Abstract
The development of cross-organizational enterprise resource planning (ERP) solutions is becoming increasingly critical to the business strategy of many networked companies. The major function of cross-organizational ERP solutions is to coordinate work in two or more organizations. However, how to align ERP application components and business requirements for coordination and cooperation is hardly known. This paper reports on the outcomes of applying a coordination theory perspective to an analysis of the ERP misalignment problem. We present a conceptual framework for analyzing coordination and cooperation requirements in inter-organizational ERP projects. The framework makes explicit the undocumented built-in assumptions for coordination and cooperation that may have significant implications for the ERP adopters and incorporates a library of existing coordination mechanisms supported by modern ERP systems. We use it to develop a proposal for how to achieve a better alignment between ERP implementations and supported business coordination processes in inter-organizational settings. We report on some early assessments of the implications of our framework for practicing requirements engineers. Both our framework and library rest on a literature survey and the first author’s experience with ERP implementation. In future empirical research, we will further validate and refine our framework.




Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- ERP:
-
Enterprise resource planning
- RE:
-
Requirements engineering
References
Champy J (2002) X-engineering the corporation: the next frontier of business performance. Warner Books, New York
Ernst D, Bamford J (2000) Your alliances are too stable. Harv Bus Rev 83:133–141
Champy J, Weger J (2005) Reengineering: the second time around. Strategy Leadership 33:53–56
Davenport T, Brooks J (2004) Enterprise systems and the supply chain. Enterp Inf Manage 17:8–19
Arinze B, Anandarajan M (2003) A framework for using OO mapping methods to rapidly configure ERP systems. Commun ACM 46:61–65
Dalal NP, Kamath M, Kolarik WJ, Sivaraman E (2004) Towards an integrated framework for modelling enterprise processes. Commun ACM 47:83–87
Daneva M (2004) ERP requirements engineering practice: lessons learnt. IEEE Softw 21:26–33
Daneva M (2004) Patterns of success and failure in ERP requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of the 12th international workshop on software measurement, Shaker, Aachen, pp 527–546
Daneva M (2002) Using maturity assessments to understand the ERP requirements engineering process. In: Proceedings of the joint international requirements engineering conference, IEEE, Los Alamitos, pp 255–262
Esteves J, Pastor JA (2001) Establishing the importance of ERP implementation—critical success factors along ASAP methodology processes. In: Proceedings of international conference on enterprise information systems, IEEE, Los Alamitos, pp 182–187
Maiden NA, Ncube C (1998) Acquiring COTS software selection requirements. IEEE Softw 15:46–56
Metaxiotis K, Zafeiropoulos I, Nikolinakou N, Psarras J (2005) Goal-directed project management methodology for the support of ERP implementation and optimal adaptation procedure. Inf Manage Comp Secur 13:55–71
Rolland C, Prakash N (2000) Bridging the gap between organizational needs and ERP functionality. Requirements Eng 5:180–193
Clemons EK, Reddi SP, Rows MC (1993) The impact of information technology on the organization of economic activity: the “Move to the middle” hypothesis. Manage Inf Syst 10:9–35
Malone TK, Crowston K (1994) The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Comp Surv 26:87–119
Miles RE, Snow CC (1992) Causes of failure in network organizations. Calif Manage Rev 34:53–72
Powell WW (1990) Neither market nor hierarchy: network forms of organization. Res Organ Behav 12:295–336
Bendoly E, Jacobs F (2004) ERP architectural/operational alignment for order-processing performance. Oper Prod Manage 24:99–117
Brehm L, Heinzl A, Markus ML (2004) Tailoring the ERP systems: a spectrum of choices and their implications. In: Proceedings of the Hawaii conference on information systems, IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA
Clemmons S, Simon SJ (2001) Control and coordination in global ERP configuration. Bus Process Manage 7:205–215
Davenport T (2000) The future of enterprise system-enabled organizations. Inf Syst Front 2:163–180
Davenport T (2000) Mission critical: realizing the promise of enterprise systems. HBS Press, Boston
Davenport T (1998) Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system. Harv Bus Rev 76:121–131
Gattiker TF, Goodhue DL (2004) Understanding the local-level costs and benefits of ERP through organizational information processing theory. Inf Manage 41:431–443
