & Management, 41, 257-278. (2004).

69. Tregear, R., Jenkins, T.: Government Process Management: A review of key differences between the public and private sectors and their influence on the achievement of public sector process management. BPTrends, 10-07-ART. Govt. process Mgt. (2007).

70. Umble, E.J., & Umble, M.M. (2002). Avoiding ERP implementation failure. *Industrial Management, 44*(1), 25-33

71. Ustasüleyman, T., Percin, S. A.: Structural Model Suggestion About The Effect Of Critical Control (Success) Factors On Enterprise Resource Planning (Erp) Implementation Success, Journal of the Faculty of Economic & Administrative Sciences, Marmara University June 2010, Vol. 28(1), pp. 293 – 312. (2010).

72. Wagner, W., Antonucci, L.: An Analysis of the Imagine PA Public Sector ERP Project, Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2004).

73. Wang, E., Shih, S., Jiang, J., Klein, G.: The Consistency Among Facilitating Factors and ERP Implementation Success: A Holistic View of Fit. The Journal of Systems and Software 81 (2008), pp.1609-1621. (2008).

74. Watson, E., Vaught, S., Dan Gutierrez, D., Rinks, D.: ERP Implementation in State Government, Annals of ITCase Studies, Idea Group Inc. (2003).

75. Wu, L., Ong, C., Hsu, Y.:Active ERP Implementation Management: A Real Options Perspective. The Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. (81), pp. 1039-1050. (2008).

76. Ziemba, E., Oblak, I.: Critical Success Factors for ERP Systems Implementation, Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, Vol. 8. (2013).