Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Implementing enterprise resource planning systems: organizational performance and the duration of the implementation

  • Published:
Information Technology and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper examines the impact of the duration of ERP implementation on firm performance both during and after implementation. Organizations choose either an accelerated implementation approach or a traditional (longer) implementation approach. The former approach gives the organization the advantage of speed, but the disadvantage of fitting its processes to that of a packaged (thus, undifferentiated from competitors) ERP. The latter approach allows the organization to redesign strategy and processes, and thus, search for ways to be unique from its competition. The study uses a regression model to capture the changes in various performance measures during and after implementation between firms that implemented the ERP, using the performance measure of a matched group of firms that did not implement an ERP as a benchmark/control sample, on the basis of the duration of the implementation. Financial data from Compustat, and data on start date and end date of ERP implementation between 1990 and 2005 for firms in the Oil and Gas industry was collected from an ERP vendor. Results show that measures such as return on sales improved after implementation. However, measures such as inventory turnover, which reflect operational benefits, improve during implementation. We find that accelerated implementation confers both operational and strategic benefits. This study highlights the strategic consequences of the different choices of implementation.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The theory of production economics suggests that if a firm implements a capital resource such as an ERP, such a resource will help the firm reduce costs, and produce more output for a given quantity of inputs.

  2. The theory of competitive strategy argues that if a firm installs an information system, competing firms may imitate or escalate their reactions [70]. This theoretical framework does not clearly forecast a positive or negative effect of information technology on performance [49]. However, it is possible for a firm to gain a competitive advantage through the innovative use of information technology, or by using an innovative way to implement the system [31]. For instance, instead of choosing a regular ERP implementation, a firm may use an accelerated implementation. Ragowsky and Somers [86] found substantial benefits to “properly” selected and implemented ERP systems.

  3. The theory of consumer extends the thinking underpinning the competitive strategy framework, and leads to the conclusion that consumers will eventually benefit from firms implementing information systems, because competition will erode prices and improve quality [71].

  4. The efficient market theory argues that the financial market will gauge/project all benefits accruing from investments in information systems ahead of time, and this positive assessment will be reflected in stock prices of firms implementing the information system. Subramani and Walden [98] found that announcements of e-commerce initiatives increased the cumulative abnormal returns to shareholders of the firms making the announcements.

  5. The theory of complementarity suggests that for information technology to provide positive returns, complementary organizational changes must be undertaken. These changes are often difficult and uncertain, so that outcomes vary across firms [22].

  6. SAP consulting partners such as: Acta Technology, American Technology Corporation, Andersen Consulting, Atos Origin, BASE, Blue Star Solutions, Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, Clarkston Consulting, Commerce One, Compaq, Deloitte, Diagonal-Consulting, Ecredit.com, EDS, Ernst & Young LLP, Ezcommerce, HP, IBM, Kpmg, Melillo Consulting, Michael Management Corporation, Microsoft, Notions, Platinum DB Consulting Inc., Plaut Consulting Inc., Pricewaterhouse Coopers, Resco (www.resco.se), Sogeti, Solutions Consulting, Inc. (SCI) of Pittsburgh, Starpoint Solutions, TDCI, Topcall, TrustedLink Enterprise (TLE),and Unilog.

  7. Seven firms were identified as having installed other ERP packages such as Oracle, PeopleSoft, J.D.Edwards, Baan, Viecore, Sybase IQ, SPS Commerce, Perfect Commerce, Glovia’s Enterprise Resource Planning, and Encompix ETO. We did not include these seven firms in the analysis.

  8. We admit that the unavailability of the planned time for the implementation is a limitation. However, it is not problematic for the following reason. ERP projects are normally delayed, but they are never finished two quarters (6 months) before the planned time. That is, it is likely that accelerated implementations will get delayed, but traditional implementations are never finished in 2 quarters or less. Therefore, by splitting our sample at 2 quarters for accelerated implementations, and by creating a “buffer zone” of 3-4 quarters, we might have counted fewer accelerated implementations than those originally planned as accelerated implementations. In any case, for those projects that over-ran the planned time from less than 2 quarters by over 4 quarters, these projects can no longer be called accelerated implementation, regardless of the original plan.

