Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

A requirements engineering framework for cross-organizational ERP systems

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Requirements Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ERP:

Enterprise resource planning

RE:

Requirements engineering

References

  1. Champy J (2002) X-engineering the corporation: the next frontier of business performance. Warner Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ernst D, Bamford J (2000) Your alliances are too stable. Harv Bus Rev 83:133–141

    Google Scholar 

  3. Champy J, Weger J (2005) Reengineering: the second time around. Strategy Leadership 33:53–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Davenport T, Brooks J (2004) Enterprise systems and the supply chain. Enterp Inf Manage 17:8–19

    Google Scholar 

  5. Arinze B, Anandarajan M (2003) A framework for using OO mapping methods to rapidly configure ERP systems. Commun ACM 46:61–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dalal NP, Kamath M, Kolarik WJ, Sivaraman E (2004) Towards an integrated framework for modelling enterprise processes. Commun ACM 47:83–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Daneva M (2004) ERP requirements engineering practice: lessons learnt. IEEE Softw 21:26–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. Maiden NA, Ncube C (1998) Acquiring COTS software selection requirements. IEEE Softw 15:46–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Rolland C, Prakash N (2000) Bridging the gap between organizational needs and ERP functionality. Requirements Eng 5:180–193

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. 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

    Google Scholar 

  15. Malone TK, Crowston K (1994) The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Comp Surv 26:87–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Miles RE, Snow CC (1992) Causes of failure in network organizations. Calif Manage Rev 34:53–72

    Google Scholar 

  17. Powell WW (1990) Neither market nor hierarchy: network forms of organization. Res Organ Behav 12:295–336

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Bendoly E, Jacobs F (2004) ERP architectural/operational alignment for order-processing performance. Oper Prod Manage 24:99–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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

  20. Clemmons S, Simon SJ (2001) Control and coordination in global ERP configuration. Bus Process Manage 7:205–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Davenport T (2000) The future of enterprise system-enabled organizations. Inf Syst Front 2:163–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Davenport T (2000) Mission critical: realizing the promise of enterprise systems. HBS Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  23. Davenport T (1998) Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system. Harv Bus Rev 76:121–131

    Google Scholar 

  24. Gattiker TF, Goodhue DL (2004) Understanding the local-level costs and benefits of ERP through organizational information processing theory. Inf Manage 41:431–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hong K-K, Kim Y-G (2002) The critical success factors for ERP implementation: an organizational fit perspective. Inf Manage 40:25–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Madapusi A, D’Souza D (2005) Aligning ERP Systems with international strategies. Inf Syst Manage 22:7–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Markus ML, Tanis C, van Fenema C (2000) Multisite ERP implementations. Commun ACM 43:42–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Moeller CH (2005) ERP II, a conceptual framework for next-generation enterprise systems. Enterp Inf Manage 18:483–497

    Google Scholar 

  29. Scott J, Kaindl L (2000) Enhancing functionality in an enterprise software package. Inf Manage 37:111–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Soh C, Kien SS, Tay-Yap J (2000) Cultural fits and misfits: is ERP a universal solution? Commun ACM 43:47–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Soh C, Sia SK, Boh FW, Tang M (2003) Misalignments in ERP implementations: a dialectic perspective. Int J Hum Comput Interact 16:81–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Alstyne M (1997) The state of network organizations: a survey in three frameworks. Org Comput 7:83–151

    Google Scholar 

  33. Keller G, Teufel T (1998) SAP R/3 process oriented implementation. Addison-Wesley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hammer M, Stanton S (1999) How process enterprises really work. Harv Bus Rev 77:108–118

    Google Scholar 

  35. van Eck PAT, Blanken H, Wieringa RJ (2004) Project GRAAL: towards operational architecture guidelines. Int J Coop Inf Syst 13:235–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 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

  37. Biehl M (2004) Selecting internal and external supply chain functionality: the case of ERP systems versus electronic marketplaces. Enterp Inf Manage 18:441–457

    Google Scholar 

  38. Curran T, Ladd A (2000) SAP R/3 business blueprint. Prentice Hall, New York

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kagermann H, Keller G (2000) MySAP.com industry solutions. Addison-Wesley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  40. 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

    Google Scholar 

  41. Scheer A-W, Habermann F (2000) Making ERP a success. Commun ACM 43:57–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Selchert M (2004) Enhanced project success through SAP best practices—international benchmarking study. SAP Press, Waldorf

    Google Scholar 

  43. Stefanou CJ (2001) A framework for the ex-ante evaluation of ERP software. Eur J Inf Syst 10:204–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Markus ML (2000) Paradigm shifts—e-business and business/systems integration. Commun AIS 4:2–44

    Google Scholar 

  45. Attaran M, Attaran S (2004) The rebirth of re-engineering: x-engineering. Bus Process Manage 10:415–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Kallinikos J (2004) Deconstructing information packages: organizational and behavioral implications of ERP systems. Inf Technol People 17:8–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Al-Mashari M (2001) Process orientation through enterprise resource planning: a review of critical issues. Knowl Process Manage 8:175–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Alshavi S, Themistocleous M, Almadani R (2004) Integrating diverse ERP systems: a case study. Enterp Inf Syst 17:454–462

    Google Scholar 

  49. Brown W, Nasuti F (2005) What ERP systems can tell us about Sarbanes-Oxley. Inf Manage Comp Secur 13:311–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Grossman T, Walsh J (2004) Avoiding the pitfalls of ERP system implementation. Inf Syst Manage 21:38–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Hirt SG, Swanson EB (2001) Emergent maintenance of ERP: new roles and relationships. Softw Maint Evol: Res Pract 13:373–397

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  52. Luo W, Strong DM (2004) A framework for evaluating ERP implementation choices. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 51:322–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Ross JW, Vitale MR (2000) The ERP revolution: surviving vs. thriving. Inf Syst Front 2:233–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Stevens C (2003) Enterprise resource planning: a trio of resources. Inf Syst Manage 20:61–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Vosburg J, Kumar A (2001) Managing dirty data in organizations using ERP: lessons from a case study. Ind Manage Data Syst 101:21–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Harrison W (2005) Skinner wasn’t a software engineer. IEEE Softw 22:57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  58. Tichy W (2000) Hints for reviewing empirical work in software engineering. Empir Softw Eng 5:309–312

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  59. Narayanan VG, Raman A (2004) Aligning incentives in supply chains. Harv Bus Rev 82:94–102

    Google Scholar 

  60. Kirchmer M (2003) E-business process networks—successful value chains through standards. Enterp Inf Manage 17:20–30

    Google Scholar 

  61. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

We thank the anonymous reviewers for helping us improve this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maya Daneva.

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 [2123]

3

The tighter the integration of operational and informational procedures, the better the coordination across functions and sites [2123, 27, 30, 47]

4

The tighter the integration of operational and informational procedures, the more transparent the organization [2123, 30, 31]

5

The tighter the integration of operational and informational procedures, the better the ability of the organization to handle data complexity [2123, 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, 2123, 48]

7

The tighter the integration of operational and informational procedures, the better the level of data visibility that the organization can achieve [2123, 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 [79]

10

The more rigid the solution, the higher the levels of reuse an organization can achieve [79, 33, 38]

11

The more rigid the solution, the stronger the push towards inter- and intra-organizational integration [19, 2123, 27, 30, 31, 34, 53]

12

The more rigid the solution, the more standardized the business processes [7, 1823, 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 [79, 19, 20, 2226, 2931, 33, 34, 42, 43, 46, 47, 5055]

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 [2123, 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 [79, 20, 2226, 2931, 33, 34, 42, 43, 4648, 5054]

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 [2123, 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 [2123, 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 [2123, 33, 34, 45, 61]

21

The more rigid the solution, the less flexibility it offers to business users [79, 12, 1820, 2226, 2931, 33, 34, 42, 43, 46, 47, 5054]

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 [79, 20, 2226, 2931, 33, 34, 42, 43, 46, 47, 5054, 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, 2123, 26, 27, 52]

28

The more flexible the solution, the more the upgrade difficulties [2, 5, 2123, 48, 52]

29

The more flexible the solution, the higher the customization costs [7, 2023, 51]

30

The more flexible the solution, the higher the maintenance costs [7, 2123, 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, 2123, 51]

33

The bigger the scope of customization, the more the testing efforts that are required [7, 2123, 51]

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-006-0034-9

Keywords