Hong K-K, Kim Y-G (2002) The critical success factors for ERP implementation: an organizational fit perspective. Inf Manage 40:25–40
Madapusi A, D’Souza D (2005) Aligning ERP Systems with international strategies. Inf Syst Manage 22:7–17
Markus ML, Tanis C, van Fenema C (2000) Multisite ERP implementations. Commun ACM 43:42–87
Moeller CH (2005) ERP II, a conceptual framework for next-generation enterprise systems. Enterp Inf Manage 18:483–497
Scott J, Kaindl L (2000) Enhancing functionality in an enterprise software package. Inf Manage 37:111–122
Soh C, Kien SS, Tay-Yap J (2000) Cultural fits and misfits: is ERP a universal solution? Commun ACM 43:47–51
Soh C, Sia SK, Boh FW, Tang M (2003) Misalignments in ERP implementations: a dialectic perspective. Int J Hum Comput Interact 16:81–100
Alstyne M (1997) The state of network organizations: a survey in three frameworks. Org Comput 7:83–151
Keller G, Teufel T (1998) SAP R/3 process oriented implementation. Addison-Wesley, New York
Hammer M, Stanton S (1999) How process enterprises really work. Harv Bus Rev 77:108–118
van Eck PAT, Blanken H, Wieringa RJ (2004) Project GRAAL: towards operational architecture guidelines. Int J Coop Inf Syst 13:235–255
Wieringa RJ, Blanken HM, Fokkinga MM, Grefen PWPJ (2003) Aligning application architecture to the business context. In: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on advanced information system engineering (CAiSE 03). Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 209–225
Biehl M (2004) Selecting internal and external supply chain functionality: the case of ERP systems versus electronic marketplaces. Enterp Inf Manage 18:441–457
Curran T, Ladd A (2000) SAP R/3 business blueprint. Prentice Hall, New York
Kagermann H, Keller G (2000) MySAP.com industry solutions. Addison-Wesley, New York
Sammon D, Adam F (2005) Towards a model of organizational prerequisites for enterprise-wide system integration: examining ERP and data warehousing. Enterp Inf Manage 18:458–470
Scheer A-W, Habermann F (2000) Making ERP a success. Commun ACM 43:57–61
Selchert M (2004) Enhanced project success through SAP best practices—international benchmarking study. SAP Press, Waldorf
Stefanou CJ (2001) A framework for the ex-ante evaluation of ERP software. Eur J Inf Syst 10:204–215
Markus ML (2000) Paradigm shifts—e-business and business/systems integration. Commun AIS 4:2–44
Attaran M, Attaran S (2004) The rebirth of re-engineering: x-engineering. Bus Process Manage 10:415–429
Kallinikos J (2004) Deconstructing information packages: organizational and behavioral implications of ERP systems. Inf Technol People 17:8–30
Al-Mashari M (2001) Process orientation through enterprise resource planning: a review of critical issues. Knowl Process Manage 8:175–185
Alshavi S, Themistocleous M, Almadani R (2004) Integrating diverse ERP systems: a case study. Enterp Inf Syst 17:454–462
Brown W, Nasuti F (2005) What ERP systems can tell us about Sarbanes-Oxley. Inf Manage Comp Secur 13:311–327
Grossman T, Walsh J (2004) Avoiding the pitfalls of ERP system implementation. Inf Syst Manage 21:38–42
Hirt SG, Swanson EB (2001) Emergent maintenance of ERP: new roles and relationships. Softw Maint Evol: Res Pract 13:373–397
Luo W, Strong DM (2004) A framework for evaluating ERP implementation choices. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 51:322–333
Ross JW, Vitale MR (2000) The ERP revolution: surviving vs. thriving. Inf Syst Front 2:233–241
Stevens C (2003) Enterprise resource planning: a trio of resources. Inf Syst Manage 20:61–67
Vosburg J, Kumar A (2001) Managing dirty data in organizations using ERP: lessons from a case study. Ind Manage Data Syst 101:21–31
Harrison W (2005) Skinner wasn’t a software engineer. IEEE Softw 22:57
Zelkovitz M, Wallace DR, Binkley DW (2003) Experimental validation of new software technology. Lecture notes on empirical software engineering. World Scientific Publishing, River Edge
Tichy W (2000) Hints for reviewing empirical work in software engineering. Empir Softw Eng 5:309–312
Narayanan VG, Raman A (2004) Aligning incentives in supply chains. Harv Bus Rev 82:94–102
Kirchmer M (2003) E-business process networks—successful value chains through standards. Enterp Inf Manage 17:20–30
Ndede-Amadi AA (2004) What strategic alignment, process redesign, enterprise resource planning, and e-commerce have in common: enterprise-wide computing. Bus Process Manage 10:184–199
Acknowledgement
We thank the anonymous reviewers for helping us improve this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Link | Proposition and relevant references |
---|---|
1 | The tighter the integration of operational and informational procedures, the better the compliancy with regulatory requirements [27, 30, 31, 49] |
2 | The tighter the integration of operational and informational procedures, the lower the transaction costs [21–23] |
3 | The tighter the integration of operational and informational procedures, the better the coordination across functions and sites [21–23, 27, 30, 47] |
4 | The tighter the integration of operational and informational procedures, the more transparent the organization [21–23, 30, 31] |
5 | The tighter the integration of operational and informational procedures, the better the ability of the organization to handle data complexity [21–23, 33, 46, 55] |
6 | The tighter the integration of operational and informational procedures, the higher the level of data accuracy that the organization can achieve [18, 21–23, 48] |
7 | The tighter the integration of operational and informational procedures, the better the level of data visibility that the organization can achieve [21–23, 30, 31, 45] |
8 | The more rigid the solution, the higher the costs of building consensus among stakeholders [46] |
9 | The more rigid the solution, the higher the reuse risks [7–9] |
10 | The more rigid the solution, the higher the levels of reuse an organization can achieve [7–9, 33, 38] |
11 | The more rigid the solution, the stronger the push towards inter- and intra-organizational integration [19, 21–23, 27, 30, 31, 34, 53] |
12 | The more rigid the solution, the more standardized the business processes [7, 18–23, 30, 31, 34, 35, 40, 42, 55, 60, 61] |
13 | The more rigid the solution, the tighter the integration of operational and informational procedures that the organization can achieve [7–9, 19, 20, 22–26, 29–31, 33, 34, 42, 43, 46, 47, 50–55] |
14 | The more rigid the solution, the better the level of interoperability that can be achieved [33, 46, 47] |
15 | The more rigid the solution, the more predictable the global business processes [21–23, 25, 30, 31, 34] |
16 | The tighter the integration of operational and informational procedures, the greater the changes in processes and data management imposed on the organization [7–9, 20, 22–26, 29–31, 33, 34, 42, 43, 46–48, 50–54] |
17 | The tighter the integration in terms operational and informational procedures, the more complex the changeover management processes [19, 22] |
18 | The greater the changes in processes and data management imposed on the organization, the greater the disruption to business [21–23, 27, 30, 31, 34, 40] |
19 | The greater the changes in processes and data management imposed on the organization, the more organizational resistance to them and the more the potential sources for political issues [21–23, 27, 30, 31, 34, 47, 50] |
20 | The more predictable the global business processes, the less the cycle time and the better the control over cycle times [21–23, 33, 34, 45, 61] |
21 | The more rigid the solution, the less flexibility it offers to business users [7–9, 12, 18–20, 22–26, 29–31, 33, 34, 42, 43, 46, 47, 50–54] |
22 | The more flexible the solution, the more the options for fostering innovative thinking [25, 46] |
23 | The more flexible the solution, the more the options for inventing creative ways of working [25, 46] |
24 | The more flexible the solution, the more compliant it is with the specifics of the organization [30, 31] |
25 | The more flexible the solution, the more diverse the organizational business processes [7–9, 20, 22–26, 29–31, 33, 34, 42, 43, 46, 47, 50–54, 60] |
26 | The more flexible the solution, the higher the risks of release lags [43, 51] |
27 | The more flexible the solution, the higher the customization risks [19, 21–23, 26, 27, 52] |
28 | The more flexible the solution, the more the upgrade difficulties [2, 5, 21–23, 48, 52] |
29 | The more flexible the solution, the higher the customization costs [7, 20–23, 51] |
30 | The more flexible the solution, the higher the maintenance costs [7, 21–23, 51] |
31 | The more flexible the solution, the higher the system performance risks [30, 31] |
32 | The more flexible the solution, the more complex the user domain (e.g., the more the data views that need to be consolidated, the more the interfaces that need to be maintained) [7, 21–23, 51] |
33 | The bigger the scope of customization, the more the testing efforts that are required [7, 21–23, 51] |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Daneva, M., Wieringa, R.J. A requirements engineering framework for cross-organizational ERP systems. Requirements Eng 11, 194–204 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-006-0034-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-006-0034-9