  9. It is possible that IT capabilities, and indeed overall firm capabilities, will drive whether an implementation ends in the time that it was planned to be completed. So we tested whether the ERP adopters that completed implementation differed in performance from those ERP adopters that took longer time for implementation. To do this test, we conducted a t-test between the average values of a i and b i parameters for the two groups in the pre-implementation stage. The results showed that the two groups do not differ much. Therefore we are satisfied that there is no significant differences of an average firm in each group in terms of organizational ability or IT capability.

    With regards to the endogenous nature of ERP adoption and duration of implementation with respect IT capabilities, an advantage of our model is that it uses the average performance of the control sample as an independent variable. Suppose the model is specified as a regression model wherein both the treatment sample and the control sample observations are used as dependent and independent variables, then the endogenous nature of the ERP-based decisions could bias estimates of coefficients because of the correlation between these decisions/independent variables and the error term (which contains unobserved variables such as IT capabilities). In our model, the use of the average of the control sample as an independent variable reduces the threat of this correlation, because the independent variable subsume average IT capabilities as well.

References

  1. Abdinnour-Helm S, Lengnick-Hall M, Lengnick-Hall C (2003) Pre-implementation attitudes and organizational readiness for implementing an enterprise resource planning system. Eur J Oper Res 146(2):258–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Aghion P, Harris C, Howitt P, Vickers J (2001) Competition, imitation and growth with step-by-step innovation. Rev Econ Stud 68(3):467–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Alpar P, Kim M (1990) A microeconomic approach to the measurement of information technology value. J Manag Inf Syst 7(2):55–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Aral S, Brynjolfsson E, Wu DJ (2006) Which came first, IT or productivity? The virtuous cycle of investment and use in enterprise systems. In: Proceedings of the twenty seventh international conference on information systems, Milwaukee

  5. Armstrong C, Sambamurthy V (1999) Information technology assimilation in firms: the influence of senior leadership and IS infrastructures. Inf Syst Res 10(4):304–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Austin R, Sole D, Cotteleer M (1999) Harley-Davidson Motor Co.: enterprise software selection. Harvard Business School Publishing 9-600-006

  7. Bae J, Gargiulo M (2004) Partner substitutability, alliance network structure and firm profitability in the telecommunications industry. Acad Manag J 47(6):843–859

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Balakrishnan R, Linsmeier TJ, Venkatachalam M (1996). Financial benefits from JIT adoption: effects of customer concentration and cost structure. Acc Rev 71(2)

  9. Banker R, Lee S, Potter G, Srinivasan D (2001) An empirical analysis of continuing improvements following the implementation of a performance-based compensation plan. J Acc Econ 30:315–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Banker RD, Lee S-Y, Potter G (1996) A field study of the impact of a performance-based incentive plan. J Acc Econ 21(2)

  11. Baronas A, Louis M (1988) Restoring a sense of control during implementation: how user involvement leads to system acceptance. MIS Q 12(1):110–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Barry EJ, Mukhopadhyay T, Slaughter SA (2002) Software project duration and effort: an empirical study. Inf Technol Manag 3(1):113–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Baum J (2000) A longitudinal study of the causes of technology adoption and its effects upon new venture growth. In: Frontiers of entrepreneurship research 2000: proceedings of the 20th annual entrepreneurship research conference, pp 1–12

  14. Baum J, Wally S (2003) Strategic decision speed and firm performance. Strategic Manag J 24(11):1107–1129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Belsley D, Kuh E, Welsh R (1980) Regression diagnostics: identifying influential data and sources of collinearity. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Bendoly E, Cotteleer M (2008) Understanding behavioral sources of process variation following enterprise system deployment. J Oper Manag 26(1):23–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bettis R (1981) Performance differences in related and unrelated diversified firms. Strategic Manag J 2(4):379–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bharadwaj AS (2000) A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance: an empirical investigation. MIS Q 24(1):169–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bhattacherjee A (2000) Beginning SAP R/3 implementation at Geneva pharmaceuticals. Commun AIS 4(2)

  20. Bingi P, Sharma M, Godla J (1999) Critical issues affecting an ERP implementation. Inf Syst Manag 16(3):7–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Brah SA, Tee SSL, Rao BM (2002) Relationship between TQM and performance of Singapore companies. Int J Qual Reliabil Manag 19(4):356–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bresnahan T, Brynjolfsson E, Hitt L (2002) Information technology, workplace organization, and the demand for skilled labor: firm-level evidence. Q J Econ 117(1):339–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Brynjolfsson E, Hitt L (1996) Paradox lost? Firm-level evidence on the returns to information systems spending. Manag Sci 42(4):541–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Cha-Jan Chang J, King W (2005) Measuring the performance of information systems: a functional scorecard. J Manag Inf Syst 22(1):85–115

    Google Scholar 

  25. Chakravarthy BS (1986) Measuring strategic performance. Strat Manag J 7(5):437–458

    Google Scholar 

  26. Chattopadhyay SP (2001) Improving the speed of ISO 14000 implementation: a framework for increasing productivity. Manag Audit J 16(1):36–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Chen M, Hambrick D (1995) Speed, stealth and selective attack: how small firms differ. Acad Manag J 38(2):453–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Chen M, MacMillan I (1992) Nonresponse, and delayed response to competitive moves: the roles of competitor dependence and action irreversibility. Acad Manag J 35(3):539–570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Chen M, Smith K, Grimm G (1992) Action characteristics as predictors of competitive response. Manag Sci 38(3):439–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Chung S, Snyder C (2000) ERP adoption: a technological evolution approach. Int J Agile Manag Syst 2(1):24–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Davenport TH (1998) Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system. Harvard Bus Rev 76(4):121–131

    Google Scholar 

  32. Davenport TH, Stoddard D (1994) Reengineering: business change of mythic proportions? MIS Q 18(2):121–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Dodge HR, Fullerton S, Robbins JE (1994) Stage of the organizational life-cycle and competition as mediators of problem perception for small businesses. Strategic Manag J 15(2):121–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Dos Santos BL (1986) A management approach to systems development projects. J Syst Manag 37(8):35–41

    Google Scholar 

  35. Eisenhardt K (1989) Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Acad Manag J 32(3):543–576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Fichman RG (2004) Real options and IT platform adoption: implications for theory and practice. Inf Syst Res 15(2):132–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Forbes D (2005) Managerial determinants of decision speed in new ventures. Strat Manag J 26(4):355–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Fraser J, Oppenheim J (1997) What’s new about globalization? McKinsey Q 2:168–179

    Google Scholar 

  39. Garcia-Pont C, Nohria N (2002) Local versus global mimetism: the dynamics of alliance formation in the automobile industry. Strategic Manag 23(4):307–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Gattiker T, Goodhue D (2002) Software-driven changes to business processes: an empirical study of impacts of enterprise resource planning systems at the local level. Int J Prod Res 40(18):4799–4814

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Gattiker T, Goodhue D (2005) What happens after ERP implementation: understanding the impact of inter-dependence and differentiation on plant-level outcomes. MIS Q 29(3):559–585

    Google Scholar 

  42. Geffen D, Ridings CM (2002) Implementation team responsiveness and user evaluation of customer relationship management: a quasi-experimental design study of social exchange theory. J Manag Inf Syst 19(1):47–69

    Google Scholar 

  43. Goodman P, Griffith T (1991) A process approach to the implementation of new technology. J Eng Technol Manag 8(3):261–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Gulledge T, Simon G (2005) The evolution of SAP implementation environments: a case study from a complex public sector project. Ind Manag Data Syst 105(6):714–736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Gumaer R (1996) Beyond ERP and MRPII. IIE Sol 28(9):32–36

    Google Scholar 

  46. Haunschild P (1993) Interorganizational imitation: the impact of interlocks on corporate acquisition activity. Admin Sci Q 38(4):564–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Haveman H (1993) Follow the leader: mimetic isomorphism and entry into new markets. Admin Sci Q 38(4):593–627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Hendricks K, Singhal V, Stratman J (2007) The impact of enterprise systems on corporate performance: a study of ERP, SCM, and CRM system implementations. J Oper Manag 25(1):65–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Hitt L, Brynjolfsson E (1996) Productivity, business profitability, and consumer surplus: three different measures of information technology value. MIS Q 20(2):121–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Hitt L, Wu DJ, Xiaoge Z (2002) Investment in enterprise resource planning: business impact and productivity measures. J Manag Inf Syst 19(1):71–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Hunton J, Lippincott B, Reck J (2003) Enterprise resource planning systems: comparing firm performance of adopters and non-adopters. Int J Acc Inf Syst 4(3):165–184

    Google Scholar 

  52. Jacobson S, Sheperd J, D’Aquila M, Carter K (2007) The ERP market sizing report 2006–2011. AMR Research

  53. Jain BA, Kini O (1995) Venture capitalist participation and the post-issue operating performance of IPO firms. Manag Decis Econ 16

  54. Jesitus J (1997) Broken promises? FoxMeyer ‘s project was a disaster. Was the company too aggressive or was it misled? Industry Week, November 3, pp 31–37

  55. Jin Y, Jorion P (2006) Firm value and hedging: evidence from U.S. oil and gas producers. J Finance 61(2):893–919

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Johnson T (1991) The rise and fall of management accounting. Harvard Business School Press, Harvard

    Google Scholar 

  57. Jones GK, Lanctot A, Teegen HJ (2001) Determinants and performance impacts of external technology acquisition. J Bus Ventur 16(3):255–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Judge W, Miller A (1991) Antecedents and outcomes of decision speed in different environmental contexts. Acad Manag J 34(2):449–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Kale V (2000) Implementing Sap R/3: the guide for business and technology managers. SAMS, Indianapolis

    Google Scholar 

  60. Kalwani M, Narayandas N (1995) Long-term manufacturer-supplier relationship relationships: do they pay off for supplier firms. J Market 59(1)

  61. Karimi J, Somers TM, Bhattacherjee A (2007) The role of information systems resource in ERP capability building and business outcomes. J Manag Inf Syst 24(2):221–260

    Google Scholar 

  62. Kocher M, Sutter M (2006) Time is money-time pressure, incentives, and the quality of decision-making. J Econ Behav Organ 61(3):375–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Kraatz M (1998) Learning by association? Interorganizational networks and adaptation to environmental change. Acad Manag J 41(6):621–643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Krasker W, Kuh E, Welsch R (1983) Estimation for dirty data and flawed models. Handb Econ 1(11):652–698

    Google Scholar 

  65. Lassila KS, Brancheau JC (1999) Adoption and utilization of commercial software packages: exploring utilization equilibria, transitions, triggers, and tracks. J Manag Inf Syst 16(2):63–90

    Google Scholar 

  66. Liang H, Saraf N, Hu Q, Xue Y (2007) Assimilation of enterprise systems: the effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS Q 31(1):59–87

    Google Scholar 

  67. Lieberman M, Asaba S (2006) Why do firms imitate each other? Acad Manag Rev 31(2):366–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Mabert VA, Soni A, Venkataramanan MA (2003) Enterprise resource planning: managing the implementation process. Eur J Oper Res 146(2):302–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Markus ML, Tanis C, Van Fenema PC (2000) Enterprise resource planning: multisite ERP implementations. Commun ACM 43(4):42–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Mata FJ, Fuerst WL, Barney JB (1995) Information technology and sustained competitive advantage: a resource-based analysis. MIS Q 19(4):487–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Melville N, Kraemer K, Gurbaxani V (2004) Review: information technology and organizational performance: an integrative model of IS business value. MIS Q 28(2):283–322

    Google Scholar 

  72. Menon NM, Lee BT, Eldenburg L (2000) Productivity of information systems in the healthcare industry. Inf Syst Res 11(1):83–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Mintzberg H, Raisinghani D, Theoret A (1976) The structure of ‘unstructured’ decision processes. Admin Sci Q 21:246–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Mitchell R (2006) Exxon mobil: focus on flexibility. Computerworld 40(44)

  75. Mitra S (2007) Nonaudit service fees and auditor independence: empirical evidence from the oil and gas industry. J Acc Audit Finance 22(1):85–107

    Google Scholar 

  76. O’Leary DEO (2000) Enterprise resource planning systems: systems, life cycle, electronic commerce, and risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  77. Olhager J, Selldin E (2003) Enterprise resource planning survey of Swedish manufacturing firms. Eur J Oper Res 146(2):365–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Olson D (2004) Managerial issues of enterprise resource planning systems. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  79. Palaniswamy R, Tyler F (2002) Oracle ERP and network computing architecture: implementation and performance. Inf Syst Manag 19(2):53–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Park R, Mitchell B (1980) Estimating the autocorrelated error model with trended data. J Econ 13(2):185–201

    Google Scholar 

  81. Peteraf M, Shanley M (1997) Getting to know you: a theory of strategic group identity. Strategic Manag J 18(Summer):165–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Penman S (2003) Financial statement analysis and security valuation, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  83. Porter M (1979) The structure within industries and companies’ performance. Rev Econ Stat 61(2):214–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Porter M (2001) Strategy and the internet. Harvard Bus Rev 79(3):62–78

    Google Scholar 

  85. Poston R, Grabski S (2001) Financial impacts of enterprise resource planning implementations. Int J Acc Inf Syst 2(4):271–294

    Google Scholar 

  86. Ragowsky A, Somers T (2002) Special section: enterprise resource planning. J Manag Inf Syst 19(1):11–16

    Google Scholar 

  87. Ranganathan C, Brown CV (2006) ERP investments and the market value of firms: toward an understanding of influential ERP project variables. Inf Syst Res 17(2):145–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Reck J (2004) Discussion of: firm performance effects in relation to the implementation and use of enterprise resource planning systems. J Inf Syst 18(2):107–110

    Google Scholar 

  89. Robey D, Ross J, Boudreau M (2002) Learning to implement enterprise systems: an exploratory study of the dialectics of change. J Manag Inf Syst 19(1):17–46

    Google Scholar 

  90. Sambamurthy V, Bharadwaj A, Grover V (2003) Shaping agility through digital options: reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms. MIS Q 27(2):237–263

    Google Scholar 

  91. Sambamurhty V, Zmud R (1996) Information technology and innovation: strategies for success. Financial Executives Research Foundation, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  92. SAP (2006) SAP annual report

  93. Shields MG (2001) E-Business and ERP: rapid implementation and project planning. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  94. Sloan P (1990) My years with general motors. Currency Publishing

  95. Stalk G (1988) Time—the next source of competitive advantage. Harvard Bus Rev 66(4):41–51

    Google Scholar 

  96. Stevenson H, Gumpert D (1985) The heart of entrepreneurship. Harvard Bus Rev 63(2):85–94

    Google Scholar 

  97. Stratman J (2007) Realizing benefits from enterprise resource planning: does strategic focus matter? Prod Oper Manag 16(2):203–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Subramani M, Walden E (2001) The impact of e-commerce announcements on the market value of firms. Inf Syst Res 12(2):135–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Tsui A (1990) A multiple constituency model of effectiveness: an empirical examination at the human resource subunit level. Admin Sci Q 35(3):458–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Umble EJ, Haft RR, Umble MM (2003) Enterprise resource planning: implementation procedures and critical success factors. Eur J Oper Res 146:241–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Venkatraman N, Ramanujam V (1986) Measurement of business performance in strategy research: a comparison of approaches. Acad Manag Rev 11(4):801–814

    Google Scholar 

  102. Venkatraman N, Henderson J (1998) Real strategies for virtual organizing. Sloan Manag Rev 40(1):33–48

    Google Scholar 

  103. Waddell W, Bodek N (2005) Rebirth of American industry. PCS Press, Vancouver

    Google Scholar 

  104. Waddock S, Graves S (1997) The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Manag J 18(4):303–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Wally S, Baum J (1994) Personal and structural determinants of the pace of strategic decision making. Acad Manag J 37(4):932–956

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Wang P, Ramiller N (2009) Community learning in information technology innovation. MIS Q 33(4):709–734

    Google Scholar 

  107. Weidong L (2005) Complexity of information systems development projects: conceptualization and measurement development. J Manag Inf Syst 22(1):45–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. White H (1980) A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica 48(4):817–838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Yu CS (2005) Causes influencing the effectiveness of the post-implementation ERP system. Ind Manag Data Syst 105(1):115–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Yusuf Y, Little D (1998) An empirical investigation of enterprise-wide integration of MRPII. Int J Oper Prod Manag 18(1):66–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management, The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, 75083, USA

    Mark Anderson

  2. Fox School of Business and Management, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, 19122, USA

    Rajiv D. Banker

  3. School of Management, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, 22030-4444, USA

    Nirup M. Menon

  4. College of Business and Economics, Towson University, Towson, MD, 21252-0001, USA

    Jorge A. Romero

Authors
  1. Mark Anderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rajiv D. Banker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nirup M. Menon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jorge A. Romero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nirup M. Menon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Anderson, M., Banker, R.D., Menon, N.M. et al. Implementing enterprise resource planning systems: organizational performance and the duration of the implementation. Inf Technol Manag 12, 197–212 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-011-0102-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-011-0102-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation