University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Critical behaviors required for successful enterprise resource planning system implementation: an innovation study

(USC Thesis Other)

Critical behaviors required for successful enterprise resource planning system implementation: an innovation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Critical Leadership Behaviors Required for Successful Enterprise Resource Planning
System Implementation: An Innovation Study

Melissa D. Yacono

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

May 2023

© Copyright by Melissa D. Yacono 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Melissa D. Yacono certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Susanne Foulk
Kenneth Yates
Adrian Donato, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

iv
Abstract
This study sought to understand the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that
affect critical leadership behaviors required for successful enterprise resource planning (ERP)
implementation. The study focused on a leadership group in the middle of an ERP
implementation project. A gap analysis framework was used in this mixed-methods study, which
included a survey, interviews, observations, and document analysis. The study verified that two
of the nine influences were needs. Study results informed evidence-based learning and
accountability recommendations using the new world Kirkpatrick model. The recommended
learning and development program prioritizes three of the nine influences and is targeted at
critical leadership behaviors that most influence the organizational mission and have been
defined by the literature. The program suggested as a result of this study informs future ERP
projects that will be undertaken by the organization as part of a larger organizational strategy.
Keywords: enterprise resource planning; critical success factors; management

v
Dedication
To Cole: Feast your eyes on 221 pages and 51,976 words.
To Casey: You will always be my early morning study buddy.
To Cora: I’m done. Now it’s time to play.

vi
Acknowledgements
I would like to gratefully acknowledge the support and guidance from my dissertation
committee. Thank you to my committee member, Dr. Kenneth Yates, who helped me see the
study potential and find my path. To Dr. Susanne Foulk, my second chair, your feedback on my
study language helped me strengthen my writing beyond my own expectations. I am particularly
appreciative of my chair, Dr. Adrian Donato, who kept me on track and guided me throughout
this process. I am thankful for the time, attention, and challenges that they provided to me and
my work during the dissertation process.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................x
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xii
Chapter One: Introduction ...............................................................................................................1
Problem of Practice ..............................................................................................................2
Organizational Context and Mission ...................................................................................2
Organizational Performance Status ......................................................................................3
Related Literature.................................................................................................................4
Importance of Addressing the Problem ...............................................................................7
Organizational Performance SMART Goal .........................................................................8
Description of Stakeholder Groups and Stakeholders of Focus ..........................................8
Performance Goal for the Study ........................................................................................11
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .................................................................13
Overview of the Conceptual Framework ...........................................................................13
Definitions..........................................................................................................................14
Organization of the Project ................................................................................................14
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .........................................................................................16
Influences on the Problem of Practice ...............................................................................16
Strategies for Improving ERP Implementation..................................................................22
Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................................35
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences ...............................36
Chapter Two Summary ......................................................................................................54
Chapter Three: Methods ................................................................................................................55

viii
Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................................55
Overview of Design ...........................................................................................................57
Credibility and Trustworthiness .........................................................................................68
Validity and Reliability ......................................................................................................69
Ethics..................................................................................................................................71
Role of Investigator............................................................................................................72
Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................................72
Chapter Four: Results and Findings ...............................................................................................74
Participating Stakeholders .................................................................................................74
Determination of Assets and Needs ...................................................................................76
Results and Findings for Knowledge Needs ......................................................................77
Results and Findings for Motivation Needs.....................................................................123
Results and Findings for Organization Needs .................................................................137
Summary of Validated Influences ...................................................................................148
Chapter Five: Recommendations .................................................................................................151
Organizational Performance Goal ....................................................................................151
Description of Stakeholder Groups ..................................................................................151
Goal of the Stakeholder Group for the Study ..................................................................153
Purpose of the Project and Questions ..............................................................................154
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences ..........................................155
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ..............................................................165
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach ....................................................................182
Limitations and Delimitations ..........................................................................................182
Future Research ...............................................................................................................183
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................184
References ....................................................................................................................................186

ix
Appendix A: Pre-Interview Recruiting Communications............................................................192
Appendix B: Information Sheet for Exempt Research ................................................................195
..........................................................................................................................................207
Appendix D: KMO Survey Protocol............................................................................................208
Appendix E: KMO Interview Protocol ........................................................................................213
Appendix F: KMO Observation Protocol ....................................................................................215
Appendix G: KMO Document Analysis Protocol .......................................................................217
Appendix H: Immediate Evaluation Instrument ..........................................................................219
Appendix I: Delayed Evaluation Instrument ...............................................................................220

x
List of Tables
Table 1 Organizational Mission, Performance Goal, and Aligned Stakeholder Performance
Goal 12
Table 2: Summary of Critical Success Factors Cited in the Literature 26
Table 3: Summary of Assumed Knowledge Influences on Team 17’s Ability to Consistently
Demonstrate the Critical Leadership Behaviors Required for Successful ERP
Implementation 44
Table 4: Summary of Assumed Motivation Influences on Team 17’s Ability to Consistently
Demonstrate the Critical Leadership Behaviors Required for Successful ERP
Implementation. 49
Table 5: Summary of Assumed Organization Influences on Team 17’s Ability to
Consistently Demonstrate the Critical Leadership Behaviors Required for Successful ERP
Implementation 54
Table 6: Research Questions and Data Sources 57
Table 7: Distribution of Interview Respondents by Location 75
Table 8: Distribution of Interview Respondents by Engagement 75
Table 9: Summary of Correct and Incorrect Knowledge Questions Compared to the Cut
Score 84
Table 10: Coded Interview Responses to Item: “Can You Tell Me What Is Happening in the
ERP Project Right Now?” 86
Table 11: Specific Impacts to Employee Job Duties 92
Table 12: Specific Impacts to Employee Job Duties 94
Table 13: Steps to Communicate Based on Interview Question 103
Table 14: Responses When Asked, “Can You Discuss for Me Steps You Take to Address an
Employee Expressing Concern or Resistance (K-P)” 114
Table 15: Responses When Asked, “Can You Discuss for Me Steps You Take to Reward
Employee Adoption (K-P)” 116
Table 16: Responses When Asked, “Do You Expect the ERP Implementation to Benefit
You?” 127
Table 17: Interview Responses When Team 17 Asked How They Expect to Benefit From
the ERP Implementation 128

xi
Table 18: Interview Responses When Team 17 Asked if They Believe the ERP
Implementation Is Worth the Effort 130
Table 19: Aggregate Self-Efficacy Dataset 131
Table 20: Responses to Item: “Rate Your Confidence Level in Your Ability to Do the
Things Discussed Below Right Now. Scale 1–10” 133
Table 21: Responses to Item: “How Do You Feel About Your Ability to Consistently
Demonstrate Critical Leadership Behaviors” 135
Table 22: Summarized Coded Responses Regarding Leadership Engagement From Across
Interview Questions 145
Table 23: Team 17 Attendance Table for Meetings and Events That Occurred During the
Data-Collection Period 147
Table 24: Knowledge Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data 149
Table 25: Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data 149
Table 26: Organizational Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data 150
Table 27: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 156
Table 28: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 161
Table 29: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 163
Table 30: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 168
Table 31: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 169
Table 32: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors for Team 17 172
Table 33: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program. 178
Table 34: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 179
Appendix C: KMO Crosswalk Analysis 198
Table D1: Survey Protocol 208
Table F1: Observation Protocol 215
Table G1: Document Analysis Protocol 217
Table H1: Immediate Evaluation Instrument 219
Table I1: Delayed Evaluation Instrument 220

xii
List of Figures
Figure 1: WidgetCo and PL1 Organizational Structure and Stakeholder Relationships 9
Figure 2: Clark and Estes’s Gap Analysis Model 56
Figure 3: Study Timing in Relation to PL1 Project Schedule 58
Figure 4: Responses to Item: “Zero Customer Disruptions Caused by the ERP
Implementation Is the Most Import Success Factor” 79
Figure 5: Responses to Item: “Rank in Order the Critical Success Factors for the ERP
Project” 80
Figure 6: Responses to Item: “The ERP Project Is in Which Phase?” 81
Figure 7: Responses to Item: “The ERP Project Go-Live Date Is” 82
Figure 8: Responses to Item: “The Last Gate Review Completed Was” 83
Figure 9: Responses to Item: “The Impact of ERP on My Team Is” 90
Figure 10: Responses to Item: “ERP Will Affect the Way My Employees” 91
Figure 11: Responses to Item: “Positive Communication About the ERP Project Looks
Like” 97
Figure 12: Responses to Item: “The Last Time I Communicated With My Employees About
the ERP Project Was” 98
Figure 13: Responses to Item: “The Last Time I Answered Questions From a Member of My
Team About the ERP Project Was” 99
Figure 14: Responses to Item: “When My Employees Ask Me ‘Why’ We Are Moving to
ERP, I Give Them This Explanation” 101
Figure 15: Responses to Item: “Employee Resistance to the New ERP May Reveal Itself
Through These Behaviors” 108
Figure 16: Responses to Item: “When a Team Member Is Demonstrating ERP Concern or
Resistance, These Are Some of the Steps I Would Take to Address the Resistance” 109
Figure 17: Responses to Item: “A Recent Example of How I Addressed Employee Concerns
or Resistance About ERP Is” 110
Figure 18: Responses to Item: “When a Team Member Is Demonstrating ERP Adoption and
Acceptance, These Are Some of the Steps I Would Take to Recognize Them” 112
Figure 19: Responses to Item: “The Last Time I Recognized an Employee for Supporting
the ERP Project Is” 113

xiii
Figure 20: Responses to Item: “I Adjust My Critical Leadership Behaviors to Influence ERP
Adoption by My Team” 119
Figure 21: Responses to Item: “When You Think About Leading Your Team Through a
Successful ERP Implementation, in What Ways Do You Adjust Your Critical Leadership
Behaviors to Facilitate Employee Adoption of the ERP System?” 120
Figure 22: Responses to Item: “Moving to ERP Will Benefit Me” 125
Figure 23: Responses to Item: “The ERP Change Is Worth the Effort” 126
Figure 24: Responses to Item: “My Organization Has a Project Team That Is Capable of
Successfully Completing the ERP Project” 138
Figure 25: Responses to Item: “The Project Team Is Empowered to Execute the ERP
Project” 139
Figure 26: Responses to Item: “The PL1 Leadership Team Is Committed to the ERP
Project” 143
Appendix J: Data and Reporting 221

1

Chapter One: Introduction
This dissertation addressed the problem of organizational underperformance in the
successful implementation of new enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems. An ERP system
is a software system that connects all of the functional areas inside an organization (Mahraz et
al., 2020). These systems are used across industries from manufacturing to healthcare, aerospace
and defense, and the oil and gas industries (Ha & Ahn, 2014; Mahraz et al., 2020; Menon et al.,
2019). In manufacturing organizations, ERP software tells the organization when to manufacture
products, when to purchase what raw materials in what quantities, when to ship finished goods,
and when to invoice the customer (Acar et al., 2017; Mahraz et al., 2020; Menon et al., 2019).
ERP systems are considered essential management tools that foster a competitive advantage and
highly desirable organizational efficiencies (Acar et al., 2017; Mahraz et al., 2020; Menon et al.,
2019). ERP systems integrate and optimize business processes, transactions, and data, which
enables real-time decision making in support of business objectives (Chofreh et al., 2018; Menon
et al., 2019; Moon, 2007). When ERP systems are implemented effectively, they have the
potential to reduce operating and inventory costs and increase business efficiency (Shaul &
Tauber, 2013). Unfortunately, ERP implementation is not easy.
Implementing these systems can be described as the largest project an organization can
take on (Mahraz et al., 2020). Implementing an ERP system is a challenging, expensive, and
highly complex task (Mahraz et al., 2020) that imposes a high risk on organizations (Finney &
Corbett, 2007; Ha & Ahn, 2014; Ram & Corkindale, 2014; Ravnikar, 2010). According to
Shaul and Tauber (2013), organizations often misunderstand and underestimate the complexity
involved in ERP implementation. Organizations spend millions of dollars implementing ERP
systems ineffectively, resulting in cancellations and significant cost overruns (Mahraz et al.,
2020; Menon et al., 2019). In addition to the complexity and risk, ERP implementations often
2

fail to meet organizational expectations (Acar et al., 2017; Menon et al., 2019; Park, 2018),
such as business’ pre-project goals 40% of the time (Park, 2018). Although ERP
implementations require high investment and come with challenges and significant risks,
organizations continue to implement them because of the operational advantages (Finney &
Corbett, 2007; Ha & Ahn, 2014; Ram & Corkindale, 2014).
Problem of Practice
The problem of practice is organizations’ inability to implement an ERP system
successfully. The need for organizations to implement new ERP systems will continue as ERP
companies innovate with new software platforms and as they acquire and merge with other
organizations. Industries such as aerospace and defense have completed hundreds of billions of
dollars of integrations in the past 30 years, resulting in giant global conglomerates (Voth, 2020)
with varying ERP systems. According to Abrol et al. (2017), the trend in aerospace and defense
growth strategies will be focused on innovation and new capabilities. The ERP systems provide
the backbone of business and data connectivity to enable organizational efficiencies and
capabilities (Acar et al., 2017; Mahraz et al., 2020; Menon et al., 2019). Successful ERP
implementations rely on a number of critical success factors (Finney & Corbett, 2007; Mahraz et
al., 2020). The criticality of these critical success factors is exacerbated when there is a need to
implement a common ERP system across multiple legacy ERP systems and business locations.
As organizations leverage ERP systems to drive efficiencies and innovation, there is a need to
understand what it takes to successfully implement an ERP system.
Organizational Context and Mission
WidgetCo (a pseudonym) is a multinational company that needs to implement a new ERP
system by the end of 2024. WidgetCo is an engineer-to-order manufacturing organization
specializing in aerospace products tailored to its airline customers. WidgetCo is a customer-
3

focused industry leader on a mission to redefine its industry with the capabilities, products, and
expertise to meet the demands of a rapidly evolving global market (company website). WidgetCo
is a conglomerate business made up of over a dozen product lines (PLs) across 20 global
locations, including several European locations and a large manufacturing facility located in
SouthEast Asia (SEA). Currently, there are 16 different ERP software systems used across
WidgetCo.
WidgetCo has mandated and launched an initiative to implement a common ERP system
across all of its locations by the end of 2024. Its ERP initiative is included in the company’s 5-
year strategic plan and is considered the most important initiative in the company. Because of its
strategic importance, WidgetCo has dedicated financial resources and headcount to the ERP
initiative through mid-2025 in the form of an ERP project team. The ERP project team is
responsible for executing the ERP implementations in partnership with the product line
organizations. As such, WidgetCo’s ERP project team is expected to apply lessons learned and
efficiencies across the multiple PL implementations. WidgetCo has a strategic plan to conduct
multiple ERP implementation projects over 3 years. This study focused on the first ERP
implementation in WidgetCo’s strategy conducted with Product Line 1 (PL1), which produces
large widgets across both the SEA and northwestern (NW) U.S. locations.
Organizational Performance Status
PL1 is a profit-and-loss organization accountable for achieving financial results inside the
larger WidgetCo. The implementation of a common ERP system is a mandate from WidgetCo.
PL1 was chosen for the first implementation because of its relatively mature business processes
and strategic importance. PL1 is transitioning from one ERP system to another during a 15-
month implementation and is scheduled to Go-Live on the new ERP system on May 1, 2023,
4

where the old system will be turned off, and the new system will be turned on and available for
use.
The mission of PL1 is to meet the fast-paced demands of its customers and deliver
perfect products on time. When a manufacturing business implements an ERP (known as “Go-
Live”), the implementation threatens the organization’s ability to produce products at the same
rate prior to the “Go-Live” event because of the cascading effect errors have on the entire supply
chain of an organization (Acar et al., 2017). Thus, special consideration is required to ensure
continuity of delivery to its customers.
PL1’s leadership organization is made up of 17 individuals across and with various
functional and program responsibilities (referred to as Team 17). Team 17, in collaboration with
WidgetCo leadership, has established that the primary success factor in the ERP project
implementation is zero customer disruptions related to ERP Go-Live. Specifically, Team 17 has
determined that the productivity rate will return within 4 months to 100% of the baseline rate,
which is the monthly production rate prior to the ERP implementation. WidgetCo has
benchmarked similar internal successful ERP adoptions, which have demonstrated a return to
50% of baseline production rate in Month 1 that ramps to 75% in Month 2, 85% in Month 3 and
finally 100% of baseline production rate in Month 4. As the implementation of ERP is an
innovation goal for PL1 within WidgetCo, the current status is 0%, and the performance gap is
100%.
Related Literature
The ERP system is a software system that unifies all information systems of all functional
departments into one system, with common information, connected processes and where data
from the entire organization is stored and connected (Finney & Corbett, 2007; Mahraz et al.,
2020). These systems enable real-time planning, operations, and customer service (Menon et al.,
5

2019). Corporations heavily depend on ERP systems for managing their supply chain through the
control and management of material flow as well as the capability to perform both internal and
external business transactions (Acar et al., 2017). The industry acknowledges the use of ERP
systems as a practical solution to achieve an integrated business model (Menon et al., 2019;
Moon, 2007).
The popularity of ERPs began in the 1990s and is considered a competitive advantage
and “backbone” of integrated processes and information in a corporation (Acar et al., 2017;
Mahraz et al., 2020). Research touts a multitude of generalized operational benefits such as cost
reduction (Acar et al., 2017; Moon, 2007), return on investment (Moon, 2007), data quality and
timeliness (Acar et al., 2017; Mahraz et al., 2020), operational efficiencies (Acar et al., 2017;
Mahraz et al., 2020) and competitive posture (Acar et al., 2017; Mahraz et al., 2020). Assessing
ERP value to an organization is complex, given the significant organizational investment
required to implement and maintain an ERP system (Moon, 2007). According to Moon (2007),
the question of actual ERP system value is a key issue in the literature.
The adoption of an ERP system is a complex task that requires significant investment,
resources, and planning (Acar et al., 2017; Mahraz et al., 2020; Moon, 2007) that do not always
result in tangible results (Menon et al., 2019). Organizations invest multi-millions implementing
ERP systems ineffectively, resulting in cancellations and significant cost overruns (Finney &
Corbett, 2007; Mahraz et al., 2020; Menon et al., 2019). Acar et al. (2017) suggested that almost
90% of ERP projects are completed late and over budget, while 40% achieve only partial
implementation. According to Mahraz et al. (2020), 20% of ERP implementations fail
completely. Despite the investment and challenges, organizations continue to implement ERP
systems to improve their processes and operations (Finney & Corbett, 2007). Some researchers
(Mahraz et al., 2020; Moon, 2007) divided ERP implementations into major themes by phase.
6

The implementation phase, or the project and test phases, occur prior to initiating the use of the
system, and the using ER or post-implementation phase occurs after the ERP system is
implemented, live, and intended for operational use. Implementation success varies by phase,
where several sub-themes emerge. The most relevant and recurring sub-themes are management
support (Acar et al., 2017; Finney & Corbett, 2007; Ha & Ahn, 2014; Mahraz et al., 2020; Moon,
2007), critical success factors (Finney & Corbett, 2007; Mahraz et al., 2020; Moon, 2007),
change management (Finney & Corbett, 2007; Mahraz et al., 2020; Moon, 2007), and use of best
practices (Mahraz et al., 2020; Moon, 2007).
Critical success factors (CSF) are the most widely studied topics in regards to ERP
implementation (Finney & Corbett, 2007; Mahraz et al., 2020). The CSFs are defined as the key
areas that ensure successful organizational performance (Mahraz et al., 2020; Menon et al.,
2019). In other words, if an organization can identify the right success factors and ensure their
success, then the implementation will also succeed. The CSF approach identifies the critical
areas or factors for success, treats them as objectives, and then monitors and ensures their
performance (Mahraz et al., 2020). The CSFs provide a clear direction and attention in planning
and risk management for successful implementation (Mahraz et al., 2020). There are several
CSFs at both the tactical and strategic levels related to primarily cultural factors, including
management support, communication, training, business vision, project management and
schedule, business processes management, change management, and the project team (Acar et
al., 2017; Mahraz et al., 2020).
Successful ERP implementation and adoption involve changes in a complex business
process, requiring changes in staff and work tasks that act as a changing force against the
existing company culture (Mahraz et al., 2020). The integrated nature of an ERP system requires
organizational investment and commitment that, if implemented poorly, can bring the
7

organization to its knees (Mahraz et al., 2020). Menon et al. (2019) pointed to understanding
critical challenges and managing risk as keys to success.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
This study focused on a 15-month, short-term problem of PL1 needing to implement a
new ERP system. The innovation in the study aimed to identify solutions and provide scalable
recommendations that can be used across future WidgetCo PL implementations as the ERP
strategy executes through 2024. The adoption of an ERP system has the potential to be one of
the largest and most complex projects ever undertaken by an organization (Mahraz et al.,
2020).
The ERP system implementation is an important subject that has attracted significant
attention in the research community (Mahraz et al., 2020). In addition to complexity, ERP
system changes require significant culture change and organizational collaborations (Mahraz et
al., 2020). These systems touch the entire organization and are never-ending. Once
implemented, they require active use, continuous monitoring and improvement, and a high
degree of collaboration between functional organizations (Mahraz et al., 2020).
PL1 needs to implement the new ERP system without impacting its customer deliveries
and returning to baseline production rate according to plan. PL1 has business objectives and
customer deliveries that rely on a successful implementation. The success of the PL1 ERP
project is critical to WidgetCo’s overall ERP strategy. WidgetCo’s ERP strategy is a highly
visible and significant investment for the organization. The perceived success or failure of the
ERP implementation in PL1 will set the tone and expectations for all future implementations.
A failed ERP project impacts customers and has the potential to cause reputational harm.
Successful ERP implementations are achieved by defining, executing, and managing for
success (Mahraz et al., 2020).
8

Organizational Performance SMART Goal
Organizational success is defined as completing the ERP project on time with zero
customer disruptions and returning to 100% of the production rate prior to the implementation
(the baseline rate). The organizational performance SMART goal is that PL1 will Go-Live on a
new ERP system on May 1, 2023, and return to the baseline production rate by September 1,
2023. This performance goal was established in alignment with Team 17 and the ERP project
team, as returning to baseline production rate is a leading indicator of customer on-time delivery.
ERP implementations significantly disrupt the operations and supply chain during transition,
which highlights the risks associated with the ability of organizations to return to their baseline
rate.
Description of Stakeholder Groups and Stakeholders of Focus
WidgetCo is a conglomerate business with a matrixed organization. Customer
satisfaction and business financial commitments are accounted for by PLs with program
managers. PLs and program managers are supported by individuals and teams across functional
areas such as engineering, operations, quality, supply chain, finance, and human resources.
WidgetCo has 20 PLs across its global business. Each product line has its own program
managers and teams across functional areas who are accountable to their own customers. PL1 is
the first of 20 product lines to adopt the common ERP.
PL1’s leadership team, known as Team 17, is made up of 17 leaders across multiple
functional areas and programs. Team 17 governs the PL1 organization and directs the thousands
of ERP system users. ERP implementations are highly complex and difficult to implement
(Mahraz et al., 2020). To increase the likelihood of success, WidgetCo has established an ERP
project team to partner with each product line to provide organizational support and document
9

lessons learned for future implementations. The matrix organization and stakeholder
relationships are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1
WidgetCo and PL1 Organizational Structure and Stakeholder Relationships

10

Team 17 makes up the stakeholders of focus for this study. Team 17, identified in the
blue box in Figure 1, are the 17 managers in PL1 that are responsible for implementing the ERP
across their various functionalities. Team 17 makes up the highest level of decision makers
within PL1. The leaders of Team 17 are primarily responsible for providing product on time to
the customer that meets quality requirements and executing the strategic business plan. Team 17
has organizational responsibility over the thousands of ERP system users whose adoption is
required for system implementation. The ERP project team, shown in the green box in Figure 1,
represents WidgetCo’s ERP project team that will implement the common ERP across all 20
PLs. The ERP project team is responsible for executing the project in collaboration with Team
17 and interacts across multiple levels of the PL1 organization.
While the joint efforts of all stakeholders will contribute to a successful ERP
implementation and return to the baseline production rate, for practical purposes, this study
centered on the Team 17 stakeholder group. Team 17 sits at the epicenter of power between the
customer, organization, and resources. They serve as the primary voice to the customer and have
accountability over the resources required to meet customer commitments and expectations.
Team 17 leaders are the accountability directors who influence the priority and sustainability of
the system users fostering a sustainable environment. Additionally, Team 17 members are the
primary business partners that will determine success and validation that success is achieved. A
successful ERP implementation with enabled business processes and accurate, relevant, and
accessible data (Chofreh et al., 2018) benefits Team 17 the most, and they are in a position to
reinforce and support the project. According to the research (Acar et al., 2017; Finney & Corbett,
2007; Ha & Ahn, 2014; Mahraz et al., 2020; Moon, 2007), management support is one of the
most CSF in ERP implementation and post-implementations.

11

Performance Goal for the Study
The goal for WidgetCo is to implement a new ERP system across all of its PLs by the end
of 2024. The goal for the organization at the center of this study is for PL1 to implement the new
ERP system on time and within budget with zero customer disruptions. For PL1 to achieve its
goal, it must achieve its internal operational performance goal of returning to baseline production
rate within the four-month plan. The largest contributor to achieving baseline rate is determined
by system users adopting the new ERP and physically transacting in the system (Internal Data).
System usage and employee adoption are most influenced by the management of an organization
(Park, 2018), or in the case of this study, Team 17.
While WidgetCo has mandated an ERP project team and provided many of the
organizational needs that will be discussed in detail in Chapter Two, the ERP project team
cannot successfully implement a new ERP system without the support of Team 17. Support from
Team 17 comes in the form of critical leadership behaviors that support communication, change
management and employee adoption of the new ERP system (Finney & Corbett, 2007; Martin &
Huq, 2007; Park, 2018). The performance goal for this specified stakeholder group is to ensure
Team 17 will consistently exhibit the critical leadership behaviors required for successful ERP
implementation by May 1, 2023.
PL1’s organizational mission, organizational performance goal, and aligned Team 17
performance goal are presented in Table 1.

12

Table 1
Organizational Mission, Performance Goal, and Aligned Stakeholder Performance Goal
PL1 organizational mission
PL1’s goal is to implement an ERP system on time and budget with zero customer
disruptions.
PL1 organizational performance goal
PL1 will Go-Live on a new ERP system on May 1, 2023, and will return to the baseline
production rate by September 1, 2023.
Team 17 stakeholder group performance goal
By May 1, 2023, Team 17 will consistently demonstrate the critical leadership behaviors
required for successful ERP implementation.

According to Martin and Huq (2007), management should delegate ERP project
execution and project management to a competent and experienced team, so they can continue to
perform their leadership duties required for the daily operation of the business. Given the
organizational structure supporting PL1 ERP project, the role of Team 17 is limited to a few
critical behaviors that, if enacted consistently, should achieve the organization’s ability to
transact in the new ERP system that results in a return to baseline rate and supports customer
delivery demands (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). As such, Team 17’s successful ERP
implementation requires them to exhibit the following critical behaviors consistently:
1. Consistently demonstrates positive language about the ERP project. Able to articulate
benefits and answer employee questions. Communicates bi-weekly to direct staff and
quarterly to all employees.
2. Takes action to address employee concerns as they arise. Consistently rewards
employee adoption.
13

3. Models engaged leadership. Visibly present at ERP events, able to consistently speak
positively about the ERP project, address employee resistance and reward adoption.
If Team 17 can exhibit the critical behaviors consistently, system users are more likely to adopt
the new ERP system, which correlates to more fingers-on-keyboards system transactions that
lead to PL1 returning to baseline rate with zero customer disruptions.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this project was to conduct a needs analysis in the areas of knowledge
and skill, motivation, and organizational resources necessary to reach the stakeholder
performance goal. The analysis began by generating a list of possible stakeholder needs and
then examining these systematically to focus on validated stakeholder needs. While a
complete needs analysis would focus on all stakeholders at the epicenter of power, for
practical purposes, the stakeholder group to be focused on in this analysis is Team 17. Two
research questions guided this study:
1. What are Team 17’s knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization needs
required to achieve successful ERP implementation?
2. What are the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
recommendations that can be made to Team 17 to achieve their goal?
Overview of the Conceptual Framework
For the purpose of this study, Team 17 knowledge, motivation and organizational (KMO)
needs and influences were examined using Clark and Estes’s (2008) KMO gap analysis
conceptual framework. The framework considers KMO barriers as the major reasons
organizations fail to meet performance objectives (Clark & Estes, 2008). An ERP change will
result in significant knowledge and organizational changes, requiring motivation to achieve the
desired outcome. The research (Finney & Corbett, 2007; Mahraz et al., 2020) suggested that
14

successful implementations rely on a number of CSFs which vary across organizational contexts.
Applying the KMO conceptual framework is a robust way to approach the complex
problem of identifying the needs of Team 17 during ERP implementation. Assumed needs of
KMO influences that impact Team 17 behaviors were generated based on context-specific
research, project team experience and knowledge, and general learning and motivation theory.
The methodological framework is a mixed-methods case study consisting of interviews, surveys,
document analysis, and observations.
Definitions
● Customer on-time delivery (OTD) is the measure of the actual customer deliveries
compared to the committed customer deliveries on a specific date (internal
document).
● Production or manufacturing rate refers to the number of products that can be
produced at one time. PL1 rate is measured weekly (internal document).
● Baseline production rate is the production or manufacturing rate at a certain time of
measurement. PL1’s baseline production rate will be an average production rate over
a 6-month period.
Organization of the Project
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter provided the key concepts and
terminology commonly found in a discussion about successful ERP implementations. PL1’s
mission, goals, and stakeholders, as well as the initial concepts of gap analysis, were introduced.
Chapter Two provides a review of literature surrounding the scope of the study. The review
focuses on the KMO influences required for Team 17 to achieve its stakeholder performance
goal. Chapter Three outlines the research study details, including methodology, participant
groups, data collection and analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and results are assessed and
15

analyzed. Chapter Five provides solutions, based on data and literature, for closing the perceived
gaps and recommendations for an implementation and evaluation plan for the solutions.
16

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This innovation study examined the KMO needs that influence a leadership team to
consistently exhibit critical behaviors that lead to a successful ERP implementation. In short, this
study considers if Team 17 has the KMO influences it needs to implement an ERP system
without disrupting service to the customer. This chapter begins with a review of the background
and history of ERPs, followed by a discussion on ERP implementation complexity and strategies
for Improving ERP Implementations. Then a review of the role of management, followed by the
explanation of the KMO influences’ lens used in this study. Next, the focus will be on Team 17
stakeholder groups’ KMO influences and complete the chapter by presenting the conceptual
framework.
Influences on the Problem of Practice
ERP systems are management tools that offer a competitive advantage by way of
connected data and operational efficiencies (Acar et al., 2017; Mahraz et al., 2020; Menon et
al., 2019). These systems integrate organizations from finance to supply chain and provide
immediate status of operations in support of business objectives (Chofreh et al., 2018; Menon
et al., 2019; Moon, 2007). Implementing an ERP system is an expensive and highly complex
task (Mahraz et al., 2020); a high percentage of implementations are forfeited or completed
with cost overruns (Mahraz et al., 2020; Menon et al., 2019). Organizations spend millions of
dollars implementing ERP software systems that do not align with stakeholder expectations
(Mahraz et al., 2020; Menon et al., 2019). These implementations are a growing and important
topic across the literature (Acar et al., 2017; Ha & Ahn, 2014; Lin, 2010; Mahraz et al., 2020;
Menon et al., 2019) despite the high risk of failure (Finney & Corbett, 2007; Ha & Ahn, 2014;
Ram & Corkindale, 2014) over the past several decades given the mass growth in ERP
software system popularity across global manufacturing industries.
17

Definition of ERP
An ERP is a computer-based software system that processes an organization’s
transactions required to operate and respond to customers (Menon et al., 2019). The ERP
system, also known as an enterprise information system, enterprise-wide systems, or enterprise
system, is a software system that unifies the information systems of all departments into one
system (Mahraz et al., 2020) and interacts with both front and back office (Menon et al.,
2019). In many ways, it is considered a “do it all” (Mahraz et al., 2020) system that performs
everything from order entry to customer invoicing. ERPs have grown in popularity since the
1990s (Mahraz et al., 2020) as the organization’s need for connected data between functional
units to increase efficiency and real-time decision making (Menon et al., 2019) has grown.
History of ERP Systems
ERP systems and the organizational dependence on them have evolved over time. In
the late 1960s, corporations began using inventory control packages, which evolved into
material requirement planning systems in the 1970s (Menon et al., 2019). By the 1980s, the
production process was expanded to include finance, engineering and additional operations
planning (Menon et al., 2019). ERPs first appeared in the 1990s as a business integration
solution (Menon et al., 2019; Shaul & Tauber, 2013) that was considered to be a breakthrough
solution to the Y2K problem (Ram & Corkindale, 2014). By the early 2000s, companies began
leveraging the single database (Menon et al., 2019) into the current state integrated solution
that drives business performance and efficiency (Lin, 2010; Moon, 2007; Shaul & Tauber,
2013).
The Importance of ERPs
Enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems are software systems that unify, coordinate
and integrate data across an organization’s departments (Finney & Corbett, 2007; Mahraz et
18

al., 2020; Tarhini et al., 2015). ERP software systems are a single database for business
activities (Meng & Zhao, 2017) that integrates business processes and functions (Boonstra &
Govers, 2009; Ifinedo & Nahar, 2007; Meng & Zhao, 2017). Once integrated, an ERP system
provides a holistic overview of a business through the use of real-time data to support business
decisions (Boonstra & Govers, 2009; Ifinedo & Nahar, 2007; Menon et al., 2019).
Organizations use ERP systems to determine what products to make for what
customers, by when, and how much to charge (Ravnikar, 2010). These systems integrate
departments and cover everything from manufacturing to financial systems, supply chains,
logistics, human resources, sales distribution, and services (Boonstra & Govers, 2009; Menon
et al., 2019). The centralized ERP system covers both front-office, or activities that support
customers directly, and back-office activities like operations and supply chain (Menon et al.,
2019). Corporations rely heavily on their ERP systems to manage their material flow and
business transactions (Acar et al., 2017).
Corporations adopt ERP systems for a variety of reasons, including for their
competitive advantage (Acar et al., 2017; Ha & Ahn, 2014; Lin, 2010; Mahraz et al., 2020;
Menon et al., 2019) and to improve operating efficiency (Lin, 2010). Corporations invest
multi-billions of dollars in capital expenditures annually, implementing the ERP tool (Lin,
2010). These systems fundamentally change how businesses work (Menon et al., 2019).
Successful ERP implementation has the potential to reduce inventory and operations costs
resulting in increased efficiency and a competitive advantage in customer responsiveness
(Shaul & Tauber, 2013).
Dozens of ERP companies and software platforms exist across industries. Each software
package offers different solutions depending on business and customer needs, business size, cost,
features and applications. The global ERP market grew from $24 billion in 2012 (Meng & Zhao,
19

2017) to $50 billion in 2021 and is predicted to exceed $93 billion by 2028 (Fortune Business
Insights, 2022).
Competitive Advantage
Widely acknowledged as an essential management tool, ERP systems foster and
maintain a competitive advantage across global manufacturing industries (Acar et al., 2017; Ha
& Ahn, 2014; Lin, 2010; Mahraz et al., 2020; Menon et al., 2019). Over the last 20 years,
nearly all Fortune 500 companies have acquired an ERP system or an ERP upgrade in pursuit
of operational performance and efficiency (Rashid et al., 2018). These systems offer a
seamless flow of data within an organization, offering the right information at the right time
(Menon et al., 2019).
Well-implemented ERP systems bring strategic, managerial, and operational advantages
to organizations, given their ability to enable process standardization, efficiency, and costs across
organizations (Meng & Zhao, 2017). ERP systems improve process efficiency and streamline
operations across companies, which benefits businesses of all sizes (Al-Hinai et al., 2013;
Tarhini et al., 2015). A majority of ERP systems are configured with efficient best practices (Ha
& Ahn, 2014) and then customization during implementation to meet the organization’s
requirements (Mouakket & Nour, 2011). Organizations can leverage best practices and
efficiency in their standard business processes (Mouakket & Nour, 2011).
The ERP systems provide enterprise-wide automation for standard business processes to
improve productivity (Mouakket & Nour, 2011). These systems offer modules by department in
a unified database, giving the company the ability to manage and monitor its core business
processes (Tarhini et al., 2015). The connection and automation enable management decision
making, which can be reflected in operational measures like inventory, headcount reduction and
process efficiency (Ravnikar, 2010). The ERPs enact real-time decision making across all areas
20

of the organization (Ravnikar, 2010). They continue to be a popular choice for organizations
looking to gain a competitive advantage and process innovation (Ha & Ahn, 2014)
Implementations Are Complex and Expensive
Considered to be strategic (Tarhini et al., 2015), ERP systems are significant business
investments whose implementation causes organizational disruption (Mouakket & Nour,
2011). Their implementation costs range based on size and complexity, from small
implementations that run a few million dollars to hundreds of millions of dollars for large,
international implementations (Martin & Huq, 2007).
Implementation is a challenging, expensive, and complex task (Mahraz et al., 2020)
that requires organizations to align technology with business, financial, technical, and cultural
forces (Mahraz et al., 2020; Menon et al., 2019; Mouakket & Nour, 2011). The ERPs reach
across different organizational functions, which directly influence organizational culture and
power structures (Boonstra & Govers, 2009; Meng & Zhao, 2017). These systems can
potentially challenge vested management practices and structures (Boonstra & Govers, 2009).
They are designed with best practices in mind to integrate organizational functions and
standardize processes that may or may not reflect existing management philosophies and
interests (Boonstra & Govers, 2009).
In many ways, ERP implementation is the most complex project an organization will
ever undertake (Moon, 2007). Significant cross-organizational teamwork and collaboration are
required (Ghosh & Skibniewski, 2010; Tarhini et al., 2015), given the number of steps and
business transformation involved. These projects typically consist of several sub-projects that
are challenging to predict (Ghosh & Skibniewski, 2010). Sub-projects have varying
interdependencies and connectivity that must all work together for successful implementation
(Ghosh & Skibniewski, 2010).
21

Complex projects that go across organizational boundaries come with multiple
stakeholders with varying interests (Boonstra & Govers, 2009). Various stakeholder groups
were identified across the literature, including executives, senior managers, project teams,
system users and digital technology consultants (Al-Hinai et al., 2013; Mouakket & Nour,
2011; Tarhini et al., 2015). Mouakket and Nour (2011) suggested that stakeholder expectations
and degrees of project involvement vary during the ERP implementation stages.
Failure To Meet Expectations
The ERP software systems offer a competitive advantage with exciting potential (Acar
et al., 2017; Ha & Ahn, 2014; Lin, 2010; Mahraz et al., 2020; Menon et al., 2019; Rashid et
al., 2018), yet they are complex and organizationally disruptive to implement (Moon, 2007;
Mouakket & Nour, 2011; Shaul & Tauber, 2013). Organizations often underestimate ERP
implementation complexity (Shaul & Tauber, 2013), yet these are high-risk projects (Ravnikar,
2010) that fail to meet businesses’ pre-project goals 40% of the time (Park, 2018).
These projects are completed late and over budget 90% of the time (Acar et al., 2017;
Martin & Huq, 2007; Rashid et al., 2018; Ravnikar, 2010; Shaul & Tauber, 2013). Forty
percent of projects achieve partial implementation (Mahraz et al., 2020; Shaul & Tauber,
2013), which reduces ERP benefits and is a primary reason for unsuccessful ERP projects
(Ravnikar, 2010). In addition, Mouakket and Nour (2011) suggested that over half of all
implementations result in failure, whereas other studies report failure rates closer to 20%
(Mahraz et al., 2020; Shaul & Tauber, 2013). Despite the potential failures, organizations
continue to implement ERP systems (Finney & Corbett, 2007; Ha & Ahn, 2014; Ram &
Corkindale, 2014).
22

Generalized Benefits of Implementations
The benefits and competitive advantages of ERP systems are recognized in business
process optimization. These systems standardize data and process, enables the centralization of
various organizational functions, and reduces IT maintenance costs (Meng & Zhao, 2017).
This, in turn, offers operational benefits like cost reduction (Acar et al., 2017; Lin, 2010;
Moon, 2007), return on investment (Moon, 2007), and data management and reporting (Acar
et al., 2017; Mahraz et al., 2020; Ravnikar, 2010).
Researchers suggest various ways to measure ERP implementation success (Lin, 2010;
Moon, 2007; Ram & Corkindale, 2014). Assessing ERP value to an organization is complex
given the organization conditions and investment unique to a given implementation project
(Moon, 2007). There is not one scale or measure that can measure ERP implementation
success (Lin, 2010). Success and performance are often measured in different ways, making it
difficult to synthesize (Ram & Corkindale, 2014).
Varying definitions of success open the door to ERP critics who question actual ERP
system value (Moon, 2007). Acar et al. (2017) reported that while ERPs positively influence
operational performance, they have no direct impact on financial performance. However,
Rashid et al. (2018) provided case studies from inside the aerospace industry that reported the
benefits of enhanced return on investment, reduced inventory and product lead times. Another
explanation offered by Lin (2010) is that organizational benefits can take a long time to be
realized, given the significant business investment.
Strategies for Improving ERP Implementation
Given the growing popularity of ERP systems in organizations and issues surrounding
implementations (Moon, 2007), there have been many studies on various topics (Ha & Ahn,
2014). The importance of ERP across business and industries ensures this will remain a topic of
23

interest (Al-Hinai et al., 2013). The implementation phase is the most widely discussed in the
literature (Al-Hinai et al., 2013; Mahraz et al., 2020; Meng & Zhao, 2017; Moon, 2007).
Researchers attempting to gain a better understanding of ERP implementation success is one of
the key issues investigated. (Mouakket & Nour, 2011).
Forty percent of articles are focused on the implementation phase of ERP projects (Moon,
2007). Various models of implementation methodologies and perspectives are presented (Moon,
2007). Meng and Zhao (2017) focused on specific project aspects like training, ERP selection
and managerial issues as the reasons ERP implementation is difficult.
Within the literature (Al-Hinai et al., 2013; Finney & Corbett, 2007; Mahraz et al., 2020),
there is a significant focus on the implementation phase and the CSFs to increase the probability
of a successful implementation. The CSFs are important factors that drive the success or failure
of an ERP implementation (Moon, 2007). According to Shaul and Tauber (2013), CSF research
dominates the ERP literature and has conceptually been developed and analyzed using case
studies. Articles that generate lists of CSFs are prevalent throughout the literature (Al-Hinai et
al., 2013; Finney & Corbett, 2007; Mahraz et al., 2020; Shaul & Tauber, 2013), while only a
small number connect CSFs and the ERP lifecycle (Shaul & Tauber, 2013) or their distribution
across the lifecycle (Al-Hinai et al., 2013).
Critical Success Factors
Critical success factors (CSFs) are the most popular topic in ERP literature (Al-Hinai et
al., 2013; Finney & Corbett, 2007; Mahraz et al., 2020); however, researchers define CSFs in
varying ways (Ram & Corkindale, 2014). Some researchers define CSFs as implementation
metrics or success measures (Ram & Corkindale, 2014), while others consider them to be key
performance indicators to ensure successful implementation (Mouakket & Nour, 2011) and
prepare stakeholders at different stages of the implementation (Al-Hinai et al., 2013). The most
24

common definition cited comes from Rockart (1979) as the limited number of areas where
“things must go right” (Rockart, 1979) for the business to meet its performance objectives
(Mouakket & Nour, 2011; Ram & Corkindale, 2014).
Given the recognition of CSFs to solve real-world problems, research on the topic has
grown over the past 40 years (Ram & Corkindale, 2014). Several researchers (Finney & Corbett,
2007; Mahraz et al., 2020; Mouakket & Nour, 2011; Ram & Corkindale, 2014) utilized the CSF
method to analyze ERP implementations. Understanding and identifying CSFs before ERP
implementation, so they can be monitored and managed during the project lifecycle is critical to
the project's success (Mouakket & Nour, 2011). The CSFs enable successful ERP
implementations (Mahraz et al., 2020; Menon et al., 2019).
The lack of consensus among researchers regarding implementation stages builds into a
lack of consensus in CSFs (Al-Hinai et al., 2013; Ram & Corkindale, 2014). Identifying CSFs
has become a popular research contribution, which has led to a large and varying number of
CSFs across the literature (Ram & Corkindale, 2014). The reported CSFs vary across
researchers, from 26 consolidated factors (Finney & Corbett, 2007) to over 60 (Al-Hinai et al.,
2013).
Popular CSFs According to the Literature
Depending on the researcher's position, CSFs can be categorized into technological and
organizational dimensions (Mahraz et al., 2020), while others categorize factors into
identification, management, and performance (Ram & Corkindale, 2014). Some classification
schemes account for various stakeholder groups and their involvement during the project
(Mouakket & Nour, 2011). There has been no single generally accepted method of CSF grouping
(Mouakket & Nour, 2011). While CSFs vary across project life cycles, several themes and
commonalities emerge from the research.
25

Table 2 shows common CSFs cited in the literature in order they appear during the
lifecycle of an ERP implementation and in relation to Team 17 and the ERP project team. Based
on Table 2, three CSFs require Team 17 involvement and connect to the critical leadership
behaviors. These three areas, management support, change management and communication, are
the explored areas of focus in the literature that informs the KMO influences for Team 17.
Although the ERP project team provides a number of CSFs, those resource and cultural elements
were examined to the extent that Team 17 perceives that they are being provided as an
organizational resource.

26

Table 2
Summary of Critical Success Factors Cited in the Literature
Provided by
ERP project
team
Requires
Team 17
involvement
Critical success
factor
Research literature
Yes No Vision and goals
Finney & Corbett, 2007; Ghosh &
Skibniewski, 2010; Mahraz et al., 2020;
Raman & Goyal, 2014; Shaul & Tauber,
2013
Yes No Business case
Finney & Corbett, 2007; Ghosh &
Skibniewski, 2010; Mahraz et al., 2020;
Moon, 2007; Park, 2018; Rashid et al., 2018
Yes No ERP selection
Bohorquez López, 2018; Finney & Corbett,
2007; Ghosh & Skibniewski, 2010; Mahraz et
al., 2020; Menon et al., 2019; Pishdad &
Haider, 2013; Ram & Corkindale, 2014;
Rashid et al., 2018; Shaul & Tauber, 2013
No Yes
Management
support
Finney & Corbett, 2007; Ghosh &
Skibniewski, 2010; Ha & Ahn, 2014; Mahraz
et al., 2020; Menon et al., 2019; Park, 2018;
Pishdad & Haider, 2013; Ram & Corkindale,
2014; Raman & Goyal, 2014; Rashid et al.,
2018; Shaul & Tauber, 2013
Yes No Project team
Finney & Corbett, 2007; Ghosh &
Skibniewski, 2010; Ha & Ahn, 2014; Mahraz
et al., 2020; Menon et al., 2019; Moon, 2007;
Ram & Corkindale, 2014; Rashid et al., 2018;
Shaul & Tauber, 2013
Yes No
Implementation
process
Finney & Corbett, 2007; Ghosh &
Skibniewski, 2010; Mahraz et al., 2020;
Menon et al., 2019; Moon, 2007; Park, 2018;
Pishdad & Haider, 2013; Ram & Corkindale,
2014; Raman & Goyal, 2014; Rashid et al.,
2018; Shaul & Tauber, 2013
Yes No
Project
management
Finney & Corbett, 2007; Ghosh &
Skibniewski, 2010; Mahraz et al., 2020; Park,
2018; Ram & Corkindale, 2014; Rashid et al.,
2018; Shaul & Tauber, 2013
Yes Yes
Change
management
Bohorquez López, 2018; Finney & Corbett,
2007; Ghosh & Skibniewski, 2010; Mahraz et
al., 2020; Menon et al., 2019; Moon, 2007;
Park, 2018; Pishdad & Haider, 2013; Ram &
Corkindale, 2014; Rashid et al., 2018; Shaul
27

Provided by
ERP project
team
Requires
Team 17
involvement
Critical success
factor
Research literature
& Tauber, 2013
Yes Yes Communication
Bohorquez López, 2018; Finney & Corbett,
2007; Ghosh & Skibniewski, 2010; Ha &
Ahn, 2014; Mahraz et al., 2020; Park, 2018;
Pishdad & Haider, 2013; Ram & Corkindale,
2014; Raman & Goyal, 2014
Yes No Global factors Shaul & Tauber, 2013; Rashid et al., 2018
Yes No Risk management
Ghosh & Skibniewski, 2010; Ha & Ahn, 2014;
Pishdad & Haider, 2013; Ram & Corkindale,
2014; Shaul & Tauber, 2013
Yes No
Business process
re-engineering
Bohorquez López, 2018; Finney & Corbett,
2007; Ghosh & Skibniewski, 2010; Mahraz et
al., 2020; Park, 2018; Pishdad & Haider,
2013; Ram & Corkindale, 2014; Raman &
Goyal, 2014; Rashid et al., 2018; Shaul &
Tauber, 2013
Yes No
Training and
education
program
Finney & Corbett, 2007; Ghosh &
Skibniewski, 2010; Ha & Ahn, 2014; Mahraz
et al., 2020; Moon, 2007; Park, 2018; Pishdad
& Haider, 2013; Ram & Corkindale, 2014;
Shaul & Tauber, 2013;
Yes No
Best practices and
lessons learned
Bohorquez López, 2018; Mahraz et al., 2020;
Raman & Goyal, 2014; Rashid et al., 2018
Yes No
Continuous
improvement
Ha & Ahn, 2014; Rashid et al., 2018; Shaul &
Tauber, 2013
Yes No Sunset systems
Finney & Corbett, 2007; Mahraz et al., 2020;
Pishdad & Haider, 2013

While CSFs remain the most prevalent and important topic in the literature (Al-Hinai et
al., 2013; Finney & Corbett, 2007; Mahraz et al., 2020; Shaul & Tauber, 2013), ERP
implementations continue to fail and experience difficulties in the real world (Ram &
Corkindale, 2014). A number of authors have questioned the usefulness of CSFs, while others
point to the lack of empirical validation for their role and effect on successful implementations
28

(Ram & Corkindale, 2014). In addition, researchers (Finney & Corbett, 2007; Mouakket &
Nour, 2011) have identified a lack of focus on CSFs from the perspectives of key stakeholders
as a reason why CSFs and implementations fail. Finney and Corbett (2007) referred to the lack
of CSF literature focused on the stakeholder perspective as concerning given the importance of
management support. The highest priority CSFs are further examined in the sections that
follow, beginning with Team 17 as the stakeholder of focus.
Requires Team 17 Involvement
Table 2 categorizes the CSFs that require Team 17 involvement directly and align with
the critical leadership behaviors. Management plays a significant role in ERP implementation
projects (Finney & Corbett, 2007; Mouakket & Nour, 2011; Ravnikar, 2010; Shaul & Tauber,
2013; Tarhini et al., 2015). The CSFs most influenced by management are management
support, change management and communication.
Management Support
One of the most cited of all CSFs is management support and commitment (Finney &
Corbett, 2007). Management support is described as management’s commitment through
involvement and prioritization during the ERP implementation project (Finney & Corbett,
2007; Lin, 2010; Martin & Huq, 2007). Finney and Corbett (2007) expanded the definition of
management support to include involvement in strategic planning and risk management.
Management support also means executive participation (Ghosh & Skibniewski, 2010),
concern with the project and ensuring it has adequate resources (Lin, 2010; Mouakket & Nour,
2011) to meet business requirements (Lin, 2010) and performance objectives (Mouakket &
Nour, 2011) while recognizing and rewarding employees (Ghosh & Skibniewski, 2010).
Given where management sits in the organization, they have more access to view
employees and peers (Ifinedo & Nahar, 2007), giving them the ability to shape the culture.
29

Management support and commitment combat and overcome resistance from various groups
(Lin, 2010) and prevent disconnects between stakeholder expectations (Boonstra & Govers,
2009). Shaul and Tauber (2013) suggested management take necessary action to address
organizational challenges prior to ERP implementation.
Insufficient management involvement has emerged in the literature as a significant
factor in the failure of ERP system implementations (Boonstra & Govers, 2009; Martin &
Huq, 2007). For example, Martin and Huq (2007) identified causes for failure, including lack
of management commitment, leadership, and inattention to organizational culture. Boonstra
and Govers (2009) provided an example of an ERP failure caused by an overly optimistic view
of ERP system functionalities that were not properly checked against organizational needs and
stakeholder interests. It is important that the management remain involved to ensure the project
aligns with organizational realities and objectives (Boonstra & Govers, 2009).
The importance of consistent management commitment and prioritization is evident
throughout the literature (Finney & Corbett, 2007; Lin, 2010; Martin & Huq, 2007).
Management directly influences the success of the implementation, given their position and
influence in the organization (Martin & Huq, 2007). Additionally, management influences
employee attitudes (Martin & Huq, 2007), employee adoption (Park, 2018), and organizational
acceptance (Finney & Corbett, 2007) of the ERP software. Management then emerges in the
research as the cornerstone of the change management process. Further, research (Martin &
Huq, 2007) reveals that when management is involved in the ERP implementation and
understands the organizational change impact, it can communicate and address employee
concerns, which has been shown to improve implementation success. Management plays a
critical role in achieving successful ERP implementations that meet stakeholder expectations.
30

Change Management
Implementing an ERP system is often the largest project an organization can undertake
(Moon, 2007). Implementation requires significant funding, resources, and organizational
changes (Moon, 2007). These systems change the organization through business processes and
information, which ripple throughout the entire organization (Park, 2018) and can have
profound impacts on the culture (Ghosh & Skibniewski, 2010). Poorly managed changes can
result in organizational resistance, confusion, and rework (Mahraz et al., 2020). Robust and
well-planned change management activities are required for successful ERP implementation
(Park, 2018), yet they are often overlooked (Mahraz et al., 2020).
Park (2018) suggested that ineffective and inadequate change management is the
primary cause of implementation failure. Change management has been shown to significantly
impact organizational adoption of the ERP change (Park, 2018). Adoption refers to the extent
to which employees and management successfully adapt to the new ERP environment and use
the system (Park, 2018). Thus, ERPs change the way organizations interact and how people do
their jobs (Mahraz et al., 2020). Organizations without change management strategies risk
failure due to the inability of the organization to flex and adapt to the real-time and drastic
changes faced during implementations (Ghosh & Skibniewski, 2010).
Finney and Corbett (2007) pointed out that change management is very widely
discussed literature, with limited detail on what change management means exactly. Change
management often refers to the alignment of the company’s organizational strategy to its ERP
implementation plan (Mahraz et al., 2020). Researchers refer to change management tactics
like training and education (Finney & Corbett, 2007; Park, 2018) and including employees
early in the implementation process (Mahraz et al., 2020) to encourage business change and
adaptation (Park, 2018). The use of a capable change manager who can lead and guide a
31

change management strategy is also recommended (Boonstra & Govers, 2009). Management
is a key contributor to change management. Change management includes the need for
management to build organizational commitment and acceptance while addressing resistance
(Finney & Corbett, 2007). The literature recommends change management strategies that
include communication and address cultural issues (Finney & Corbett, 2007; Park, 2018).
Culture Change and ERP Resistance
People resisting change is a highlighted critical challenge sometimes considered a sub-
category to change management (Finney & Corbett, 2007; Menon et al., 2019). The radical
changes brought about by ERP implementations can cause organizational resistance (Park,
2018). The ERPs rearrange how organizations are structured, which can conflict with the current
company culture (Mahraz et al., 2020). These systems expand beyond just software systems and
include social and cultural elements (Lin, 2010; Mahraz et al., 2020; Pishdad & Haider, 2013).
Implementing a high-quality ERP system does not guarantee a successful outcome
(Lin, 2010). There is a critical need to be aware of the cultural changes and preferences of
organizations undergoing ERP implementations (Finney & Corbett, 2007). Additionally, it has
been suggested that identifying and concentrating on the stakeholder groups with highest
resistance can increase the likelihood of success (Finney & Corbett, 2007).
Mitigating ERP resistance is related to management’s role. Management support
influences both perceived usefulness and ERP system usage to overcome user resistance (Lin,
2010). Management is key to building organizational acceptance (Finney & Corbett, 2007) and
user adoption (Park, 2018). It is also management that motivates employees to accept the ERP
change (Martin & Huq, 2007).
Martin and Huq (2007) found that management’s attitudes influenced employees’
behavioral changes. Management directly affects employee attitudes and behavior toward ERP
32

adoption through its leadership involvement in the project and change (Martin & Huq, 2007).
When management understands the organizational context and impact on employees, it can
address concerns, which improves employees’ acceptance and commitment to the ERP change
(Martin & Huq, 2007). Management has the ability to control worker anxiety that perpetuates
the status quo and to understand employee learning curves (Ghosh & Skibniewski, 2010) that
contribute to ERP resistance.
Interdepartmental cooperation, meaning the interaction between employees and
departments, is another organizational cultural element revealed by the literature (Ravnikar,
2010). The ERP software systems cannot be implemented without employee adoption,
participation, and communication (Ha & Ahn, 2014; Ravnikar, 2010). These implementations
affect the entire organization, which requires interdepartmental cooperation to resolve conflicts
and coordinate resources (Ha & Ahn, 2014).
Communication
Just as ERP systems aim to integrate all of the functions within an organization, the ERP
implementation itself must also be connected with thorough communication across the whole
organization (Ha & Ahn, 2014). Effective communication between the various functions and
levels of the organization is considered a CSF (Finney & Corbett, 2007; Mahraz et al., 2020).
ERP implementations involve potential frequent conflicts and coordination, which requires
collaboration and communication (Ha & Ahn, 2014).
Management needs to communicate regularly (Finney & Corbett, 2007; Park, 2018),
including communication of expectations, project scope, updates, and announcements across all
levels of the organization (Mahraz et al., 2020). Communication can take the form of formal
presentations, announcements, or project updates (Mahraz et al., 2020). Management must
consistently communicate clearly about the ERP vision and project to motivate and facilitate
33

employee adoption and training (Ha & Ahn, 2014). Good communication requires a
communication plan to ensure that communication occurs internally, within the entire
organization, and externally, with customers and suppliers (Finney & Corbett, 2007). ERP
projects require a change management and communication plan to effectively include the
numerous stakeholders involved (Ghosh & Skibniewski, 2010).
Provided by ERP Project Team
The second category in Table 2, provided by the ERP project team, identifies the CSFs
considered to be resource and cultural elements required by Team 17 to be successful.
In the case of this study, the ERP project team provides many of the organizational settings
required for a successful implementation: ERP selection, implementation process, change
management, communication plan, risk management, training and education programs, project
management, business case, vision, sunset systems, global factors, and continuous
improvement. Successful implementations require collaboration across many functional areas
(Ghosh & Skibniewski, 2010; Tarhini et al., 2015). The CSF resource and cultural elements
were examined to the extent that Team 17 perceives that they are being provided as an
organizational resource.
Vision and Goals
Successful ERP implementation requires defining success, then planning, executing,
and managing for success (Mahraz et al., 2020). Unfortunately, defining success for ERP
implementation is complex because it depends on the point of view of various stakeholders
(Mahraz et al., 2020; Mouakket & Nour, 2011; Rashid et al., 2018). The various stakeholders,
like management and systems users, have significantly different expectations for ERP
implementation success (Mouakket & Nour, 2011). Successful organizations choose
implementation targets that best suit their business (Mahraz et al., 2020) and that meet
34

stakeholders’ needs (Mouakket & Nour, 2011) across the whole ERP lifecycle (Rashid et al.,
2018). Once established, management is responsible for communicating the goals to the
organization (Mahraz et al., 2020). Aligned vision and goals are key elements to success
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Project Team and Project Management
Project teams are defined as dedicated individuals, with diverse backgrounds and
disciplines from across the organization, responsible for achieving a successful ERP
implementation that meets management goals and expectations (Mahraz et al., 2020). The
project team is responsible for developing and executing the plan, including completing
project management tasks (Mahraz et al., 2020). Internal ERP teams are regarded as CSFs and
core organizational support required for ERP implementation (Ha & Ahn, 2014). Mahraz et al.
(2020) suggested that team size can vary based on implementation project size and complexity.
In some models, the ERP Team acts as a proxy for management (Ha & Ahn, 2014).
This is especially true when it comes to technical decisions, project management and risk
management required for successful implementation. Martin and Huq (2007) suggested that
management is busy performing the tasks required to operate their business and would prefer
to delegate ERP project management work to a competent project team. In some cases,
management may not have the ERP project management expertise required for successful
implementation and may prefer to delegate to a highly skilled project team (Martin & Huq,
2007).
Implementation Process
The research generally points to two major ERP implementation phases: implementation
and post-implementation (Al-Hinai et al., 2013; Mahraz et al., 2020; Moon, 2007; Shaul &
Tauber, 2013). Typical ERP projects move through a structured process or stages (Mouakket &
35

Nour, 2011) that lead up to the actual system Go-Live, where the software is implemented and
turned on. Stages commonly identified by researchers include planning, understanding the
current state, requirements gathering, configuring and testing the system, and preparing users
(Al-Hinai et al., 2013; Mouakket & Nour, 2011; Shaul & Tauber, 2013). The post-
implementation stage is intended to support the business after implementation and into continued
evolution, including stabilization, continuous improvement and transformation (Al-Hinai et al.,
2013; Shaul & Tauber, 2013).
Al-Hinai et al. (2013) pointed out that implementation stages and their descriptions
vary widely across researchers. A potential reason for the variation is the complexity of ERP
software over its lifecycle, which evolves over time and depends on the organization involved
(Al-Hinai et al., 2013). For ERP systems to be effective, their life cycle needs to extend
beyond Go-Live into iterations of continuous improvement and user skill development (Shaul
& Tauber, 2013). The ERP systems are a way of life that requires alignment across business
strategies, processes, and technologies (Menon et al., 2019). ERP systems should evolve with
the business they enable.
Business Process Re-engineering
Implementing ERPs optimizes business processes, which means that organizations
have to undergo business process re-engineering. The literature (Moon, 2007; Tarhini et al.,
2015) reveals business process re-engineering as another CSF. The competitive advantage
offered by ERP implementation often accompanies the need for business process re-
engineering to fit into the new system functionalities (Tarhini et al., 2015).
Conceptual Framework
Clark and Estes’s (2008) model was used for this study. This framework is well suited to
study stakeholder performance within an organization because it begins with a clearly defined
36

performance goal and works backward to identify the KMO influences needed to achieve the
desired outcome. The model acknowledges that all organizations contain human factors that are
the KMO barriers that primarily contribute to organizational performance issues (Clark & Estes,
2008).
Clark and Estes’s (2008) problem-solving process is based on (a) understanding
stakeholder goals with regard to the organizational goal and (b) identifying assumed performance
influences in the areas of knowledge, motivation and organization based on general theory,
context-specific literature, and an existing understanding of the organization. In this study, Clark
and Estes’s framework was adapted as an innovation needs analysis for management
stakeholders to achieve a successful ERP implementation, which relies on the stakeholder
behaviors that are influenced by KMO factors.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
This review of literature focuses on the KMO influences required for PL1 Team 17 to
achieve their stakeholder performance goal. The performance goal for this specified stakeholder
group of management is to ensure that PL1 Team 17 consistently exhibits the critical leadership
behaviors required for successful ERP implementation by February 2023. Three critical
behaviors are required for a successful ERP implementation identified in Chapter One:
1. Consistently demonstrates positive language about the ERP project. Able to articulate
benefits and answer employee questions. Communicates bi-weekly to direct staff and
quarterly to all employees.
2. Takes action to address employee concerns as they arise. Consistently rewards
employee adoption.
3. Models engaged leadership. Visibly present at ERP events, able to consistently speak
positively about the ERP project, address employee resistance and reward adoption.
37

As outlined in the previous sections and in Table 2, the CSF topics that require Team 17
involvement are management support, change management, and communication. These three
CSF topics link to the three critical behaviors, which, if enacted on a regular basis, will support
successful ERP implementation. This section of Chapter Two discusses the KMO factors that
will support the critical behaviors. According to Clark and Estes’s (2008) framework,
organizational performance increases when individuals have the KMO support to complete tasks
and achieve goals. For leaders to exhibit desired behaviors, they must possess the knowledge and
skills, be motivated to act, and persist due to values, efficacy or personal beliefs and have the
organizational settings or structure to make it possible (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Team 17 Knowledge Influences for ERP Implementation
Knowledge is whether employees know how and have the skill to complete a task (Clark
& Estes, 2008). Clark and Estes (2008) stated that knowledge and skill enhancement are required
to improve organizational performance problem solving. A cumulative taxonomy of knowledge
was first presented by Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) and then revised by Krathwohl (2002) to
break knowledge and skill generation into both a knowledge dimension and a cognitive process
dimension (Krathwohl, 2002). Knowledge and skills can be broken down into category types that
arrange in hierarchical layers from lower order skills, such as factual knowledge, to
metacognitive knowledge, like self-reflection, which is considered a higher order skill
(Krathwohl, 2002).
Factual knowledge is the basic knowledge of facts, terminology, details, and elements
(Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Actual knowledge refers to the basic information an individual
must be familiar with to perform a task or resolve a problem (Rueda, 2011). Conceptual
knowledge, or the knowledge of classifications, categories, principles, theories, and models
(Krathwohl, 2002), is higher order knowledge than factual and is followed by procedural
38

knowledge, where learners have subject-specific skills, algorithms, techniques, methods, and
criteria for determining action (Krathwohl, 2002). Individuals with procedural knowledge know
how to perform a specific task (Rueda, 2011). The highest and most abstract type of knowledge
is metacognitive knowledge, which refers to an individual’s awareness and control of cognitive
tasks in the appropriate setting (Elliot et al., 2017; Krathwohl, 2002).
Cognitive skills also occur in a hierarchical or ordinal order from more simple to complex
(Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Application of knowledge and skills require individuals to have
the knowledge and cognition to apply what they know in a given situation (Rueda, 2011). For
Team 17 to apply the desired behaviors, they need the foundational knowledge and cognition to
know how to apply those skills. The literature review to follow will examine content according
to factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge types. Knowledge types build
on each other to form higher level knowledge and skills in Team 17 that support their critical
behaviors.
Factual Knowledge: Team 17 Needs to Be Able to Remember Facts and Data That Are
Current and Relevant (K-F)
The first knowledge influence has to do with understanding the project facts and concepts
to the extent that leaders can build on those facts and knowledge to demonstrate higher level
skills, such as communicating, answering questions, and addressing resistance. Anderson and
Krathwohl (2001) discussed learning in a hierarchical format, modeled here, beginning with
elements of factual knowledge, or the basic and foundational information that students need to be
familiar with a topic to the extent they can solve problems (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). In the
case of Team 17, they require enough factual knowledge to communicate about the ERP project.
Mahraz et al. (2020) suggested that management has the primary responsibility to
establish clear objectives and goals for the ERP project that will allow the various departments
39

and employees to move in the same direction. The integration of project goals and business
objectives aligned prior to the start of the ERP implementation (Mouakket & Nour, 2011) and
should be clear and easy to measure during the project (Mahraz et al., 2020). Clark and Estes
(2008) discussed aligned vision, goals, and performance measures as key elements to successful
change outcomes. Relevant factual knowledge includes the business vision and project goals,
project components like expectations, project scope, objectives, status and updates, project
schedule and schedule progression (Mahraz et al., 2020).
Conceptual Knowledge: Team 17 Needs to Determine ERP Change Impact to Employees’
Ability to Perform Job Duties (K-C)
Conceptual knowledge is also an influence, defined as the understanding of how basic
elements fit within the larger framework and how they interact together (Krathwohl, 2002). ERP
projects are made up of many complex components that require managers to be involved across
all project phases to ensure the ERP solution aligns with the organizational vision (Boonstra &
Govers, 2009). Team 17 needs conceptual knowledge, including the understanding of ERP of the
project in relation to employees’ existing roles and responsibilities, benefits, and drawbacks
(Finney & Corbett, 2007; Park, 2018). Management should understand enough about the project
components to understand the impact and relevance to the organization.
Organizations experience a high level of disruption and change brought on by an ERP
implementation (Mahraz et al., 2020; Menon et al., 2019; Mouakket & Nour, 2011). According
to Mahraz et al. (2020), ERPs create major organizational change, including staff disruptions and
restructuring, while productivity declines initially post-Go-Live. Leaders should think through
the change in their organizations and devise ways to track and monitor progress during the ERP
project (Mahraz et al., 2020). It is important that the organization's leaders understand the
business contexts around the change so that they can relate to their organization and proactively
40

address concerns (Ghosh & Skibniewski, 2010; Martin & Huq, 2007). Team 17 leaders are in a
position to understand the change and impact on employees and leverage that knowledge to
address questions, concerns, and resistance.
Procedural Knowledge
Understanding the impact on employees while having current, relevant facts about the
ERP strategy and goals, along with project details, will support Team 17 ability to communicate
and address employee questions. Management needs to communicate often (Finney & Corbett,
2007; Park, 2018) and may need to adapt communication strategies based on the organization's
or individual's needs (Martin & Huq, 2007). Krathwohl (2002) defined procedural knowledge as
the how that requires subject-specific skills, techniques and methods and criteria for determining
when to use appropriate procedures.
Team 17 Needs to Know How to Illustrate Positive Communication, Including
Providing Answers to Questions (K-P). When management consistently communicates a
business vision aligned with the ERP strategy and measurable goals, employees are more
motivated to work toward those goals (Finney & Corbett, 2007; Ha & Ahn, 2014; Mahraz et al.,
2020). Management must consistently communicate a clear organizational vision and motivate
employees (Ha & Ahn, 2014). Organizational leaders enhance a group’s belief in their ability to
obtain a goal, such as a successful ERP implementation, when they facilitate goal or metric
attainment (Borgogni et al., 2011). Successful ERP implementation happens with engaged
leaders that attend meetings and integrate the project into the business objectives in a way that
provides a link to the ERP strategy (Finney & Corbett, 2007).
Team 17 requires procedural knowledge, built on both factual and conceptual knowledge,
to effectively communicate to the organization across various stakeholder groups using different
forms of communication. Updates on the ERP project components, status, or milestones in
41

verbal, written (email or agenda) or presentation formats are necessary throughout the project
lifecycle. Team 17’s leadership message will reach into the organization, from the shop floor
technician to the entry-level office associate to the business leaders. Leadership messages must
be timely and relevant to be effective to an organization.
Communicating using positive language about the ERP system improves employee
perception of the ERP system and encourages adoption (Ghosh & Skibniewski, 2010). What
executives say matters, and how they say it greatly influences the culture and their employees’
behaviors (Martin & Huq, 2007). Leaders influence the way their organizations interact
(Borgogni et al., 2011). Management’s language shapes the organization’s acceptance (or
resistance) of the ERP change (Martin & Huq, 2007). In the case of ERP implementations,
leaders who view the system change as positive and speak about the benefits will influence their
organization’s members to embrace the change and participate in the project.
Opportunities for favorable communication exist throughout the project lifecycle. Team
17 interacts with the organization on a minute-by-minute basis; opportunity for communication
exists in staff meetings, all-hands meetings, and one-on-one meetings. Clear communication
helps to dispel pre-existing challenges due to misalignment of expectations, goals, and project
activities (Shaul & Tauber, 2013). Rashid et al. (2018) suggested a culture of respect and trust.
Additionally, other studies (Finney & Corbett, 2007; Mahraz et al., 2020) reveal communication
across all levels as focus areas.
Along with consistent communication, another critical behavior and primary
responsibility is to address resistance (Finney & Corbett, 2007). Martin and Huq (2007)
presented solutions to combat ERP resistance and enable culture change, mostly centering on
management’s role. According to Lin (2010), management support motivates employees and
influences perceived ERP usefulness and system usage. Management’s position puts them in the
42

primary position to identify and address employee concerns through education, empathy, and
answering questions (Ghosh & Skibniewski, 2010). When management addresses concerns
openly and honestly, they build organizational commitment and acceptance (Finney & Corbett,
2007).
Team 17 Needs to Know How to Apply Techniques to Address Employee Resistance
While Rewarding ERP Acceptance (K-P). Addressing ERP resistance requires management to
proactively understand the underlying cultural influences that will negatively influence the
change and develop strategies to address them (Martin & Huq, 2007). As a part of the strategies,
management is responsible for reinforcing and rewarding the right employee behaviors (Martin
& Huq, 2007). Positive employee attitudes about the ERP change will influence their behaviors
(Martin & Huq, 2007), which will, in turn, increase their ERP adoption rate. Many researchers
claim that employees are the primary focus of ERP initiatives, so managing and promoting
employees’ adoption and acceptance should be a primary concern for leaders (Lin, 2010). Ha and
Ahn (2014) concluded that management can affect employee motivation and absorptive capacity
during ERP implementations.
Management garners ERP adoption through communicating using positive language,
including the usefulness and job enhancements (Ghosh & Skibniewski, 2010); ensuring their
organizations are adequately trained and educated on the new system (Martin & Huq, 2007);
and reinforcing and rewarding new employee behaviors (Ghosh & Skibniewski, 2010). In
addition, management that plans for and acknowledges the lengthy learning curve required for
organizational efficiency in the new system reduces employee anxiety and greatly increases
employee adoption (Ghosh & Skibniewski, 2010). Management shapes the organization’s
acceptance of the ERP change when new behaviors are reinforced and rewarded (Martin &
Huq, 2007).
43

Metacognitive Knowledge: Team 17 Needs to Reflect on How Their Critical Leadership
Behaviors Impact the Successful ERP Outcome (K-M)
Metacognitive knowledge is the knowledge of knowing and self-awareness about one’s
knowledge (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Metacognitive knowledge requires an understanding
of organizational context so the individual can apply the appropriate situational action. The
factual, conceptual, and procedural knowledge support Team 17’s ability to assess the impact of
a change on an organization and reflect on its members’ contribution to that change.
Management must recognize and reflect on how its behavior shapes and embeds
organizational culture (Martin & Huq, 2007). Behavioral changes in employees are affected by
attitudes that can be influenced by management (Martin & Huq, 2007). What management says
matters, but how leaders behave and the decisions they make ripple through the culture (Martin
& Huq, 2007). Management’s visible involvement in organizational change initiatives is critical
to project success (Clark & Estes, 2008). According to Borgogni et al. (2011), employees’
perceptions of their supervisor and their behaviors and support in overcoming obstacles
significantly influence the group’s belief in achieving their goal. Employee perceptions of
management’s ability to communicate organizational goals contribute to an employee’s
judgment of a group’s collective belief of achieving their goal or efficacy (Borgogni et al., 2011).
Members of management need to reflect on their role in the ERP implementation, including
acknowledging and re-evaluating their beliefs toward the implementation (Boonstra & Govers,
2009).
Knowledge and Skill Summary
Knowledge and skill enhancement are required to improve organizational performance
(Clark & Estes, 2008). In this section, knowledge influences ranging from factual to
metacognitive were reviewed in relation to Team 17’s needs. For Team 17 to apply the desired
44

behaviors, they need the foundational knowledge to apply those skills. Knowledge types build on
each other to form the higher level skills that generate critical behaviors. Table 3 shows Team
17’s assumed knowledge influences and the related literature.

Table 3
Summary of Assumed Knowledge Influences on Team 17’s Ability to Consistently Demonstrate
the Critical Leadership Behaviors Required for Successful ERP Implementation
Assumed knowledge influences Research literature
Factual
Team 17 needs to be able to remember facts and
data that are current and relevant (K-F).
Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Clark & Estes,
2008; Mahraz et al., 2020; Mouakket &
Nour, 2011
Conceptual
Team 17 needs to determine ERP change impact
on employees’ ability to perform job duties
(K-C).

Boonstra & Govers, 2009; Finney & Corbett,
2007; Ghosh & Skibniewski, 2010;
Krathwohl, 2002; Mahraz et al., 2020;
Martin & Huq, 2007; Menon et al., 2019;
Mouakket & Nour, 2011; Park, 2018
Procedural
Team 17 needs to know how to illustrate
positive communication, including providing
answers to questions (K-P).
Team 17 needs to know how to apply
techniques to address employee resistance
while rewarding ERP acceptance (K-P).
Borgogni et al., 2011; Finney & Corbett,
2007; Ghosh & Skibniewski, 2010; Ha &
Ahn, 2014; Krathwohl, 2002; Lin, 2010;
Mahraz et al., 2020; Martin & Huq, 2007;
Park, 2018; Shaul & Tauber, 2013

Ghosh & Skibniewski, 2010; Ha & Ahn,
2014; Lin, 2010; Martin & Huq, 2007
Metacognitive
Team 17 needs to reflect on how their critical
leadership behaviors impact the successful
ERP outcome (K-M).
Boonstra & Govers, 2009; Borgogni et al.,
2011; Clark & Estes, 2008; Martin & Huq,
2007

45

Team 17 Motivation Influences on ERP Implementation
In addition to Team 17 knowledge and skill influences on ERP implementations,
motivational influences must also be taken into consideration. Knowledge and motivation work
in partnership toward achieving desired outcomes. Clark and Estes (2008) defined motivation as
a psychological process where individuals take action toward achieving the goal or task (active
choice), continue despite obstacles (persistence) and apply the mental effort required to achieve
the goal. In simplified terms, motivation is where goal-orientated activities are initiated and
sustained (Schunk & Usher, 2019). Motivation explains whether employees take action and how
much action and mental effort they will undergo to achieve an organizational goal (Clark &
Estes, 2008). To frame site executive motivation as it relates to achieving a successful ERP
implementation, a literature review of motivation-related influence follows.
Motivation at work is a summation of context-specific, individual experiences and
beliefs, and perceptions about the self and the group’s ability to achieve a goal impact goal
pursuit or avoidance (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Motivation occurs at the individual
stakeholder level and is determined by the value, self-efficacy, mood, and beliefs that the
stakeholder has toward a task or behavior. This study focused on Team 17 outcome expectations.
Outcome expectancy is the belief about the likelihood of valuable reinforcement occurring as a
result of an outcome or behavior (Schunk & Usher, 2019) and self-efficacy, or perceived
capabilities for taking action, persisting and applying mental effort toward a desired outcome
(Bandura, 2006; Schunk & Usher, 2019). When Team 17 takes on new behaviors, they need the
knowledge and motivation to apply these in a new task or action. The knowledge and skills
acquired by Team 17 are paired with motivational influences designed to keep leaders engaged
and moving toward the organizational goal.
46

Outcome Expectancy Influence
Outcome expectancy is a combination of two factors, the expectancy, or belief that
reinforcement will occur following an outcome and value, the value placed on reinforcement in
relation to the respective outcome (Schunk & Usher, 2019). Combined, outcome expectancy
determines if the task, action, effort, or behavior is worth the reward or acknowledgement for
achieving the desired outcome. Outcome expectations include positive and negative physical,
social, and self-evaluative outcomes (Bandura, 2006).
The outcome expectancy influence examined was that Team 17 needs to believe the ERP
project benefits them (and their interests). ERP system implementations are strategic (Tarhini et
al., 2015) in nature, given that they are often the largest initiative ever undertaken by an
organization (Moon, 2007). These implementations are complex, costly and require resources
with management support to complete (Mahraz et al., 2020; Martin & Huq, 2007; Mouakket &
Nour, 2011). Organizational leaders are unlikely to make the investment required for
implementation without the belief of benefit and payback of long-term outcome expectations.
Outcome expectations have been shown to support sustained behaviors over adversity when the
belief exists that the actions will result in the organizational goal (Schunk & Usher, 2019).
Leaders who believe the project benefits them are more likely to make the sustained, long-term
investment required for implementation.
Management often has a clear interest in successful implementations, and its involvement
brings power and legitimacy to the project (Boonstra & Govers, 2009). Before ERP can start,
leadership must believe the solution improves the business and provides benefit. Team 17 needs
to believe that the actions they and their organization are taking will lead to a successful
implementation. When they believe there will be a positive outcome for them, they are more
47

likely to be engaged and stay engaged for the duration of the project lifecycle (Schunk & Usher,
2019).
Self-Efficacy Influences
Self-efficacy, the confidence in individuals’ ability to perform a task, influences
motivation and affects personal choices, effort, persistence, and goal attainment (Schunk &
Usher, 2019). When individuals have perceived self-efficacy, they have the belief in their ability
to attain a goal or complete a task (Bandura, 2006). Self-efficacy is a key determinant of
behavioral outcomes (Schunk & Usher, 2019). Efficacy influences the actions people take, the
challenges and goals they set, where they direct their attention, how much effort they exert, the
outcomes they expect, and how long they persevere (Bandura, 2006). An individual’s belief in
their ability to perform a task directly influences their ability to successfully take action, persist,
and apply the mental effort necessary to achieve the desired outcome (Bandura, 2006). Efficacy
beliefs influence an individual’s outlook on a task (Bandura, 2006). According to Clark and
Estes (2008), people with positive outlooks who believe they are capable achieve significantly
more than those who lack self-efficacy.
The self-efficacy influence examined was that Team 17 needs to have self-efficacy in
their ability to perform the critical behaviors that will influence the organization’s ability to
achieve the goal. Team 17 needs self-efficacy to perform the critical leadership behaviors right
now. Successful ERP implementations require commitment from stakeholders (Menon et al.,
2019). For Team 17 to demonstrate commitment, they will need to actively perform the critical
leadership behaviors as they answer questions, address resistance and reward adoption. High
self-efficacy is vital for successful functioning and proficient performance (Bandura, 2006). For
Team 17 to consistently demonstrate critical leadership behaviors, they need the perceived self-
efficacy to persist and routinely execute. They need to be confident in their ability to perform the
48

critical behaviors right now, both routinely and sporadically, when the need arises. The criticality
of management support echoes across the literature (Finney & Corbett, 2007). Management
support, commitment, and prioritization during the ERP project are cited repeatedly as a CSF
(Finney & Corbett, 2007; Lin, 2010; Martin & Huq, 2007; Tarhini et al., 2015). Management
plays a significant role in the project’s success (Finney & Corbett, 2007; Mouakket & Nour,
2011; Ravnikar, 2010; Shaul & Tauber, 2013; Tarhini et al., 2015).
Motivation Influence Summary
Motivation influences were reviewed in relation to Team 17’s needs. For Team 17 to
apply the desired behaviors, they need to be motivated to achieve a successful ERP
implementation where their customers are not disrupted. To be motivated, Team 17 needs to
believe the implementation benefits them and that the business is better off post-implementation,
given the duration, cost, complexity, and pain felt by organizations during implementation. Team
17 needs the confidence to lead their organizations through a successful implementation by
performing critical behaviors, change management, and communicating regularly. Table 4 shows
Team 17’s assumed motivation influences and the related literature.

49

Table 4
Summary of Assumed Motivation Influences on Team 17’s Ability to Consistently Demonstrate
the Critical Leadership Behaviors Required for Successful ERP Implementation
Assumed motivation influences Research literature
Outcome expectancy
Team 17 needs to believe the ERP project
benefits them and their interests.
Bandura, 2006; Boonstra & Govers, 2009; Clark &
Estes, 2008; Mahraz et al., 2020; Martin & Huq,
2007; Moon, 2007; Mouakket & Nour, 2011;
Schunk & Usher, 2019; Tarhini et al., 2015
Self-efficacy
Team 17 needs to have the self-efficacy to
achieve a successful ERP
implementation.
Bandura, 2006; Finney & Corbett, 2007; Lin, 2010;
Mahraz et al., 2020; Martin & Huq, 2007; Menon
et al., 2019; Mouakket & Nour, 2011; Ravnikar,
2010; Shaul & Tauber, 2013; Schunk & Usher,
2019; Tarhini et al., 2015

Team 17 Organizational Influences on ERP Implementation
For individuals and organizations to achieve desired outcomes, they must have the
necessary organizational support factors (Clark & Estes, 2008). According to social cognitive
theory, which is grounded in the social environment, personal and environmental factors have a
reciprocal influence on each other (Schunk & Usher, 2019). Even highly skilled and motivated
employees can have performance gaps due to a lack of organizational processes and resources
(Clark & Estes, 2008). High self-efficacy will not result in performance changes without the
right environment (Schunk & Usher, 2019). Organizational barriers, including culture, work
process, tools, policies, and resources, contribute to performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008).
This literature will review the resource requirements and cultural settings (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001) that need to be in place to support Team 17 and ERP implementation
outcome success.
50

Cultural Models and Settings
Cultural models and settings are types of environmental factors that typically go hand in
hand. Cultural models are considered to be familiar, invisible, and unnoticed by those who
experience them, except when visiting a culture with different models (Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2001). Cultural settings are defined as occurring when two or more people work to achieve a
goal over time (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) pointed to
the premise that culture exists (and is created) in settings where people come together to carry
out a joint activity that accomplishes something they value. In the case of this study, cultural
settings are present in terms of organizational resources, staffing and funding available to Team
17. Additionally, the cultural setting of management commitment, including engagement, and
addressing resistance and commitment of resources, is required for successful ERP
implementation.
Team 17 Needs an Empowered and Effective Project Team to Execute the ERP
Implementation. Ghosh and Skibniewski (2010) proposed that executives should have
extensive technical and project knowledge to successfully adopt an ERP software system.
However, others (Martin & Huq, 2007) suggested that the level of expertise required for a
system implementation within an existing organization may not be realistic. An empowered
and effective project team has adequate funding and effective project management, change
management, and communication strategies (Boonstra & Govers, 2009; Ghosh & Skibniewski,
2010; Shaul & Tauber, 2013). Given the complexity of ERP projects, an empowered project
team is needed to work with multiple stakeholders to achieve business goals (Shaul & Tauber,
2013). The literature (Ghosh & Skibniewski, 2010; Shaul & Tauber, 2013) reveals that both
the project manager and the project team need to be empowered to make decisions and execute
plans, especially in cases where they are delegated by management. Project managers (and
51

team) should be empowered to define a realistic plan with milestones and the required
resources and ensure interdepartmental cooperation (Shaul & Tauber, 2013). The use of a
capable change manager who can lead and guide a change management strategy is also
recommended (Boonstra & Govers, 2009).
Organizational resources come in many forms: staffing, funding, knowledge and skills,
incentives, and training. Adequate funding and dedicated resources coupled with project
management, or the use of knowledge and coordination to schedule, monitor and complete
tasks, are required to ensure implementation objectives are met (Finney & Corbett, 2007;
Mahraz et al., 2020). Formal project management includes planning tasks and assigning
resources while focusing on risks and meeting the timeline (Finney & Corbett, 2007; Mahraz
et al., 2020). According to Finney and Corbett (2007), establishing a steering committee as a
part of the project management to monitor the implementation progress is a best practice.
Steering committees provide an avenue for management to be involved in organizational
strategies related to the ERP change (Martin & Huq, 2007).
Team 17 Needs to Be Part of a Culture Where Management Is Committed to the
ERP Change. The research shows that management support throughout the implementation is a
CSF (Finney & Corbett, 2007; Mouakket & Nour, 2011; Ravnikar, 2010; Shaul & Tauber, 2013;
Tarhini et al., 2015). Implementing ERPs involves major organizational changes that require
organizational buy-in (Menon et al., 2019). Management sits in a critical organizational position
that allows direct influence over the project’s success (Ifinedo & Nahar, 2007) by legitimizing
the implementation (Boonstra & Govers, 2009), directing resources (Ravnikar, 2010), and
motivating employee participation (Lin, 2010). Managers need to remain publicly committed
throughout the project and educated on the implementation concepts and status (Lin, 2010).
52

Management commitment to an organizational goal is demonstrated through the
commitment of their personal time and resources (Lin, 2010; Mouakket & Nour, 2011).
Management must prioritize the ERP implementation as a strategic business goal and assign
the required resources. (Ravnikar, 2010). Multiple studies revealed management support in
terms of personal active participation (Ha & Ahn, 2014) and allocating appropriate resources
(Lin, 2010). Commitment from Team 17 includes the commitment of their personal time,
including being physically present during meetings, events, and training. Team 17 needs to
dedicate personal time and support to the implementation.
During ERP implementations, management performs a change management leadership
role, which is defined by leadership actions and behaviors that promote adaptive behavior in
employees (Martin & Huq, 2007). Cultural acceptance of the system begins with perceived
management support (Meng & Zhao, 2017) and is reinforced when leaders address
organizational challenges and resistance (Lin, 2010). Management can influence the culture
positively toward the adoption of the new ERP (Lin, 2010) by visibly showing support.
Members of Team 17 who are committed, visible and optimistic about the implementation will
promote those views and beliefs among other executives and employees. Team 17 needs to
communicate frequently and positively about the project.
Achieving implementation success relies on employee adoption of the new system
(Ifinedo & Nahar, 2007). Employee adoption goes more smoothly when there is a positive
climate or cultural view associated with the new ERP (Ifinedo & Nahar, 2007). Organizations
undergoing these implementations must make cultural and organizational changes to increase
employee buy-in and commitment (Martin & Huq, 2007) while avoiding resistance and
sabotage (Ifinedo & Nahar, 2007). Team 17 needs to play an active role in handling employee
resistance during implementation (Martin & Huq, 2007).
53

According to Lin (2010), ERPs should be centered on users and the adoption of the
new system. User adoption is influenced by perceived system usefulness, which is directly
influenced by management (Lin, 2010). One way management motivates users is by promoting
and recognizing employees as they learn new behaviors (Martin & Huq, 2007) and adopt the
new system. Management support means recognizing and rewarding employees for their role
in the implementation (Ghosh & Skibniewski, 2010). Team 17 needs to take an active role in
recognizing and rewarding employee adoption.
Organization Influence Summary
For Team 17 to apply the desired behaviors, they need to be part of an organization with
cultural models and settings that support and enable a successful ERP implementation. The
setting includes a competent, staffed, and funded project team to execute the CSFs required so
that Team 17 only has to demonstrate the critical behaviors toward the ERP project. The right
organizational setting works with the right model, where management remains publicly
committed to the project (Lin, 2010). Management sets the cultural tone and priorities and
demonstrates behaviors to the organization. A cultural setting where leadership is supportive of
the ERP change will build and reciprocate on itself and the organization and increase the
likelihood of a successful outcome. A successful implementation begins with a visible and
committed leadership team. Table 5 shows Team 17’s assumed organizational influences and the
related literature.

54

Table 5
Summary of Assumed Organization Influences on Team 17’s Ability to Consistently Demonstrate
the Critical Leadership Behaviors Required for Successful ERP Implementation
Assumed organization influences Research literature
Cultural settings
Team 17 needs an effective project team
to execute the ERP implementation.

Boonstra & Govers, 2009; Finney & Corbett,
2007; Ghosh & Skibniewski, 2010; Mahraz et al.,
2020; Martin & Huq, 2007; Shaul & Tauber,
2013
Cultural models
Team 17 needs to be part of a culture
where management is committed to the
ERP change.
Boonstra & Govers, 2009; Finney & Corbett,
2007; Ghosh & Skibniewski, 2010; Ha & Ahn,
2014; Ifinedo & Nahar, 2007; Lin, 2010; Martin
& Huq, 2007; Meng & Zhao, 2017; Mouakket &
Nour, 2011; Park, 2018; Ravnikar, 2010; Shaul &
Tauber, 2013; Tarhini et al., 2015

Chapter Two Summary
In this chapter, the literature surrounding ERP history, implementation challenges and
strategies for increasing success was reviewed. The research suggests that commitment and
support from management is the most important contributor to implementation success or
failure (Finney & Corbett, 2007; Lin, 2010; Martin & Huq, 2007). This means that successful
ERP implementations are highly reliant on committed and involved stakeholders, who take an
active role in the organizational change process and consistently demonstrate critical
leadership behaviors. Management behavior is influenced by the KMO factors outlined in this
chapter. The literature presented various aspects of these influences and was used as a
foundation for data collection in Chapter Three.

55

Chapter Three: Methods
This innovation study conducted a needs analysis to provide recommendations in the
areas of knowledge and skill, motivation, and organizational resources necessary for Team 17
to consistently demonstrate the critical leadership behaviors required for successful ERP
implementation. Team 17 are the accountability directors who influence the project’s
priority, validate the project, and determine success. This chapter presents the research design
and methods for data collection and data analysis, guided by these questions:
1. What are Team 17 knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization needs
required for consistent demonstration of the identified leadership behaviors
required for successful ERP implementation?
2. What are the recommended knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
solutions?
This chapter begins with a revisit to the Team 17 stakeholder group justified
previously in Chapter One. Then the conceptual and methodological frameworks are
presented, followed by the sampling criterion and participant recruitment strategy. Next, the
data are discussed, including the rationale behind the data and collection methods,
instrumentation, and data analysis methodology. This is followed by a discussion of study
credibility, trustworthiness, validity, and reliability. Finally, Chapter Three closes with
considerations of ethics, as well as limitations and delimitations of the study.
Conceptual Framework
Team 17 knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs and influences were assessed
using Clark and Estes’s (2008) KMO gap analysis conceptual framework. Clark and Estes’s
framework identifies gaps in organizational and stakeholder performance and begins with clearly
defined goals. The model works backward through achievement gaps and causes, which are
56

KMO factors. Once causes are identified, solutions are presented and implemented. The
implemented solutions reciprocate among individuals and their environments to create an
environment where people learn, and behaviors are reinforced. Those behaviors will then
produce outcomes that can be compared to the defined organizational goals and, thus, start the
problem-solving process all over again. Figure 2 represents the conceptual framework for the
study integrating knowledge and skills and motivational and organizational influences.

Figure 2
Clark and Estes’s Gap Analysis Model

Note. Adapted from Turning Research Into Results: A Guide to Selecting the Right Performance
Solutions by R. E. Clark, & F. Estes, 2008, Information Age Publishing. Copyright 2008 by
Information Age Publishing.

57

Figure 2 represents the conceptual framework for the study integrating KMO influences
described in Chapters One and Two, adapted from Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis model.
Closing organizational performance gaps requires establishing a goal, assessing the gaps, and
implementing solutions that include personal and behavioral factors inside an environment. The
model illustrates how both needs assessments and solution implementations are equally
subjected to personal, behavioral, and environmental factors, which will evolve over time as the
organization addresses its KMO gaps to achieve performance goals.
Overview of Design
The study, centered on Team 17’s KMO influences, attempted to answer the research
questions related to stakeholder needs and provide recommendations to support the
organizational goals. The study consisted of a survey, interviews, observations, and document
review that targeted the 17 members of Team 17. Table 6 presents the data sources for each
research question.

Table 6
Research Questions and Data Sources
Research questions Survey Interview Observation
Document
review
RQ1: What are Team 17’s knowledge
and skills, motivation, and
organization needs required to
achieve successful ERP
implementation?
X X X X
RQ2: What are the knowledge and
skills, motivation, and organizational
recommendations that can be made to
Team 17 to achieve their goal?
X X X X
58

Study Timing
The PL1 ERP implementation project took place in five phases over 15 months. The
timing of the study occurred roughly in the middle of the project, seven months before Go-Live
Given the timing of the study, there was time to intervene and influence Team 17 behaviors
before the May 1, 2023, Go-Live date. The recommendations presented as a result of the study
will also be used in future WidgetCo ERP implementations. Figure 3 demonstrates the timing of
the study in relation to the PL1 project schedule.

Figure 3
Study Timing in Relation to PL1 Project Schedule

59

Participating Stakeholders
Because ERP system implementations impact the entire organization, they have multiple
stakeholders at various levels of the organization. Team 17 was this study’s primary focus, given
their central organizational position between the customer, executive leaders, and resources. As
the primary relationship manager with the customer, Team 17 consists of the accountability
directors who influence the priority and sustainability of the ERP system implementation. Team
17 has the majority opinion when it comes to determining ERP implementation success and
benefits most from effective business processes and accurate, reliable data. The members of
Team 17 are managers identified in the literature (Acar et al., 2017; Finney & Corbett, 2007; Ha
& Ahn, 2014; Mahraz et al., 2020; Moon, 2007), whose support is one of the most CSFs in
determining ERP implementation success.
The target population for this study was Team 17, the functional and value stream leaders
of PL1. Team 17 members are generally local to the NW United States or SEA locations. Team
17 makes up the leadership team of PL1 and has direct line reporting over the site resources,
including the future ERP system users and their management. Team 17 has the highest potential
to impact the success of the ERP implementation, given the team’s organizational position and
influence. Therefore, Team 17 was the focus of this study.
Survey Sampling Criteria, Strategy, and Rationale
The leadership team of PL1, or Team 17, was comprised of 17 members located in both
the NW and SEA locations. Leaders from both locations were included in the survey. This
innovation study is based on Team 17’s knowledge, skills, motivation, and organizational
influences related to critical leadership behaviors; therefore, the entire group was targeted for the
survey. Team 17 directly correlates to the management referenced throughout the literature.
60

For the survey, all Team 17 members were sought after for participation. Team 17 was
the management that, according to Borgogni et al. (2011), influenced the organizational beliefs
that the group could achieve its goals. Given the population size at the time of this study, the
study took advantage of the full group size of 17 members who were accessible to me and
yielded a manageable volume of data. A high response rate of 80% was targeted to have enough
quantitative data to answer the research questions.
Participants were recruited using an email that was sent at the start of the study window
following institutional review board (IRB) approval. I sent the email to all participants using the
blind copy field to ensure their anonymity and confidentiality. In the email, which was sent to
each participant’s work email address, there was an explanation of the study along with a link to
the Qualtrics survey. The survey was taken using the Qualtrics online website and was accessed
electronically by participants after they clicked on the survey link provided in the email. The
recruitment email is provided in Appendix A.
A convergent mixed-methods study, where qualitative and quantitative research is
collected within close proximity and then merged to provide a comprehensive analysis and
review of the research problem (Creswell & Creswell, 2018), was used due to the limited time
frame of the study. Interviews were conducted immediately following the survey and were
focused on a subgroup of the Team 17 population.
Interview Sampling Criteria, Strategy, and Rationale
All 17 members of Team 17 were invited to participate in individual interviews. I then
down-selected participants to eight, with two from the SEA population and six from the NW
population to accurately reflect the geographical makeup of Team 17. Stratifying the samples
across subgroups and locations proportionate to the group's makeup has the potential to identify
subgroup trends or relevant correlations.
61

Purposeful sampling, or targeting a specific group with unique attributes, was used for
interviews (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Team 17 consists of 17 leaders, 12 in the NW and five in
the SEA location. The interview population was selected so that the ratio of leaders’ interviews
accurately reflected the proportion of leaders in the organization. The population was also
convenient based on the timing and accessibility of respondents (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The
sample was also stratified to ensure specific characteristics of interviewees (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018) so that participants proportionally reflected the traits, locations, and behaviors of
the entire group. Stratification in this study meant including Team 17 across both the NW and
SEA locations to represent a blend of observable leadership engagement. Forty-seven percent (n
= 8) of Team 17 members were interviewed as a part of a two-tier sampling strategy (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016), limiting the sample to a manageable size given the study window.
Participants were recruited using an email sent at the start of the study window and
following IRB approval. The email was sent using the blind copy field to ensure anonymity and
confidentiality among the participants. The email contained a request for participants to opt in to
an interview. Participants were asked to respond to the email if they wanted to participate in the
interview. Once identified, the eight potential interviewees received an email invitation to their
work email address, inviting them to accept or decline the interview meeting invitation. The
email invitation is provided in Appendix A. Appendix B presents the information for exempt
research that was provided to all participants.
Interview timing and access to participants were based on a timeline to support the study.
Interviews were held within the same timeframe as other study methods and were part of a
convergent mixed-methods approach (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Seven of the eight interviews
were conducted virtually, and one was conducted in person. All interviews utilized a software
transcript feature to record the interview.
62

Observation Sampling Criteria, Strategy, and Rationale
Team 17 was observed in virtual meeting environments due to the nature of the
organization. Because of the multi-site locations of the business, it was common to have virtual
meetings over Zoom. During the period of the study, there were several virtual meetings where I
observed Team 17 for engagement, attendance, and behaviors. I observed members from both
the SEA and NW locations for their attendance, ability to answer employee questions, and
overall attitude about the ERP project.
Observations took place during both virtual meetings and in person at planned times
based on my availability to travel to both locations. Observations were aimed at 80% of the 17
Team members. I observed Team 17 during ERP-related activities, increasing the likelihood that
questions regarding the project would come up while observing individual behaviors and the
group dynamic. Observations were made and used in triangulation. Observations were conducted
throughout the study window along with other research methods as a part of the convergent
mixed-methods approach. Appendix C presents the KMO crosswalk for the study.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
The research design was convergent mixed methods, which combines quantitative and
qualitative research by integrating data and using a research design that includes theoretical
frameworks (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In convergent design, the data collection is
conducted in a similar timeframe and combined for analysis and findings (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). Better solutions arise with a combination of statistical data and open-ended
questions (Fink, 2017).
Quantitative research collects data using instruments (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Surveys used in quantitative research provide an understanding of trends within a population
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Variables can include attributes, attitudes, or behaviors that can
63

be measured, turned into data, and statistically analyzed (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Alternatively, qualitative research, or qualitative inquiry, investigates how individuals interpret
and make meaning from their experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Qualitative research
attempts to explore social problems and understand the meaning that individuals assign to
them (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Qualitative research is based on the premise that people
construct knowledge continuously as they engage in an environment and assign meaning
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Qualitative research involves data collected in the participants’
setting, which the researcher then interprets and analyzes for meaning and findings (Creswell
& Creswell, 2018).
Mixed-methods research assumes that combining qualitative and quantitative data
produces greater insight and recommendations while combining methods helps to reduce
biases (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Data sources were surveys, interviews, observations, and
documents. Triangulation, or the use of multiple methods, confirmed findings, created
explanations, and assigned meaning (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Validation of findings occurred throughout the research (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This
section of Chapter Three presents a rationale for the data sources, along with an explanation of
instrumentation, administration, and analysis methods.
Survey
Surveys are a popular tool used to solicit data from people (Fink, 2017). Surveys collect
quantitative data and measure attributes and characteristics, knowledge and abilities, attitudes,
beliefs, and feelings (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). The purpose and type of survey can be far-
ranging, from surveys that produce general results to those that are statistically significant (Fink,
2017). Accurate survey data begins with careful consideration of the survey design, including
question and response choices, sampling approach, response rate and data analysis (Fink, 2017).
64

This study included a survey, or a series of questions designed to collect data from a
group or population (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). The survey was made up of closed-ended
questions, some with a specific set of response choices and others on an ordinal scale, meaning
that they were measured from strongly agree to strongly disagree (Salkind, 2014). Additionally,
open-ended questions that were open-text fields required participants to respond. Open-ended
questions require interpretation (Fink, 2017). Survey items were developed from the theories of
learning, motivation and organizational influences and related literature findings in Chapter Two,
which supports the validity of this survey (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The study used a convergent mixed-methods approach (Creswell & Creswell, 2018),
given the time limitations. Choosing an adequate and reflective population to administer a survey
to is a critical step in the design process (Fink, 2017; Robinson & Leonard, 2019). To maximize
reliability, the survey was offered to all Team 17 members and was self-administered (Fink,
2017) online for convenience. At the same time, on the same day, participants received an email
invitation to their work email address with a Qualtrics.com link to the survey. Additionally, I
sent them follow-up reminder emails. The survey was accessed electronically and anonymously.
The survey is located in Appendix D.
Interviews
I interviewed eight participants, both virtually and in person, to elicit depth of opinions
and insights (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Interviews are a data collection technique for
qualitative research that can be described as a systematic intentional conversation with a purpose
centered on questions addressing a research study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Good interviews
require introducing the interview, asking good questions, and then evaluating the data and
interaction between the interviewee and researcher (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Interviews should
allow the researcher to step into the interviewee’s perspective (Patton, 2002) and obtain
65

information specific to someone else’s perspective and are needed to explain behavior, feelings
and opinions that are otherwise unobservable (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
To keep the study manageable and aligned with the time window, a subset of Team 17
was interviewed in a stratified sample (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). I used two-tier sampling, or
sampling within an identified study group (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), for interviewing. The
interviewees were a subset of eight Team 17 across PL1, with two coming from the SEA and six
from the NW location, across varying levels of engagement. Individual interviews provided
comfort, anonymity, and convenience for participants.
Interview questions were open-ended, allowing participants an opportunity to answer in
their own words (Patton, 2002). Questions were structured to highlight the KMO influences that
may have influenced the stakeholder experience and perceived successful outcome. The
interview format was semistructured and guided by questions intended to answer the research
questions while maintaining flexibility in wording and order to allow the interview to flow
conversationally (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Semistructured interviews also allow for new ideas
to be explored as they arise (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) and for prior responses to be reviewed or
clarified (Patton, 2002). Survey questions ranged in type and build from sensory and background
to questions related to knowledge, feelings, opinions, experience, and behavior that were
intended to stimulate participants’ responses (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I used probes, or
follow-up questions, to clarify and learn more about a topic (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton,
2002).
The interview questions were structured to probe Team 17 knowledge, skills, motivation,
and organizational influences connected with targeted leadership behaviors as concepts,
perceptions, and direct experiences. The location and method of interviews were both in person
and on Zoom.gov. I took handwritten notes during the interviews and documented any follow-on
66

questions, observations, and nonverbal behavior. The interviews aimed to inform both research
questions from the perspective of Team 17 within the study’s conceptual framework. Participants
received an email meeting notice to confirm their interview participation. The interview protocol
is located in Appendix E.
Observation
Interviews and observations are primary sources of data in qualitative research (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). Interviews and surveys focus on the participants, whereas observation focuses
on the researcher’s experience (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Observations take place in the setting
of the participants being observed, and the observational data are considered to be first-hand data
versus the second-hand data obtained in interviews (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Observations
record real data and events in real-time and can provide insight into a social setting or event that
has become routine (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Observations are also used to triangulate
findings in research studies (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Observations for this study were done both virtually and in person. Observations in
person were limited to the time I was on location as well as the meeting schedule during the
study window. Virtual observations took place during major project reviews, monthly status
meetings, and one training course. I took the role of being a participant as observer, where my
activities were known to the group but were secondary to the researcher-participant role in the
group (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This data-collection method requires that the researcher be
present and involved in the field setting’s regular activities (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Observations were focused on Team 17 behaviors, comments, individual and group interactions,
and nonverbal behaviors related to the support and engagement of executives in the ERP project.
Observers have the potential to be intrusive (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), and during this
study, I had a high probability of being distracting, given my role as the ERP project lead for
67

WidgetCo. I took steps to minimize presence and interactions by minimizing my leadership role
during meetings. I took field notes and summative notes following each observation, along with
my reflections, as part of the data analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The template used for
field notes is attached in Appendix F.
Documents and Artifacts
The fourth data source was documents and artifacts. Document collection and review is
another form of qualitative research (Creswell & Creswell, 2018) that is systematically guided by
questions and relies on the skill and intuition of the researcher (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Documents reviewed for the study were attendance records, meeting minutes, and presentation
material to contribute to the broader understanding of Team 17 interacting with the ERP project
and their organizations. I utilized historical documents to understand Team 17 level of
engagement, which was a determining factor in the subgroup of interview candidates. Appendix
G presents the document analysis protocol.
Data Analysis
Data analysis occurred following data collection and began with a cursory review of the
data. The four data methods yielded both qualitative and quantitative data. I used a data mapping
table to ensure the data accurately represented what the study sought to measure (Salkind, 2014).
The table connected the conceptual framework topics to KMO influences and to survey,
interview, observation, and document data types.
The survey produced quantitative data, which has been presented using the data from
Qualtrics in tables and figures from Google Sheets. I used statistics to analyze the data where
appropriate, including the mode, or most frequently occurring, the weighted mean, or frequency
of values, and the average (Salkind, 2014).
68

Interviews, observations, and document reviews produced qualitative data. Qualitative
research derives data from words, observations, and documents, which are then coded, or
summarized and grouped by theme (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Once coded to the a priori items
that correspond to influences, I transferred the data into Google Sheets to analyze them. The
qualitative and quantitative data were combined to generate themes and findings to answer the
research questions regarding the knowledge and skill, motivation, and organization needs that
enable the desirable leadership behaviors of Team 17.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Trustworthy research that produces ethical, valid, and reliable knowledge is critically
important because of its influence on people’s lives (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Valid and
reliable studies are conducted ethically and depend on the ethics of the investigator (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Study results are useful if they are considered valid and accepted as correct (Fink,
2017). Ethical practices such as doing no harm, using informed participant consent, and
protecting subjects increase the study's trustworthiness (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Informed
consent implies the participant is willing to complete the survey because they understand its
purpose, potential risks, or benefits and how privacy will be handled (Fink, 2017).
The data’s trustworthiness is directly tied to the researchers who design and administer
the data collection (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Qualitative data collection relies on humans as
data collection instruments, especially in observations, which introduces risks and potential
threats to the findings’ credibility and trustworthiness (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Asking clear
and understandable questions in language and terms the interviewee understands (Patton, 2002)
reduces the threat to findings.
Given my position in the organization, I took intentional proactive measures, such as not
pressuring participants and respecting the potential power imbalances (Creswell & Creswell,
69

2018). Pre-existing rapport already existed between the interviewees and me, so my neutrality,
meaning that whatever the interviewee said would not affect my opinion of that individual
(Patton, 2002), was important during the research. I leveraged the existing rapport to use
feedback and reinforcement during the interview, letting the interviewee know the extent to
which they were contributing to the study (Patton, 2002).
I come from inside the problem with pre-dispositioned views and biases. To increase
study trustworthiness, I used my position disclaimer to describe my bias and assumptions
affecting the answers and outcomes (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The goal was to eliminate
researcher bias as much as possible, so I intentionally took proactive steps prior to conducting
qualitative research, such as reflection on bias and a personal review of the intended outcome.
During data collection, I focused on the study’s benefits, recording facts and field notes that were
not harmful and not interfering with the environment (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
An additional threat to the study's credibility is the use of sampling in interviews
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This study aimed to sample Team 17 across a representative range of
locations and leadership engagement based on observable behaviors to accurately reflect the
Team 17 population.
Validity and Reliability
Reliable surveys produce consistent results, and a valid survey produces accurate results
(Fink, 2017). Studies must be valid and reliable to have an impact on a field (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Internal validity, or credibility, is concerned with how research findings reflect reality
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A valid research study measures what it intends to measure (Salkind,
2014), whereas reliability is the consistency or repeatability of a data-collection method or tool
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Salkind, 2014). Reliability can mean the reliability of the survey
70

scale over time (Creswell & Creswell, 2018) or the reliability of the tool to produce conclusive
results (Salkind, 2014).
Validity in a convergent mixed method study requires quantitative and qualitative
validity, both in construct and triangulation (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Validity and reliability
concerns can be addressed through study design and how data is collected, analyzed, and
summarized (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). What makes a study valid and reliable varies depending
on the nature of the study. Quantitative studies need to demonstrate process rigor, while
qualitative studies need to make sense to the reader (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The study design has taken both reliability and validity into account. The concept of
parallel reliability, where the same theory is tested over different forms (Salkind, 2014), was
used in that the same research questions were considered over different data sources. In addition,
the KMO influences have been mapped to survey, interview, observation, and artifact
components to establish relationships (Maxwell, 2013) and to help prevent divergence between
qualitative and quantitative findings (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Utilizing a sample size that adequately reflects the population supports the validity of a
study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Given the population size of 17, the study targeted a high
response rate to yield a high confidence rate (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). I administered the
survey using Qualtrics, a well-known online tool that ensured a uniform survey with questions
administered in the same way to all participants and added reliability and validity to the survey
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018), including standardized and clear instructions (Salkind, 2014).
Triangulation, using multiple data sources, was used as a key strategy to increase the credibility
and validity of the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016)
Triangulation was used to increase the trustworthiness of the study. Triangulation
involves using multiple sources of data to compare outcomes (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Data
71

were collected in surveys, interviews, observations, and artifact reviews. I compared and
triangulated the data to increase the findings’ reliability (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Ethics
Ethics in research is essential and should be included throughout the research (Maxwell,
2013). Ethical research is made up of valid, reliable findings that are credible and trustworthy.
Researchers need to take ethical considerations and ensure that participants are protected and
develop trust and guard against harm or misconduct (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In this study,
there were minimal potential threats or harm to the participants. The subject matter for the
survey, interviews, and observations was not sensitive in nature or particularly intrusive. The
members of Team 17 have contextual awareness of WidgetCo’s ERP strategy and the
understanding that PL1’s ERP project is a learning opportunity for the multiple follow-on ERP
projects. Additionally, Team 17 was accustomed to answering surveys and providing feedback
without fear of retaliation because of corporate policies and culture.
I articulated, both verbally and nonverbally, the purpose of the study. I provided an
information sheet in writing to all participants that stated the key components of informed
consent, including voluntary participation, the right to withdraw, and information on
participation risks and/or benefits. Additionally, I gained the necessary permission (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018) from WidgetCo’s executive leaders, human resources, and legal department to
use the data for the study.
Surveys and interviews were opt-in for all participants. The surveys collected through
Qualtrics Insight Platform were stored in an account only accessible to me. Survey answers were
anonymous, as the participants provided no identifiable information, and only I had access to the
data. Alternatively, interviews were not anonymous; however, results were reported
anonymously. I saved transcripts on the hard drive of the computer, which was password-
72

protected. While the nature of the topic was not overly sensitive, participant confidentiality was
maintained. Published and communicated findings do not connect individual Team 17 to the
results.
Role of Investigator
I am a member of WidgetCo’s ERP project team, with the responsibility to execute
WidgetCo’s ERP strategy. The participants were my peers in the organization, and they were
viewed as customers in the ERP implementation process. Participation was voluntary and was
explained, both verbally and nonverbally, in writing in the information sheet provided to all
participants. I interacted with Team 17 both in person and in virtual meetings on a regular basis,
given the on-going real-time ERP project.
My pre-established relationship with the participants increased the potential influence of
my position, or how my position affected the research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This position
could have threatened the validity of the data if interviewees felt influenced to answer in any way
other than what was truthful to them. I have a vested interest in improving the likelihood of
successful ERP implementations in support of WidgetCo’s initiative. I am not emotionally
connected to the outcome and view the findings from this study, as key data points, regardless of
their nature, will support future projects. Data triangulation across the four data sources helped to
limit potential researcher bias along with a researcher’s position disclaimer (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016).
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations and delimitations exist in every study. In this case, the major limitation was
the time restriction for the study on top of two business locations. The time restriction created
multiple limitations, the first of which was the limited time for the study to be performed to meet
graduation deadlines. The research schedule also overlayed PL1’s ERP project schedule. Based
73

on my knowledge of the implementation process, there was an ideal window to assess Team 17
needs based on the ERP project phase. Fortunately, the two time windows somewhat overlapped;
however, they required logistics and had risk. Additionally, the physical locations of the NW
facility and SEA facility presented logistical limitations and were dependent on my travel.
While Zoom has its downside, it also was a delimitation as it enabled interviews and
observation to be conducted virtually as necessary. In today’s environment, it is not uncommon
for leaders to hold meetings and interact with employees over Zoom, making those types of
observations relevant and validating real-world scenarios.

74

Chapter Four: Results and Findings
Chapter Four presents the results and findings of the study. The study results are
organized by the categories of assumed causes previously delineated as KMO. This mixed-
methods study combined survey, interviews, observations, and document analysis to answer the
following research questions:
1. What are Team 17’s knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization needs
required to achieve successful ERP implementation?
2. What are the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational recommendations
that can be made to Team 17 to achieve their goal?
The study was conducted over a two-and-a-half-month period. Surveys were collected
during the first month; then, interviews followed. Observations occurred over the data-collection
period during various direct interactions with Team 17 members, both as a group and as
individuals. Documentation was collected during interviews and throughout the data-collection
period.
The quantitative and qualitative findings are presented herein and used to justify the
KMO assertions. This chapter concludes with a summary of KMO causes validated as either
needs or assets. The results are then used to create recommendations and an implementation and
evaluation plan presented in Chapter Five.
Participating Stakeholders
All 17 members of Team 17 chose to participate in the survey, with a 100% response
rate. During the survey, Team 17 members were solicited and given the option to opt-in for
participation in the interview. Ten members of Team 17 volunteered to be interviewed. The
volunteer population of interviews was then down-selected to eight interviewees distributed
across locations, as seen in Table 7, and engagement level, outlined in Table 8.
75

Table 7
Distribution of Interview Respondents by Location
Respondent location Number of respondents
United States 6
SEA 2

Table 8
Distribution of Interview Respondents by Engagement
Respondent engagement level Historical event attendance Number of respondents
High > 80% 3
Medium 40%–80% 3
Low < 40% 2

76

I chose interviewees to offer a range of perspectives based on their level of engagement.
Levels of engagements were determined using historical training and project meeting attendance
records over the prior seven months of the project. As shown in Table 7, highly engaged
participants were present at these events typically 80% of the time or greater. Somewhat engaged
participants have varying degrees of participation, generally in the 40% to 80% range. Low
engagement reflects Team 17 members who participate in 40% or less of the aforementioned
training sessions and project meetings.
In the presentation of results and analysis that follows, interviewees are referred to by
their pseudonym respondent (R) number: Interviewee Respondent 1 is referred to as “R1.” The
second respondent is “R2,” and so forth. Direct quotes, observations about, and documents from
respondents are used to support the assertions.
Determination of Assets and Needs
This study utilized mixed methodology to look at research questions and validate the
KMO causes of the problem of practice. The survey, with 100% participation (n = 17), was used
to understand the full Team 17 experience as leaders involved in the ERP project. The data were
not delineated by location as the experience among Team 17 members in relation to the ERP
implementation is shared. Other demographic data were not collected or determined to be
relevant to the study’s outcomes.
I used sequential methodology to support data collection and analysis. I gathered survey
data first and then used them to inform the interviews as a way to better understand the
experience of Team 17. I used observations and document reviews for triangulation of the
conclusion derived from the survey and interview analysis.
The determination of needs and assets was based on a comparison of surveys, interviews,
documents, and observations. Survey results rely on a cut score above 76%, or 13 members of
77

the 17 total surveyed. In cases where 16 members, or 94%, agreed, it was considered strong
evidence. Where applicable, correct responses are asterisked. Where there is more than one
acceptable answer, such as with questions scaled from strongly disagree to strongly agree, the
sum of the correct responses was compared to the cut score of 13. When survey questions have
multiple correct answers, such as select all that apply, the number of responses for each answer
was averaged and compared to the cut score of 13. The sum of correct responses and the average
of correct responses are shown in the tables compared against the cut score for ease of viewing.
The survey included three open-ended questions, which were a priori and open-coded for
themes. Open-ended survey questions follow the interview methodology for determining assets
versus needs, which is 50% of participants correlates to a majority and 75% correlates to strong
evidence. Interview data were both a priori and open-coded for themes. Assertions from
interviews relied on alignment evidence from 50%, or four people (n = 8), across interviewees.
Interview alignment above 75% or six people correlated to strong evidence.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Needs
The findings are reported using the factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive
knowledge categories outlined in Chapter Two. This study used surveys, interviews,
observations, and document analysis results aligned to the knowledge categories as defined in
Chapter Three. Based on the data and findings from the study, knowledge categories are
determined to be needs or assets.
Factual Knowledge
The factual knowledge influence examined in this study was that Team 17 needs to be
able to remember facts and data that are current and relevant. The finding is that factual
knowledge is a need. Team 17 does not possess the factual knowledge necessary to support
critical behaviors.
78

Survey Results
Members of Team 17 were asked about facts related to the ERP project to gauge basic
understanding of their factual knowledge. Questions assessing detailed knowledge such as
project Go-Live date, project phase and CSFs were asked. The survey thresholds follow the
levels outlined earlier in the chapter for survey questions.
Responses to questions are summarized in Figures 4 through 8 as being correct and
incorrect. Mostly correct, where the score is off by one, and I do not know are also used to
describe the survey results where applicable. Figures 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 provide the survey results
by question. Table 9 presents a summary of knowledge question results, compared to the cut
score of 13.

79

Figure 4
Responses to Item: “Zero Customer Disruptions Caused by the ERP Implementation Is the Most
Import Success Factor”

80

Figure 5
Responses to Item: “Rank in Order the Critical Success Factors for the ERP Project”

81

Figure 6
Responses to Item: “The ERP Project Is in Which Phase?”

82

Figure 7
Responses to Item: “The ERP Project Go-Live Date Is”

83

Figure 8
Responses to Item: “The Last Gate Review Completed Was”

84

Table 9
Summary of Correct and Incorrect Knowledge Questions Compared to the Cut Score
Question Cut score Correct
Mostly
correct
(off by 1)
Incorrect
I do not
know
Zero customer disruptions caused by
the ERP implementation is the most
import success factor
13 12 0 5 0
Rank in order the critical success
factors for the ERP project
13 1 2 14 0
The ERP project is in which phase 13 12 0 5 0
The ERP project Go-Live date is 13 17 0 0 0
The last Gate Review completed was 13 5 0 7 5

The figures and table indicate that most members of Team 17 do not know the detailed
facts about the ERP project. The summary provided in Table 9 shows that fewer than 13
members answered correctly for all but one question. Participants scored below the cut score of
13 on all but one question, “The ERP project Go-Live date is,” presented in Figure 7. While all
respondents recognized the Go-Live date to be May 1, 2023, the group’s knowledge of the other
facts was insufficient.
The results provided in the figures present a gap in Team 17’s factual knowledge about
the ERP implementation. Figure 4 presents the responses to “Zero customer disruptions caused
by the ERP implementation is the most important success factor,” for which only 12 respondents
answered correctly. Figure 5 shows that 14 respondents were unable to rank the success factors
in order of importance. In response to ranking CSFs for the project, only three participants got
the question correct or mostly correct, where they were only incorrect by one. When asked, “The
85

ERP project is in which phase,” only five respondents correctly answered, as shown in Figure 6.
The final question, “The last Gate Review completed was,” is presented in Figure 8 and shows
that only five of 17 team members, well below the cut score of 13, got the question correct.
Table 9 summarizes the factual knowledge survey results compared to the cut score of
13. Factual survey results are assessed as either being correct, mostly correct, incorrect, and I do
not know. When considering the number of correct and mostly correct responses across all
factual knowledge questions, respondents only answered correctly 58% of the time. The survey
analysis supports the assertion that factual knowledge is a need.
Interview Findings
During the interview Team, 17 members were asked to provide details of the ERP
project, including the definition of success. The intent of the questions was to understand the
depth of factual knowledge remembered by Team 17. The interview questions follow the
common cut score of 50% majority and 75% evidence of strong correlation, as outlined at the
beginning of the chapter.
Team 17 members were asked, “Can you tell me what is happening in the ERP project
right now?” Responses from interviewees were a priori coded as being a project fact, benefit, or
hope. The results are presented in Table 10, with the correct answer of “Project Facts” shown
asterisked.

86

Table 10
Coded Interview Responses to Item: “Can You Tell Me What Is Happening in the ERP Project
Right Now?”
Coded response Number of responses Percent of response
Benefits of project 15 42%
Hopes for new system functionality 3 8%
Project facts* 18 50%

Table 10 details that only 50% of the coded responses contained actual project facts. Of
the project facts, two respondents, 25%, provided 13 of the 18 facts and zero benefits and hopes.
According to the interview data analysis, 50% agreement among participants supports an asset
claim; however, given that 61% of the facts came from 25% of the respondents, the data does not
support factual knowledge as an asset. What is more relevant is shown in Table 10, that half of
the statements made were either benefits, 42%, or hopes, 8%.
The interview question was intended to tease out Team 17 knowledge of current facts and
data. Five interviewees were able to provide at least one ERP project fact. R5 articulated, “We’re
right in the middle of [the ERP project], and Go-Live is intended to be May 2023.” R2
elaborated, “There are three core businesses going live on [ERP] in May 2023. … This is a big
deal for [WidgetCo]. … Three ERP systems, two geographies, 1,000 employees.” R8 discussed
how “the ERP implementation is part of a consolidation of enterprise, enterprise resources and
planning tools for our business unit.” Based on the interview data, the majority could not provide
facts about the ERP project but, instead, provided benefits and hopes.
Benefits were a common answer to this question among Team 17. Fifteen of 17 leaders
talked about at least one benefit of the new ERP system when asked about project details.
87

“System commonality” as a benefit was mentioned by over 50% of the respondents. R1 stated,
“From a management … perspective, there is interest in getting some commonality across all of
the businesses, which is pretty typical to [WidgetCo].” R4 agreed that “they will benefit from …
a single way of doing business and a single set of tools” because, according to R3, the new ERP
will “take away all the silos of all the different systems.”
Respondents’ hopes for the new ERP system functionality were also a common theme
during the interviews. Hopes for efficiency and cost reduction were mentioned. R6 said, “My
hopes are that [the new ERP is] much more user-friendly, management friendly, executive
friendly, business differentiator.” R1 expressed their “belief that the way [ERP] runs us through
these transactions that there’ll be a cost reduction associated with it.”
A probing question asked the definition of success. Five of eight, or 63%, were correct
with the answer “zero customer disruptions.” The 63% demonstrates that the group majority
agrees with the primary definition of ERP project success. In the case where zero customer
disruptions were not mentioned first, all but one of the interviewees eventually mentioned them.
Interviews showed that participants’ detailed understanding and factual knowledge of the project
were limited. The interview analysis supports the claim that factual knowledge is a need.
Observation
Observations were taken during two major project meetings (MPMs) held during the
data-collection period of the study. During the MPMs, there were no statements of facts by any
present members of Team 17. The ERP presented statements of facts, such as the CSFs, project
timeline and risk mitigation actions, to Team 17. Two members of Team 17 did engage in asking
questions to the ERP team in relation to risk mitigation actions.
Observations were also made during the three project status meetings (PSMs) held during
the data-collection period of the study. Like the MPMs, the ERP Team presented statements of
88

facts to Team 17. No member of Team 17 made statements of fact during the meetings. The
attendance records for Team 17 at MPMs and PSMs are presented in the cultural model section
of this chapter. The observations made support the claim that factual knowledge is a need.
Document Analysis
Presentation material from the two MPMs and the three PSMs held during the data-
collection period was reviewed. The presentations contained between seven and 15 slides per
meeting. Several slides provided project facts and details, including the CSFs, schedule, risk
mitigation, and product build schedule were used across all five presentations but updated for
status depending on when presented. All presentation material was provided to Team 17
members within 24 hours of the meeting. Additionally, following the MPMs, the members of
Team 17 were asked to DocuSign the presentation, confirming they acknowledged and approved
the ERP project. All members of Team 17 approved the DocuSign for both the MPMs. There are
multiple sources of factual knowledge offered to Team 17 on a recurring basis; however, Team
17 lacks factual knowledge about the project. The documentation evidence supports the claim
that factual knowledge is a need.
Summary
The assumed influence that Team 17 needs factual knowledge to support critical
behaviors was determined to be a need in both the survey and interview results and was then
triangulated in observation and documentation analysis. When Team 17 was asked about specific
ERP project facts, they correctly identified details at a rate of only 58%, which is below the 76%
survey threshold. Otherwise, Team 17 defaults to naming benefits and hopes 50% of the time
when asked for facts and data. The observations and document analysis presented five separate
opportunities for Team 17 to become current on project data through regular meetings and
review of meeting material. The members of Team 17 have access to the facts and data but do
89

not know them. Based on the results and findings, factual knowledge is determined to be a need.
In summary, the members of Team 17 do not remember facts and details about the ERP project
that are current and relevant; therefore, this influence is a need.
Conceptual Knowledge
The conceptual knowledge influence examined in this study was that Team 17 needs to
determine ERP change impact on employees’ ability to perform job duties. The finding was that
conceptual knowledge is an asset. Team 17 understands the impact on employees’ ability to
perform job duties.
Survey Results
Members of Team 17 were asked two questions about the impact that the new ERP will
have on their team members and their abilities to perform their job duties. The intent was to
gauge a basic understanding of the conceptual knowledge, or how their team is impacted.
Questions assessing general changes and process-specific changes were asked. Responses to the
questions are presented in the following tables and figures. The survey thresholds follow the
levels outlined earlier in the chapter for survey questions and open-ended survey questions.
Figure 9 presents responses to the question “The impact of ERP on my team is.” Both
correct answers, medium and high changes, are asterisked as correct and summed together to be
compared against the cut score of 13.

90

Figure 9
Responses to Item: “The Impact of ERP on My Team Is”

When asked what the impact of the new ERP is on their team, 16 members, or 94%,
acknowledged that the impact of the ERP change will be medium to high on their employees. As
shown in Figure 9, the sum of correct responses is above the cut score of 13, which correlates to
an asset with strong evidence. While the amount of impact the new ERP system has on
employees will vary, it will have at least a medium impact on how employees conduct their
specific job duties.
Participants were then asked to select all responses that apply to the question “ERP will
affect the way my employees.” Given the multiple correct choices, responses across all correct,
asterisked answers were averaged and compared to the cut score of 13. The survey results to the
question are presented in Figure 10.
91

Figure 10
Responses to Item: “ERP Will Affect the Way My Employees”

Figure 10 presents how Team 17 recognized the ERP change would affect their
employees. The average of correct answers across the four correct responses is 16, which is
above the cut score of 13 and is considered to be strong evidence. On average, 16 Team 17
members recognized the conceptual changes to their employees’ job duties. Figure 10 shows that
Team 17 understands the general tasks, such as how employees will perform tasks, the time it
takes to perform tasks, how groups interact with one another, and how data are collected and
reported.
Along with general impacts on employees, Team 17 was asked about specific job
changes. The impact on an employee’s ability to perform their job duties will vary depending on
the functional group. Specific job duties like, material processing, the use of job order numbers
and supplier interactions will impact some groups more than others. Participants were asked to
92

select the specific process changes that would affect their employees. Responses to specifics are
provided in Table 11.

Table 11
Specific Impacts to Employee Job Duties
Coded response Number of responses
Use job order numbers. 12
Interact with suppliers. 8
Process material through the facility. 12

93

Table 11 provides survey responses when Team 17 was asked about how specific job
processes would be affected. Specific job duties, those that are more detailed and specific in
nature, have lower scores and are reflective of being group specific. It is not surprising to see
these scores below the cut score of 13, given the specific nature of the job functions. The cut
score is not applied to these specific questions. Instead, they are used to infer depth of knowledge
around specific job duty changes.
To understand Team 17’s depth of knowledge around specific job changes, an optional
write-in was also offered. One participant completed the write-in question, answering with
“provide robust reporting and metrics,” which corresponds to the “collect data and report
metrics” option in the multiple choice. This write-in option reinforces the group’s understanding
that data and metrics will change with ERP. The intention was for participants to offer other,
more specific ways that the ERP would impact their staff. While specifics did not come out of
the survey, they were teased out during the interviews. The survey analysis supports the claim
that conceptual knowledge is an asset.
Interview Findings
During the interviews, Team 17 members were asked to describe how the ERP
implementation affects their employee’s job duties. The intent of the question was to gauge the
depth of understanding that Team 17 has regarding employee impact. The interview questions
follow the common cut score of 50% majority and 75% strong correlation, as outlined at the
beginning of the chapter. Table 12 presents the summarized coded responses provided when
asked about the impact on employees’ job duties.

94

Table 12
Specific Impacts to Employee Job Duties
Coded response
Number of
responses
Percentage of
respondents
Process changes 6 75%
Different employees affected differently 4 50%
Process-specific changes 4 50%
Time keeping system 2 25%

When asked about employee impact, four out of eight, or 50%, of Team 17 recognized it
would affect different employees differently, depending on their job function. R8 explained, “So,
everybody’s affected, but not equally. It will depend a lot on the work they do, and the way that
they interact with the system, and how much that business process changes.” R4 and R7 agreed:
“That’s gonna vary by site and by the come from [ERP] system” and “[it depends on] the
employee perspective.”
The change in process was mentioned by 75% of Team 17, including how tasks are
performed and the time to perform tasks. According to R5, “It’s gonna be a very different way.
… Day-to-day is going to be very different, [especially] processes and in the way they manage
the business.” R8 noted, “[ERP will affect] the way that they interact with the system and how
much that business process changes.”
The process changes identified by respondents included discipline and commonality. R1
anticipated an increased collaboration, saying, “In terms of [process commonality], and the
ability to share information and cross-talk [across sites].” Collaboration and discipline “will
drive more rigorous processes, less flexibility, and a new mentality within our workforce,”
95

according to R4. R5 agreed and elaborated, stating, “It’s gonna force us all to be a lot more
common in what we do.”
In addition to recognizing process changes, 50% of interviewees named specifics about
the changes, like the “[changes to] the time-keeping system moving to exception reporting”
discussed by R2. R8 said the ERP implementation “affects everything from time charging to
labor, tracking to order management and financial flow, and everything back to planning and
demand management and interaction with suppliers and portals that we use.” R1’s team members
“have been talking to me about this new way of [processing parts]” while R3’s recognized that
“we will be able to manage and keep track of serial numbers more easily.” Additionally, R7
provided an example of a presentation describing a specific process change that was reviewed in
their group meeting. Details are provided in the document analysis section.
All interviewees understood that the ERP implementation would affect their employees'
job duties, with 75% recognizing changes in process that affect how employees perform their
tasks and the time it takes for those tasks to be performed. Half of Team 17 recognized job-
specific impacts specific to their team members’ functions. The interview analysis supports the
claim that conceptual knowledge is an asset.
Observation
There were no observations made for this influence.
Document Analysis
R7 provided an example of a specific process change presentation that had been reviewed
in their group meeting. The presentation included the old process, the new process, and a
description of the changes. There was a responsibility matrix included. The process change
presentation supports the claim that conceptual knowledge is an asset.
96

Summary
The assumed influence that Team 17 needs to determine ERP change impact on
employees’ ability to perform job duties was determined to be an asset. Results from the surveys
and interviews showed a majority, above the respective cut scores, and in several cases,
suggested strong evidence of an asset. Ninety-four percent of Team 17 acknowledged that the
impact of the ERP change will be medium to high on their employees, demonstrating strong
evidence. During the interview, 50% recognized it would affect different employees differently,
depending on their job function. On average, 16 Team 17 members recognized the changes to
employees’ job duties, including 75% who recognized the change to processes and 50% that
named specifics about the changes. In summary, Team 17 understands the big picture and some
specifics of how their employees’ jobs will change; therefore, conceptual knowledge is an asset.
Procedural Knowledge Influence 1
The first procedural influence examined herein was that Team 17 needs to know how to
illustrate positive communication, including providing answers to questions. The finding was
that Team 17’s ability to illustrate positive communication is an asset.
Survey Results
Members of Team 17 were asked four questions about positive communication, including
the frequency of answering questions. The intent was to understand Team 17's procedural
understanding of the steps required to communicate and answer questions positively as they
arise. Responses to questions are presented in the tables and figures that follow. Survey
responses maintain a cut score of 13 for multiple choice and 50% for open-ended questions, as
discussed at the beginning of the chapter.
97

Figure 11 shows responses to the multiple choice and check all that apply question:
“Positive communication about the ERP project looks like.” Participants were asked to check all
that apply; therefore, the average across all responses is 16, compared with the cut score of 13.

Figure 11
Responses to Item: “Positive Communication About the ERP Project Looks Like”

98

Team 17 recognizes how to illustrate positive communication. In Figure 11, the average
score across all correct responses, which are asterisked, is 16, or 94%. With a score above 94%,
this question is a strength for Team 17.
Now that it has been established that Team 17 knows how to demonstrate positive
communication, the next two questions aim to understand what frequency leaders are
communicating with their teams and what frequency they are answering questions. Figure 12
presents responses to the question, “The last time I communicated with my employees about the
ERP project was.” Participants were asked to choose one answer, with the correct answer being
“within the last week.” The survey results are presented in Figure 12.

Figure 12
Responses to Item: “The Last Time I Communicated With My Employees About the ERP Project
Was”

99

The responses presented in Figure 12, where the targeted response was “within the last
week,” received nine of the targeted 13 responses, or 52%. This is well below the cut score and
considered a need. Although only nine members of Team 17 are communicating with the right
frequency, at least 100% of respondents reported that they have at least communicated about the
ERP project within the last month and 52% within the last week. Team 17 was also asked about
the last time they answered questions from their team about the ERP project. Participants were
asked to choose one answer, with the correct answer being “within the last week.” The survey
results are presented in Figure 13 and measured against the same cut score of 13.

Figure 13
Responses to Item: “The Last Time I Answered Questions From a Member of My Team About
the ERP Project Was”

100

The responses presented in Figure 13, where the targeted response was “within the last
week,” also received nine of the targeted 13 responses, or 52%. This is well below the cut score
and considered a need. All respondents responded that they have answered questions at least
once or twice since the project started. While Figure 11 demonstrates Team 17 knows how to
demonstrate positive communication, the results presented in Figures 12 and 13 demonstrate a
gap in frequency.
Participants were asked an open-ended question to assess the type of language Team 17
uses to describe the ERP project. The purpose was to gain insight into how Team 17 talks about
the project and if they demonstrate positive communication. Participants were asked an open-
ended question: “When my employees ask me ‘why’ we are changing ERPs, I give them this
explanation.” Responses were then coded as having a negative, neutral-negative, neutral, neutral-
positive or positive sentiment toward the ERP project. Figure 14 presents the coded responses to
the open-ended question and follows the 50% cut score outline for open-ended survey questions.

101

Figure 14
Responses to Item: “When My Employees Ask Me ‘Why’ We Are Moving to ERP, I Give Them
This Explanation”

Figure 14 presents that 53% of respondents answered using positive language, and an
additional 23.5% were neutral to positive in sentiment. Almost a quarter (23.5%) of respondents
gave either neutral or slightly negative responses, with zero respondents being solely negative
toward the ERP implementation. Also, 76.4% of the responses were positive in nature, compared
to the cut score of 50%, with 75% indicating strong evidence.
When answering why, Team 17 provided nine categories and 45 discrete reasons why
PL1 is moving to the new ERP. The most commonly mentioned was WidgetCo’s ERP strategy,
along with process improvements, collaboration and efficiency across the organization. In the
survey, one respondent wrote, “actually, no one really is asking “why?” to be honest. Most
people seem to “get it” that the corporation is looking to migrate to common, proven platforms
102

and so are on board.” This may be related to one of the low scores in the frequency of
communication, as shown in Figure 13.
The know-how of illustrating positive communication is an asset for Team 17. What was
apparent is that while Team 17 understands what positive communication looks like and is able
to demonstrate it, there is a need in the area of communication frequency. The frequency gap or
need is linked to cultural models, where Team 17 needs to be part of a culture where
management is committed to the ERP change. Part of the commitment is through continuous
action at the required intervals, which according to the survey, the members of Team 17 are not
doing frequently enough. The frequency need will be addressed in the cultural model section.
Otherwise, this procedural knowledge influence is an asset.
Interview Findings
Interviewees were asked to describe the steps followed when communicating ERP project
implementation to employees. The intent behind the question was to understand the depth of
Team 17’s procedural knowledge associated with positive communication. The interview
questions follow the common cut score of 50% majority and 75% strong correlation, as outlined
in the beginning of the chapter.
Team 17 members were able to describe several steps, beginning with the project’s
importance. As R8 pointed out, “The narrative is just to remind people that it’s real.” Participant
responses to the question have been coded and grouped into steps and are shown in Table 13.
The interview questions follow the common cut score of 50% majority outlined in the beginning
of the chapter.

103

Table 13
Steps to Communicate Based on Interview Question
Coded response Number of responses
Percentage of
respondents
Communicate regularly (group meeting or all-
employee meeting).
5 63%
Leverage the ERP team. 5 63%
Solicit feedback and questions. 3 38%
Show leadership support. 2 25%
Hold leadership status meetings. 1 13%

Based on coded interview responses presented in Table 13, five of eight interviewees
were able to name steps to communicate, and three interviewees did not name any steps. Of the
steps named, communicating regularly and leveraging the ERP team to communicate were
mentioned by 62.5% of respondents, representing a majority of interviewees and making this an
asset. Soliciting feedback and showing leadership support were mentioned three and two times,
respectively.
Interviewees described steps that included all employee meetings. R7 talked about “a
monthly [group] all-employee meeting [and] … every single time we talk about [ERP] … and
give people a chance to ask questions and voice any concerns they may have.” The employee
meetings held by R8 were described as part of a communication plan, where “we’re sending an
all-employee email and notification once a month in partnership with the [ERP project team].
[We have] all-employee meetings on a quarterly basis, and we’re making sure the [ERP team
member] has … a platform to share.”
Regular communication was also detailed by R4 and R7. According to R4,
My goal is to … reinforce the commitment to ERP, reinforce the benefits and to generally
104

talk about it in a very positive way. Recognizing there will be no gain without pain. But
generally, [I] speak about it with high expectations.
R7 described their approach as “heavy communication often even if I’m repeating the
same thing I told them last week [or] last month. I’m just gonna … create opportunities for
people to ask their questions to get it out in the forefront.”
During the interview, Team 17 members were asked about the last time they
communicated with their team about the ERP project. Five of eight, 62.5%, admitted they did not
communicate frequently enough. R1 stated, “[It's] probably not a high point for me. I would say I
could probably show you back in meeting minutes and stuff that it’s come up once a month. But
I wouldn’t say it’s really high-quality communication.” R6 commented, “Not very often,” which
was echoed by R4 saying, “probably don’t speak about it enough,” and R5 admitting, “I’ll be
honest. I have not been spending a whole lot of time [communicating about the ERP project].”
R2 agreed stating, “I don’t communicate frequently. There hasn’t been too many questions. I
guess that’s because the team is involved and already know more details than I do.”
Team 17 was also asked to share some of the common questions related to ERP
implementation and probed on how they respond to those questions. The results were that 62.5%
gave examples where they were able to answer questions from employees by either detailing the
benefits or leveraging the ERP team member to answer specific questions. R7 described specific
examples, saying, “Initially, it was a lot of I do this today, how am I gonna do it tomorrow?
There were some very, very specific things like ‘I get report one, two, and three today, how am I
gonna get this tomorrow?’” The leader then described leveraging the ERP Team member to
answer the question.
The more philosophical questions more commonly described by leaders were typically
answered by leaders in terms of benefits and hopes, much like what was outlined in the factual
105

knowledge section of this chapter. R6 referred to the questions as “never really specific. It’s
more off the cuff. Why wouldn’t [WidgetCo] have done this years ago?” R5 referenced
questions like “Is it gonna get delayed? It’s more those kind of questions.” The general questions
varied by respondent, as R4 stated, “It depends on the individual.”
According to five of eight, or 62.5%, participants, there are not many questions about the
project. R2 and R5 said, “There hasn’t been too many questions” and “no one really is asking
‘why?’” R1 articulated that people are on board with the ERP implementation and “what else do
I need to know, right? I don’t even know what I don’t know what to ask you. … In general,
people are getting what they want, and if they want more, they would ask more.” R7 explained,
“I think people pretty much understand [ERP is coming,] … and they’re generally accepting of
it. Honestly, it’s been fairly quiet [recently].” This is potentially a contributing factor to the low
question frequency survey score shown in Figure 13. However, given that communication
frequency was also low, as shown in Figure 12, I suggest that employees are less likely to ask
questions when Team 17 is not frequently discussing the ERP implementation. The interview
analysis supports the assertion that the know-how of illustrating positive communication is an
asset for Team 17, even if they are not communicating with the right frequency.
Observation
In general, the interviewees’ sentiment was positive toward the ERP change. There were
three times that benefits were provided by interviewees when they were not asked about. The
group has a positive feeling toward the ERP change and can articulate those benefits.
During the data-collection period, WidgetCo filmed a series of leader interviews for a
WidgetCo ERP promotional video. The video was unrelated to the study; however, members of
Team 17 participated in it. In the video, Team 17 members were asked a series of high-level
questions about the ERP project, such as “what does ERP mean to the business” and “what does
106

Go-Live look like for the [PL1].” Participants received the questions ahead of time. Three of the
four, or 75% of Team 17 members, demonstrated consistent positive communication about the
ERP project. One team member expressed some negative sentiments in a joking manner;
however, the majority of their answers were neutral to neutral-positive. Since the observations
were made in an interview setting, the cut score will follow interviews: 50% asset, with 75%
strength. The observations made that 75% of the leaders demonstrated positive communication
and 100% demonstrated the ability to answer questions. This supports the evidence of this
influence being an asset.
Document Analysis
Multiple examples of communication were shared during the interviews. R1 provided a
quarterly ERP project communication slide hanging outside his office that summarized the what,
why, and schedule for the ERP project. The slide was created and published by WidgetCo’s
project team to communicate with the broader organization. The communication slide is positive
in nature and outlines the benefits of the ERP project. R1 mentioned that “everybody’s got the
[slide] hanging outside their office.”
R8 provided an example of the monthly email to all employees. The tone of the email
was positive and supportive of the project. Additionally, R8 gave a copy of an ERP project slide
used in the most recent quarterly all-employee meeting. The slide included project
accomplishments and was positive and supported in sentiment toward the ERP project. Another
example used during an all-employee meeting was offered by R7 and included details about
process changes specific to that group and the benefits of the changes. Team 17 was able to
provide examples of positive communication used with their organizations. The artifact analysis
supports the evidence of this influence being an asset.
107

Summary
The assumed influence that Team 17 needs to know how to illustrate positive
communication, including providing answers to questions, is an asset. Team 17 demonstrated
positive communication in the survey, interviews, observations, and document analysis. Most,
94%, correctly identified steps to positively communicate, while 62.5% of interviewees were
able to name steps. When asked why there is an ERP implementation, 76.4% of the responses
were positive in nature, compared to the cut score of 50%, with 75% indicating strong evidence.
Most (62.5%) of Team 17 gave examples of answering employee questions, despite 62.5% of
interviewees saying there are not many questions about the project. Lastly, 62.5% admitted they
did not communicate frequently enough about the project.
In summary, Team 17 knows how to illustrate positive communication and recognize it
as important. Team 17 frequently demonstrates positive communication when asked about the
ERP project. However, Team 17 does not communicate with optimal frequency, which may or
may not contribute to the lack of questions. Limited frequency in communicating is highlighted
as a potential gap to be addressed later in this cultural model section of this chapter and Chapter
Five.
Procedural Knowledge Influence 2
The second procedural knowledge influence examined was that Team 17 needs to know
how to apply techniques to address employee resistance while rewarding ERP acceptance. The
finding was that Team 17’s ability to address resistance and reward adoption is an asset.
Survey Results
Members of Team 17 were asked five questions about employee resistance and rewards.
The intent was to understand Team 17’s procedural understanding of the steps required to
address resistance and reward adoption. Responses to survey questions are presented in figures in
108

the following sections. The survey thresholds follow the levels outlined earlier in the chapter for
survey questions and open-ended survey questions.
Figure 15 shows responses to the multiple choice and check all that apply question,
“Employee resistance to the new ERP may reveal itself through these behaviors.” Participants
were asked to check all that apply; therefore, the average across all responses is 16, compared
with the cut score of 13.

Figure 15
Responses to Item: “Employee Resistance to the New ERP May Reveal Itself Through These
Behaviors”

109

On average, 13 members of Team 17 were able to identify the correct responses
compared to a cut score of 13, making this an asset. In addition to the results presented in Figure
15, a write-in option was offered. One respondent wrote “refusal to follow process, or creating
workarounds” as a way that resistance could be revealed.
Team 17 was first asked to identify employee resistance, then asked to choose the steps
they would take to address it. Figure 16 shows responses to the multiple choice and check all that
apply question: “When a team member is demonstrating ERP concern or resistance, these are
some of the steps I would take to address the resistance.” Since there are multiple correct
answers, the average across all responses is compared with the cut score of 13.

Figure 16
Responses to Item: “When a Team Member Is Demonstrating ERP Concern or Resistance, These
Are Some of the Steps I Would Take to Address the Resistance”

110

Figure 16 shows that, on average, 13 members of Team 17 were able to identify the
correct responses compared to a cut score of 13, making this an asset. Zero members of Team 17
selected incorrect answers. A write-in option was also offered for this survey question. Write-in
answers included “connect with a mentor” and “work with them to get back on board.”
Team 17 was asked to describe a recent example of how they address employee concerns
in an open-question format. Participant responses to the question have been coded and grouped
into steps and are shown in Figure 17. The interview questions follow the common cut score of
50% majority outlined in the beginning of the chapter.

Figure 17
Responses to Item: “A Recent Example of How I Addressed Employee Concerns or Resistance
About ERP Is”

111

Figure 17 shows the steps that were grouped by theme and provided by Team 17. Twelve
of 17 participants, 70.5%, were able to name steps, compared to the survey cut score of 50%,
which makes this an asset. A write-in option was also offered for this survey question. In their
responses, nine Team 17 members mentioned specifically soliciting concerns, reassuring
employees, and taking action. One respondent conducted a group discussion where team
members “discussed their concerns and then performed a Pros versus Cons [sic] exercise.” The
respondent explained that during the group exercise, “the situation changed from being
pessimistic to cautiously optimistic.” Three members of Team 17 talked about soliciting specific
concerns during group meetings to “give folks updates and give them a chance to vent if
needed.” Twenty-nine percent of respondents did not name any steps; however, 47% of team 17
said they had not heard of any resistance or concerns.
Management can reverse resistance and promote ERP adoption by reinforcing and
rewarding new employee behaviors. Team 17 was then asked about employee adoption and
rewards. Figure 18 provides survey responses to the question, “When a team member is
demonstrating ERP adoption and acceptance, these are some of the steps I would take to
recognize them.” Participants were asked to check all that apply; therefore, the average across all
responses is 16, compared with the cut score of 13.

112

Figure 18
Responses to Item: “When a Team Member Is Demonstrating ERP Adoption and Acceptance,
These Are Some of the Steps I Would Take to Recognize Them”

Figure 18 presents the responses to the question, with the average among correct answers
being 13, meeting the cut score of 13, making this an asset. A write-in option was also offered
for this survey question. Write-in responses included steps like “Highlight in next level staff
meeting as appropriate,” which reinforces the acknowledgement in group meetings as the highest
category.
Recognizing employees can occur at multiple stages of an ERP project. The intent behind
the question was to gauge the amount of leaders’ recognition of employee adoption. Figure 19
presents the responses when Team 17 was asked about the last time they recognized employees.
The correct answers are asterisked and summed together to be compared against the cut score of
13.

113

Figure 19
Responses to Item: “The Last Time I Recognized an Employee for Supporting the ERP Project
Is”

According to the responses presented in Figure 19, 15 of the 17 Team 17 members have
done some level of employee recognition for ERP adoption. There are multiple correct answers
to this question, as each employee recognition event is unique. The intent was to understand
whether Team 17 was recognizing employees for adoption. The sum of the multiple correct
answers is 15, which is compared to the cut score of 13, supporting this as an asset. The survey
analysis and data support the claim that Team 17’s ability to address resistance and reward
adoption is an asset.
Interview Findings
During the interview, Team 17 members were asked about addressing employee concerns
or resistance. The intent was to gauge more in-depth knowledge of Team 17’s ability to address
114

resistance. The interview questions follow the common cut score of 50% majority and 75%
strong correlation, as outlined in the beginning of the chapter.
Participants were asked to discuss the steps they take to address an employee expressing
concern or resistance. The results are presented in Table 14. The interview questions follow the
common cut score of 50% majority outlined in the beginning of the chapter.

Table 14
Responses When Asked, “Can You Discuss for Me Steps You Take to Address an Employee
Expressing Concern or Resistance (K-P)”
Coded response Number of responses Percentage of respondents
Listen and understand. 4 50%
Take action to address concerns. 4 50%
Offer support and reassurance. 3 38%
Leverage the ERP team. 3 38%
Coach them. 2 25%
Explain why and the benefits. 2 25%
Haven’t heard any. 3 38%

115

Table 14 lists the steps identified by Team 17 during the interview. All interviewees were
able to name at least two steps, even the person who said they had not heard any resistance. Half
of the respondents said they would listen and understand and then take action, which supports
this as an asset.
Team 17 was able to list many steps to take to address resistance. There was a
recognition that different resistance situations require different actions; what was important was
the majority recognition of listening and taking action, followed by four other potential steps that
could be taken based on the situation or leadership style. As R6 stated, “Honestly, the biggest
step I would take is just listen. … Let them [get it] out and then start probing [to] find out what’s
really the angst … [and then] put them at ease [and] try to find answers to their questions.” R4
also discussed listening, saying, “I try and clarify what their concern is, [so] at least they know
I’ve heard their concern.” R8 also seeks to listen and understand, adding, “I suppose it would just
be trying to understand first more deeply, like what is the concern? [And then] trying to
determine the cause [for] concern and … and address it.”
Leadership support and messaging were also noted by R5, “I always try and tell people
even when we are doing something different, you know, there’s not anything that can’t be fixed.”
You’re not gonna break anything so bad that we can’t fix it. So don’t be afraid. … You just be
confident in [your skills] and start using [the system]. Coaching was also mentioned by R1, after
recognizing “I am getting some resistance from [person]. ... Take action and give them a little
cheering talk.”
During the interview, R7 gave an example of answering an employee question and
concern raised during an all-employee meeting, including taking action and requesting
recommendations from the ERP team. R7 commented, “We want people to bring forward stuff
116

like that because we wanna make sure we capture it. We wanna make sure we have a solution for
it, and, you know, it’s not something that happens later.”
During the interview, Team 17 members were asked to discuss the steps they follow to
acknowledge employee adoption. The intent was to gauge more in-depth knowledge of Team
17’s ability to reward adoption. The results are presented in Table 15. The interview questions
follow the common cut score of 50% majority outlined in the beginning of the chapter.

Table 15
Responses When Asked, “Can You Discuss for Me Steps You Take to Reward Employee
Adoption (K-P)”
Coded response Number of responses
Percentage of
respondents
Verbal recognition 6 75%
Job opportunity/career visibility 6 75%
WidgetCo monetary award 3 38%
Recognize in group meeting or all-employee meeting 2 25%

117

All interviewees were able to name at least one step. Seventy-five percent recognized
verbal recognition and career opportunities as steps to reward and recognize employees.
According to the cut scores of 50%, this is an asset.
Team 17 named multiple ways to recognize employees. R8 said, “A lot of it is the
informal stuff. Of just like making sure that the ripple effect of their work was heard about in the
office and appreciated.” R4 leverages group meetings “I’ve recognized [ERP team member] in
meetings and thanked [them]. … You know, that probably feels good for [them].” R2 agreed and
expanded, saying, “Verbally acknowledge them in front of the team, give them a [company
monetary award] or potentially use it as a career discussion opportunity.”
Six interviewees mentioned career opportunities. R4 stated, “[They] got picked for [their]
knowledge and business knowledge [and] ability to solve problems. This was probably a stretch
assignment for [them].” R6 recognized, “It’s an individual thing…some people would want to be
promoted [to] super user and be a lead and help train.” R5 echoed, “[They can] start to help with
the training and help their co-workers.”
Monetary awards, such as WidgetCo’s monetary award program, were mentioned three
times. There was some recognition that rewarding adoption was not being done frequently
enough; however, it was clear the group understands the steps. The analysis supports the
assertion that Team 17’s ability to address resistance and reward adoption is an asset.
Observation
There were no observations made for this influence.
Document Analysis
There were no documents reviewed for this influence.
118

Summary
The assumed influence of Team 17’s ability to address resistance and reward adoption
was determined to be an asset in both survey and interview responses. The results demonstrated
that Team 17 is able to identify and address resistance while rewarding adoption. On average, 13
Team 17 members were able to identify employee resistance behaviors compared to a cut score
of 13. Additionally, when asked to describe the steps to address resistance, 70.5% were able to
name steps. During the interview, 100% of interviewees were able to name at least two steps,
despite 47% reporting they had not heard any resistance. When rewarding adoption, on average,
13 members of Team 17 recognized the steps to reward adoption, meeting the threshold of 13.
Most (75%) interviewees recognized verbal recognition and career opportunities as steps to
reward and recognize employees. In summary, Team 17 knows the steps to address resistance
and reward adoption; therefore, this influence is an asset.
Metacognitive Knowledge
The metacognitive influence examined here was that Team 17 needs to reflect on how
their critical leadership behaviors impact the successful ERP outcome. The finding was that
Team 17’s ability to reflect on how their critical behaviors impact the successful ERP outcome is
an asset.
Survey Results
Members of Team 17 were asked two questions about how they adjust their leadership
behaviors to influence a successful ERP adoption. These questions were aimed at understanding
how Team 17 self-reflects and adjusts their behaviors. The survey thresholds follow the levels
outlined earlier in the chapter for survey questions and open-ended survey questions.
119

Figure 20 shows responses to the question, “I adjust my critical leadership behaviors to
influence [ERP] adoption by my team.” There are two correct scores, agree and strongly agree.
The sum of both correct scores is compared with the cut score of 13.

Figure 20
Responses to Item: “I Adjust My Critical Leadership Behaviors to Influence ERP Adoption by
My Team”

120

As presented in Figure 20, the sum of both correct scores is 14, meaning a majority of
Team 17, 14 of 17 or 82.3%, adjust their leadership behaviors to influence ERP adoption, which
supports this being an asset. Team 17 was then asked to reflect on how they have adjusted their
own behavior in an open-ended question. The results are presented in Figure 21.

Figure 21
Responses to Item: “When You Think About Leading Your Team Through a Successful ERP
Implementation, in What Ways Do You Adjust Your Critical Leadership Behaviors to Facilitate
Employee Adoption of the ERP System?”

121

When asked to describe how Team 17 adjusts their critical leadership behaviors to
facilitate employee adoption of the [ERP] system, 10 of 17 or 58.8% of Team 17 recognized
promoting the project as an adjustment to behavior. The open-ended questions follow the
common threshold of 50% majority, making this an asset. One respondent commented,
“Ensuring we talked through benefits in staff meetings.” While other participants commented
that updates in staff “bring ERP leads to staff meetings to provide updates.” Another respondent
summarized the importance of “the mindset that it provided a better way of running our business
and eventually make life easier for the organization.”
Role modeling the right behavior was mentioned by three participants. Respondents said,
“Ensuring I participated in some training and openly supported in front of the audience with
[ERP team member name].” Behavior changes may not be necessary for all Team members, as
one respondent stated, “I wouldn’t suggest I change my leadership behavior but ensure my
messaging and behaviors are positively directed towards the ERP implementation.”
It is also clear from respondents’ answers that the group sentiment is consistently positive
toward the ERP implementation. Especially considering the 58.8% of them responded with the
importance of promoting the project in support of the company. The survey analysis made
supports the claim that metacognitive knowledge is an asset.
Interview Findings
During the interview, Team 17 members were asked about adjustments made to their own
behaviors. The interview questions were aimed at understanding their ability to self-reflect and
adjust their own behaviors to positively influence the ERP project. The interview questions
follow the common cut score of 50% majority and 75% strong correlation as outlined in the
beginning of the chapter.
122

Six of eight, or 75% of Team 17 members, answered that “yes,” they supported the ERP
implementation project from the beginning. R3 “was in support of the project from the very
beginning.” R6 stated, “I was a believer before I knew it was happening,” and R8 said, “When I
heard about the [ERP project], I was excited to be a part of leading through that change.” Others
expressed more skepticism, like R7, who said, “I would say a supporter, but also a person to say
here are the things we need to watch for.”
Team 17 members also discussed the adjustments they made to their own behaviors. R2
claimed to “have personally taken it upon myself to be positive and to try and get people excited
about it. I try to consistently emphasize that it’s a good thing.” R7 “learned the system and how
sales orders work. I learned how things flow. I saw the linkage.” R6 talked about self-reflection,
stating, “people have taken the step back to say, ‘how does this affect me.’”
The adjustments described by interviewees largely mimicked the open-ended survey
responses. What was more important was the self-reflection on their own behaviors that
happened real-time as a result of the interview questions. Five of eight, 62.5%, interviewees self-
reflected on critical leadership behaviors and their impact during the interview. The realization of
“lack of engagement” as a theme carried throughout the self-reflections. R6 recognized, “My
leadership [should] engage more with them … to learn more … about what [they’re] doing and
what’s coming our way and [their] perspective on how the change is going to go.”
R1 agreed, “There’s nothing wrong with my ability,” and then said, “I [should] be more
engaged with my folks.” The sentiment was shared by R5, who admitted, “I need to be better
about [communicating].” R4 acknowledged, “I guess if it was clear that I owned the project, I
would pay more attention to it,” while R1 voluntarily self-rated themself a “D+” without any
prompt or suggestion from the interviewer. R6 personally reflected during the interview that they
“just need to figure out how to get more engaged so that I become more comfortable with what’s
123

coming our way.” It was clear from the interview responses and real-time self-reflection that this
influence is an asset for Team 17.
Observation
In an interaction following the interview, R4 voluntarily acknowledged that they had
“seriously been reflecting on their involvement and their leadership role in the ERP project since
the interview.” R4 stated they “needed to be more involved” and have been thinking about “how
to do that.” The observations support the evidence that this influence is an asset.
Document Analysis
There were no documents reviewed for this influence.
Summary
This influence is an asset, supported by surveys, interviews and observations. Team 17
demonstrated the ability to reflect on their role in the ERP implementation, including the
evaluation of their own behaviors and involvement. Also, 82.3% reported adjusting their
leadership behaviors to influence ERP adoption, of which 58.8% made adjustments to promote
the project. During the data-collection period, there were several examples of self-reflection,
including five interviewees who self-reflected real time during the interview and another that
was noted in the observation. The realization of “lack of engagement” by 62.5% of Team 17 was
noted throughout the self-reflections. The lack of engagement is highlighted as a potential gap to
be addressed later in this chapter and in Chapter Five. In summary, Team 17 does self-reflect on
their behavior and made behavior adjustments; therefore, this influence is an asset.
Results and Findings for Motivation Needs
The findings are reported using the motivation categories of expectancy value and self-
efficacy outlined in Chapter Two. This study used a survey, interviews and observations analysis
124

results aligned to the motivation categories defined in Chapter Three. Based on the data and
findings from the study, motivation categories are determined to be needs or assets.
Expectancy Value
The expectancy value influence examined here was that Team 17 needs to believe the
ERP project benefits them and their interests. The finding was that outcome expectancy is an
asset. Team 17 believes the ERP project is beneficial to them and their interests.
Survey Results
Members of Team 17 were asked two questions about the benefits of the ERP to them
and their interests. The intent was to understand Team 17’s expectancy value of the ERP project
and gauge if they believe the effort and investment are worth having those expectations. The
survey thresholds follow the levels outlined earlier in the chapter for survey questions and open-
ended survey questions.
Participants were asked, using a Likert scale, their agreement with the statement “moving
to ERP will benefit me,” measured from strongly agree to strongly disagree. There are two
correct scores, agree and strongly agree. The sum of both correct scores is compared with the cut
score of 13. The survey results are presented in Figure 22.

125

Figure 22
Responses to Item: “Moving to ERP Will Benefit Me”

Based on the responses presented in Figure 22, a majority of leaders believe the ERP
change will benefit them. Ninety-four percent of the respondents agreed that moving to the ERP
will benefit them, which meets the 94% threshold for strong evidence making this an asset.
To assess Team 17’s expectancy value, members were asked to rate on a Likert scale
their agreement with the statement “The ERP change is worth the effort,” using ordinal scales of
measurement, measured from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The sum of both correct scores
is compared with the cut score of 13. The survey results are presented in Figure 23.

126

Figure 23
Responses to Item: “The ERP Change Is Worth the Effort”

Figure 23 shows that 88% of the respondents agreed that the ERP change is worth the
effort, meeting the strong evidence threshold for this being an asset. The survey analysis made
supports the assertion that Team 17’s expectancy value is an asset.
Interview Findings
During the interview, Team 17 members were asked about the expected benefits of the
ERP implementation. The intent of the questions was to obtain a deeper understanding of their
expectations. The interview questions follow the common cut score of 50% majority and 75%
strong correlation as outlined in the beginning of the chapter.
Given the conversational flow of the interview, Team 17 was first asked if they believed
the ERP implementation would benefit them personally. The intent was to understand their
127

foundational beliefs about the project before asking about the types of benefits. The answers fell
into three categories; yes, no, and those who believed in long-term benefits. The results are
presented in Table 16.

Table 16
Responses When Asked, “Do You Expect the ERP Implementation to Benefit You?”
Coded response Number of responses Percentage of respondents
Yes 6 75%
No short-term, yes long-term 2 25%
No 0 0%

128

Table 16 presents the responses to the question, which shows that 75% of respondents
expect to benefit from the ERP implementation. The remaining 25% believe they will benefit in
the long term. Seventy-five percent is above the cut score for determining assets. Once their
foundational beliefs were understood, I asked Team 17 members, “How do you expect the ERP
implementation to benefit you?” ERP benefits described in Chapter Two, such as process
optimization, data enablement, cost reduction and efficiency, were used as a priori codes. The
results are in Table 17.

Table 17
Interview Responses When Team 17 Asked How They Expect to Benefit From the ERP
Implementation
Coded response Number of responses
Percentage of
respondents
Process effectiveness/efficiency 6 75%
Access to data/better reporting
5 63%
Collaboration with WidgetCo/other groups
3 38%
Resource sharing 2 25%
Reduce training/systems to maintain 1 13%
Business growth
1 13%

129

Table 17 presents the responses to the question, showing six different ways Team 17
expects to benefit from the ERP implementation. All interviewees named at least one person
benefit expectation. The most mentioned benefit was process efficiency, which 75% of
respondents expect to get. R8 said, “Personally, as a leader, especially for an organization, the
size and scale and standardization allows us to have more leverage and controlling systems.”
Which, according to R4, will “give us greater scalability going forward.” R7 elaborated that “the
potential benefits that could bring from a workload perspective, from a [process] consistency.”
Access to data and better reporting was a major theme mentioned by 62.5% of
interviewees. R4 stated, “I expect as a business leader to benefit from some of the modules and
reporting tools. We will no longer have to deploy locally and customize and whatever.” R2
expected, “I can do my own reporting, pull my own data for each of the businesses,” which was
echoed by R5, “It will be nice to be able to have the capability to go look [at reporting] if I want
to.” Leaders like R3 expect the benefits to extend beyond them personally “from the reporting
structure side of it, and also not only for me but for my team.” The expectation of benefits meets
the strong correlation threshold, supporting the asset claim.
A follow-up question was added to confirm Team 17’s belief that completing the
challenging ERP implementation would benefit them. Given the duration and significant amount
of organizational change, it was important to probe more into their expectancy value beliefs.
Team 17 members were asked “if they believe [the ERP implementation] is worth the effort.”
The results are in Table 18.

130

Table 18
Interview Responses When Team 17 Asked if They Believe the ERP Implementation Is Worth the
Effort
Coded response Number of responses Percentage of respondents
Yes 7 88%
Maybe 1 13%
No 0 0%

Table 18 presents that 88% of interviewees believe the change is worth the effort.
As R4 said, “We wouldn’t be investing in this effort if we didn’t think it was worth it.” R1 also
discussed the investment, saying, “This one certainly has a gigantic budget associated with it. It’s
heavily invested in, and you know, I’ve never seen anything like it.” R6 noted, “I think there will
clearly be chaos up front because people will be learning new stuff. But I think, you know, two
or three months down the road, everybody’s gonna be [saying] WOW!” Based on responses, it
was clear that Team 17 believes the ERP implementation is worth the effort, supporting the
claim that expectancy value is an asset.
Observation
There were no observations for this influence.
Document Analysis
There were no documents for this influence.
Summary
The assumed influence that Team 17 sees the ERP project as beneficial to them and their
interests is an asset. In the survey, 94% of respondents expect to benefit from the ERP
implementation, especially in the areas of process efficiency and reporting. Also, 88% of
131

interview respondents said the ERP implementation is worth the effort and substantial
investment. In summary, Team 17 sees the ERP project as beneficial to them and their interest;
therefore, this influence is an asset.
Self-Efficacy
The influence examined herein was that Team 17 needs to have the self-efficacy to
achieve a successful ERP implementation. The finding was that self-efficacy is an asset.
Survey Results
Members of Team 17 were asked about five critical behaviors and their ability to perform
those behaviors right now. The intent was to understand Team 17’s self-efficacy overall as well
as the self-efficacy for the critical behaviors defined as positive communication, answering
questions, attending events, addressing resistance, and rewarding adoption. Self-efficacy was
measured by asking survey participants to self-rate their confidence level in their “ability to
perform critical behaviors right now.” Participants rated their confidence using a 10-point
nominal scale, where a score of one means the participant cannot do at all, a score of five means
they can moderately do, and 10 means the participant is highly certain they can do. Table 19
displays the aggregate mean score, standard deviation, confidence interval and internal reliability
using Cronbach’s alpha.

Table 19
Aggregate Self-Efficacy Dataset
Mean Confidence interval of average Std deviation Cronbach’s alpha
8.3 7.92 to 8.75 0.8 0.73

132

The aggregate mean is 8.3, with a standard deviation of 0.8. The confidence interval of
the average is from 7.92 to 8.75, meaning there is a 95% chance the mean will fall into that
range. Internal consistency reliability is used to correlate test items with one another enough that
the assumption can be made that they measure the same thing (Salkind & Frey, 2019).
Cronbach’s alpha correlates the score for each item with the total score for each participant,
compared to individual score variability (Salkind & Frey, 2019). Cronbach’s alpha is .73, which
is above .70, and is the threshold for coefficients to be considered strong and for measuring what
was intended (Salkind & Frey, 2019). Internal consistency reliability using Cronbach’s alpha
supports the justification of an aggregate score for an overall self-efficacy score. Therefore,
Team 17’s aggregate self-efficacy score is the mean 8.3. The score of 8.3 is considered to be
high on a scale of one to 10 and supports self-efficacy as an asset.
The aggregate mean, presented in Table 19, is both Team 17’s self-efficacy score and the
threshold score used to analyze the critical behaviors: positive communication, answering
questions, attending events, addressing resistance, and rewarding adoption. Team 17’s self-
efficacy was measured by participants self-rating their confidence level in their “ability to
perform critical behaviors right now.” Using a 10-point scale, participants rated their confidence.
The nominal data are presented in Table 20 in order of highest to lowest mean. Participants'
scores for each question were compared against the aggregate mean threshold of 8.3.

133

Table 20
Responses to Item: “Rate Your Confidence Level in Your Ability to Do the Things Discussed
Below Right Now. Scale 1–10”
Question Min Max Mean
Std
deviation Variance
I am confident in my ability to communicate
positively about the ERP project to my
team. 7 10 9.24 1.06 1.12
I am confident in my ability to reward ERP
adoption. 7 10 8.94 1.06 1.11
I am confident in my ability to address ERP
resistance. 5 10 8.65 1.23 1.52
I am confident that I will attend ERP events,
meetings, workshops. 6 10 8.29 1.13 1.27
I am confident in my ability to answer
questions about the ERP project. 4 9 6.76 1.35 1.83

Table 20 shows that the overall scores across factors range from a mean of 6.76 to 9.24.
The highest-ranking score, confidence in the ability to communicate, has a mean of 9.24, a range
of responses from 7.00 to 10.00 and is well above the threshold and confidence interval. The
second mean score belongs to the ability to reward adoption and has a mean of 8.94 is also above
the cut score. Team 17’s confidence in their ability to address ERP resistance is above the 8.3
threshold with a mean of 8.65 and a five-point range. Team 17’s confidence in their ability to
attend ERP events mean is 8.29, just below the 8.3 cut score. Finally, the lowest scoring factor,
confidence in one’s ability to answer questions about the ERP project trails with the lowest mean
of 6.76 and a range from 4.00 to 9.00 is well below the threshold. The standard deviation across
factors ranges from 1.06 to 1.35, which is narrow, meaning there is not much variability in the
data. A smaller range, variance and standard deviation indicates a common efficacy or belief
134

about the group. Given the survey analysis, Team 17 self-efficacy is an asset. Three of five
behaviors scored well above the 8.3 mean, one scored just below at 8.29, and one scored well
below the mean. The low-scoring behavior, answering questions, does not sway the results given
the high levels of self-efficacy reported by Team 17. The low efficacy in answering questions
may be related to Team 17’s gap in factual knowledge or related to the fact that employees are
not asking questions, as mentioned in the procedural knowledge section of this chapter.
Interview Findings
During the interview, Team 17 members were asked about critical leadership behaviors
and their ability to consistently demonstrate those behaviors. The intent of the interview
questions was to understand the depth of confidence in behaviors. The interview questions
follow the common cut score of 50% majority and 75% strong correlation as outlined in the
beginning of the chapter.
First, Team 17 was asked to name a critical leadership behavior that contributes to
implementation success. Seventy-five percent of respondents talked about positive
communication in their response, reaffirming what was seen in the survey with leaders being
most confident in this area. R3 talked about leadership responsibility, “I think as leaders we need
to show the team [that] we believe in it.” R6 stated,
For me, it's confidence that it’s the right decision for the company. … It’s take ownership
[of the ERP change] because it’s the right decision for the company. So, portray that [positive]
message to everybody and get them to believe it.
R2 elaborated, “[leaders need to] emphasize it’s a good thing.” R3 said, “showing that
positive vibe to the people that work for us and around us,” including “bringing people purpose
or meaning to the reason for the change,” as mentioned by R8. Advocating for the change was
also discussed by participants. According to R7, “Advocating for the change … but not just the
135

change, I guess when somebody brings forward an issue, or there’s a perceived gap out there.
Advocating for that person as well.”
Self-efficacy determines how individuals choose and prioritize tasks. During the
interview, leaders discussed the importance of prioritizing the project. R1 said, “The single most
important thing for me is that people know [the ERP project] is important to me, and I show
them in different ways.” Demonstrating the right priority and modeling the right behavior
through presence was mentioned by R5, “Be actually there on site. Ask them if they need
anything. Or you know, walking around, seeing how people are doing … be visible and very
confident.” R8 elaborated on modeling, “I think [being a leader during an ERP implementation]
just comes back to displaying a sense of calmness is the best way I’m gonna describe it.”
Team 17’s ability to consistently exhibit leadership behaviors is largely influenced by
their self-efficacy. Perceived self-efficacy dictates individuals’ ability to attain a goal or
complete a task (Bandura, 2006). Team 17 members were asked, “How do you feel about your
ability to consistently demonstrate critical leadership behaviors,” The results are in Table 21.

Table 21
Responses to Item: “How Do You Feel About Your Ability to Consistently Demonstrate Critical
Leadership Behaviors”
Coded response Number of responses Percentage of respondents
Highly confident 6 75%
Moderately confident 2 25%
Low confidence 0 0%

136

Table 21 shows that 75% of interviewees answered that they were highly confident in
their ability to consistently demonstrate critical leadership behaviors. The 75% confidence level
supports self-efficacy as an asset. Several interviewees expressed very high confidence in their
ability, including R6, who said, “I think it’s gonna be easy” and R5, stating, “I think I’m good.
Like I said, I’ve been through [ERP implementations before].” R2 explained, “I will always be
talking positively about it. I believe it. I know what’s possible.”
Not all interviewees shared the same level of confidence. This is consistent with the
survey results. There were pockets where people feel confident about a behavior and less in other
areas. R8 was “moderate” about their confidence and then elaborated,
because you know there’s still almost six months to go and we’re just heating up, so to
speak. And we haven’t quite hit a point where … we Go-Live, and we get slapped upside
the face with something we didn’t understand.
While some leaders tend to be more conservative, overall, Team 17 is highly confident
that they are able to consistently demonstrate critical leadership behaviors. The interview
analysis supports the claim that self-efficacy is an asset.
Observation
There were no observations for this influence.
Document Analysis
There was no document analysis for this influence.
Summary
Team 17’s self-efficacy is an asset. The overall self-efficacy score is a high 8.3 on a scale
of one to 10. Team 17’s self-efficacy in the areas of positive communication, addressing
resistance and rewarding adoption score well above the aggregate mean of 8.3. Additionally, in
the interview, 75% talked about positive communication, which reinforces the conclusion that
137

speaking positively about the ERP project is a strength. Team 17’s self-efficacy score of
consistently attending ERP events scored just below the mean at 8.29, which is considered close
enough to be an asset. In the survey, answering questions scored well below the aggregate mean
of 8.3. This one area is not enough to identify self-efficacy as a need. The low score could be
related to a number of factors, such as Team 17’s gap in factual knowledge or to the fact that
62.5% of interviewee participants said “there hasn’t been too many questions” about the project,
as mentioned in the procedural knowledge section of this chapter. When Team 17 does get
questions, 63% of the time, they “leverage the ERP project team,” suggesting they know how to
get answers to questions, even if they do not know the answers themselves. In summary, the
members of Team 17 have confidence in their ability to consistently demonstrate critical
behaviors, making this influence an asset.
Results and Findings for Organization Needs
The findings are reported using the organizational categories of cultural models and
settings outlined in Chapter Two. This study used a survey, interviews and observations analysis
results aligned to the organizational categories defined in Chapter Three. Based on the data and
findings from the study, organization categories are determined to be needs or assets.
Cultural Settings
The first cultural setting influence examined was that Team 17 needs an effective project
team to execute the ERP implementation. The finding was that Team 17 has the asset of an
effective project team to execute the ERP implementation.
Survey Results
Members of Team 17 were asked about the ERP project team and its empowerment. The
intent was to understand the level of support Team 17 perceived they received from the ERP
138

project team and how empowered and effective Team 17 thinks the ERP team is. The survey
thresholds follow the levels outlined earlier in the chapter for survey questions.
Participants were asked to rate on a Likert scale their agreement with the statement “My
organization has a project team that is capable of successfully completing the ERP project,”
using ordinal scales of measurement and measured from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The
correct responses are asterisked and summed for comparison to the cut score of 13. The survey
results are presented in Figure 24.

Figure 24
Responses to Item: “My Organization Has a Project Team That Is Capable of Successfully
Completing the ERP Project”

139

Based on the results presented in Figure 24, 88% of Team 17 members agree or strongly
agree that the ERP project team is capable of completing the ERP project. Along with being
capable, it is important that the ERP project team is also empowered. Participants were asked to
rate on a Likert scale their agreement with the statement “The project team is empowered to
execute the ERP project,” using ordinal scales of measurement, measured from strongly agree to
strongly disagree. The correct responses are asterisked and summed for comparison to the cut
score of 13. The survey results are presented in Figure 25.

Figure 25
Responses to Item: “The Project Team Is Empowered to Execute the ERP Project”

140

Figure 25 shows that 88% of Team 17 members agree or strongly agree that the ERP
project team is empowered to execute the ERP project. In both questions, the sum of agree and
strongly agree responses is above the cut score and meets the 94% threshold providing strong
evidence that this is an asset.
Interview Findings
During the interview, Team 17 members were asked to describe a recent example where
the ERP Team was effective in running the ERP project. The intent of the question was to
understand in more depth what Team 17’s perception is about the ERP Team’s effectiveness and
capability. The interview questions follow the common cut score of 50% majority and 75%
strong correlation as outlined in the beginning of the chapter.
Five of eight Team 17 members described examples of the ERP project team being
effective. R3 explained, “[ERP Team member] sends out the weekly updates, and then we have
our own meeting on Wednesdays. [ERP Team member] communicates to us anything that’s
unusual.” Another example was mentioned by R8, “Even, like, the planning for [ERP event]
going on right now. The team communicated well in advance … good frequency of
communication, good detail orientation, planning.” Other leaders, like R7, described how
“Monthly [ERP team member] meets with me and [other leader names] just to keep us informed
on what’s going on. And that’s provided a forum for questioning just amongst us and alignment
amongst us.”
The majority of the interviewees (87.5%) expressed confidence in the ERP team’s
capabilities, which is above the strong evidence threshold. R3 noted, “[They have been] working
really well together…connecting and working through issues. … [Additionally,]
communications via email [is working well].” R6 echoed the positive sentiment, saying, “[They]
are doing remarkably well as far as the function goes. You know, every time I talk to [them,
141

they’ve] got answers and is aware. I know the right things are being done.” Some leaders based
their response on feedback, like R8, who said, “[The ERP team is performing] good! I think
because of the feedback that I’m getting.” R5 expressed confidence that “They’re off doing their
thing, and things are going okay. And if things are not going ok, somebody will escalate that to
me.” R8 justified the confidence in the ERP team effectiveness and capabilities, saying,
We were serious about [whom we put on the ERP project team], and by that nature, you
know these are high-flying individuals that could do other things for us. Committing
they’re in the right place is a recurring conversation.
Feedback on the ERP team’s effectiveness also came from open-ended survey questions that
were unrelated to cultural settings. One respondent wrote, “I do believe the [ERP] team today is
well set up to ensure success, and if not, then they will be living and fighting in the trenches with
us as we go through a recovery.”
During the interview, three members of Team 17 expressed limited interaction with the
project team. The limited interaction did not affect their opinions on the ERP project team’s
effectiveness or capabilities. While not a majority or a contributor to this influence being an
asset, the lack of interaction does tie into the cultural model where leaders are committed to the
ERP project. R2’s opinion was, “I don’t interact with them much. I don’t have a reason to
[because] I don’t have any concerns now.” Some interviewees reflected on their engagement. R6
commented, “I just think I need to engage more with him, and … my leadership team [should]
engage more with them,” and R4 said, “I don’t have a lot of visibility [into the project], and
maybe, you know, that’s something we ought to think about.” The interview analysis supports
the claim that the ERP project team's capabilities are an asset for Team 17.
Observation
There was no observation for this influence.
142

Document Analysis
R1 provided a quarterly ERP project communication slide created and published by
WidgetCo’s ERP project team to communicate with the broader organization about the project.
The communication slide is an example of the communication support provided by the ERP
team. R7 gave an example of the all-employee slides presented to all employees by the ERP
team member. In R7’s case, the ERP team member was deciding on content and presenting it to
all employees, including details about process changes. The artifact analysis supports the
evidence of this influence being an asset.
Summary
Team 17 has the asset of an effective project team to execute the ERP implementation. In
the survey, 88% of Team 17 members said they agree or strongly agree that the ERP project
team is capable of completing the project, and 87.5% expressed confidence in their abilities.
Both scores are above the strong evidence thresholds. During interviews, 62.5% of Team 17
members described examples of the ERP project team being effective, despite three Team 17
members who admitted they did not interact frequently with the ERP team. While this does not
affect the assessment of this assumed influence, it does highlight a potential gap to be addressed
later in the cultural model section of this chapter and Chapter Five. In summary, Team 17 has an
effective project team to execute the ERP implementation, which validates this influence as an
asset.
Cultural Models
The cultural model influence examined was that Team 17 needs to be part of a culture
where management is committed to the ERP change. The finding was that management
commitment to the ERP project is a need.
143

Survey Results
Members of Team 17 were asked about Team 17’s commitment to the ERP project. The
intent was to understand Team 17’s perception of leadership commitment to the project. The
survey thresholds follow the levels outlined earlier in the chapter for survey questions and open-
ended survey questions.
Participants were asked to rate on a Likert scale their agreement with the statement “The
PL1 Leadership team is committed to the ERP project” using ordinal scales of measurement,
measured from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The correct responses are asterisked and
summed for comparison to the cut score of 13, or 76%. The survey results are presented in
Figure 26.

Figure 26
Responses to Item: “The PL1 Leadership Team Is Committed to the ERP Project”

144

Figure 26 presents the evidence of 15 of 17, or 88%, Team 17 members who agree or
strongly agree that the leadership team is committed to the ERP project. Based on this one
survey response, compared to the cut score of 76%, there is strong evidence of this being an
asset. However, the interview evidence and other data reveal that leadership commitment is
actually a need.
Interview Findings
During the interview, Team 17 members were asked about the leadership behaviors
exhibited by other members of Team 17. The intent of the question was to understand their
perceptions and experience with other leaders inside their group, which makes up the cultural
model. The interview questions follow the common cut score of 50% majority outlined in the
beginning of the chapter.
Only three of eight Team 17 members were able to provide an example when asked to
“Describe a recent example of a Team 17 member demonstrating critical behaviors.” The 37.5%
of respondents is well below the survey cut score of 50%, supporting the assertion that this
influence is a need. Of the examples that were provided, R2 described a recent example of two
Team 17 members speaking positively about the ERP change. R3 gave an example of one Team
17 member demonstrating supporting behavior by asking questions regularly, such as “what can
I do to help.” R7 gave an example: “[Leader name] does an all-hands meeting, and [ERP] is a
topic every time.” While there was a shortage of recent examples of Team 17 members modeling
critical behaviors, 50%, four of eight, interviewees point out that no one is negative or
unsupportive. R7 affirmed, “I haven’t heard them say anything negatively.”
While the sentiment may be positive, there was a large amount of evidence pointing to a
lack of engagement from Team 17. Six of eight (75%) Team 17 interviewees pointed to a lack of
support and engagement from the leadership when asked about other team members. R5 stated,
145

“Not quite sure they’ve embraced that they’re a part of this as well.” Or in some cases,
interviewees talked about no leadership support. “I see nothing, to be honest with you,” said R5,
“It’s like nobody is not supportive, but there’s nobody out there like cheerleading this thing. … I
think it’s literally just being looked at as it’s another thing we’re going to go do.” R2 echoed, “I
would communicate more if [support] came from [senior leadership] staff.” Other team members
pointed out the lack of leadership involvement as a group. R6 stated, “This might not sound
good, but we don’t talk about it.” R5 admitted, “I don’t know that we’ve sat down as a team and
really talked about [ERP] so much.”
The lack of engagement from leadership has been a theme throughout the study. Table 22
provides a summarized look across interview responses that were coded and then determined to
be related to leadership engagement.

Table 22
Summarized Coded Responses Regarding Leadership Engagement From Across Interview
Questions
Coded response
Number of
responses
Percentage of
respondents
Limited support and engagement 6 75%
Personally do not communicate frequently 5 63%
Limited personal engagement
5 63%
Limited interaction with project team 3 38%

146

Interview findings from procedural knowledge, metacognitive knowledge and cultural
settings sections of this chapter support the assertion of the influence as a need. For example,
regarding procedural knowledge, when asked about communication frequency, 62.5% of
interviewees admitted they did not communicate frequently enough. Also, 62.5% self-reflected
on their lack of engagement when asked about adjustments to their behaviors. Additionally, the
Team 17 members discussed limited interaction with the Project Team when asked about cultural
settings. The interview analysis supports the claim that management commitment to the ERP
project is a need.
Observation
Observations were taken during a two-week testing period in the NW location and then
also in the SEA location. Of the 12 leaders located in the NW site, only two were present during
that period. One leader participated in daily testing activities and was actively involved in the
testing. The other present member of Team 17 walked around the area on four separate
occasions, each during the ERP project catered lunch period, where the leader helped themselves
to a plate and returned to their office to eat.
During the two-week testing period in the SEA location, the leadership team was present,
and the leader of the SEA location presented a welcome presentation to the ERP project team.
Leadership engagement was higher in SEA, with three of the five Team 17 members
participating in testing activities approximately half a dozen times over the test period.
Leadership involvement was not observed to be high in either of the locations. The observations
support the evidence that this influence is a need.
Document Analysis
Two MPMs and three PSMs were held during the study data-collection period. All
members of Team 17 are invited to attend all five meetings. All members were sent a meeting
147

notice invitation at the same time over two weeks in advance and using the company’s email
system to attend all the MPMs and PSMs. The PSMs occur on the same day each month and are
set as recurring meeting notices on participants’ calendars. The attendance records for Team 17
at MPMs and PSMs are presented in Table 23.

Table 23
Team 17 Attendance Table for Meetings and Events That Occurred During the Data-Collection
Period
Meeting description Attendance
Major Project Review 1 71%
Major Project Review 2 88%
Monthly Status Meeting 1 41%
Monthly Status Meeting 2 53%
Monthly Status Meeting 3 12%

148

The attendance across the five events presented in Table 23 represents an average
attendance of 53%. In four of the five meetings, less than 13 of 17 Team 17 members attended
the required meetings. The artifact analysis supports the evidence that this influence is a need.
Summary
The assumed influence that Team 17 needs to be part of a culture where management is
committed to the ERP change is a need. According to the survey data, 88% of Team 17 self-rated
the group as committed. However, during the interview, only 37.5% were able to provide an
example of another Team 17 member demonstrating commitment. Seventy-five percent of
interviewees pointed to a lack of support and engagement from the leadership as a gap, and
62.5% voluntarily self-reflected on their personal lack of engagement in the project. Lack of
engagement was also validated by Team 17’s average meeting attendance of 54% and self-
admitted commitment failures, such as the 62.5% who admitted they did not communicate
frequently enough (in K-P) and the three interviewees who admitted to limited interaction with
the ERP project team (in cultural settings). In summary, Team 17 is not creating a culture where
management is committed to the ERP change; therefore, this influence is a need.
Summary of Validated Influences
Tables 24, 25, and 26 show the KMO influences for this study and their determination as
assets or needs.

149

Table 24
Knowledge Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed knowledge influence Asset or need
Factual
Team 17 needs to be able to remember facts and data that are
current and relevant (K-F).
Need
Conceptual
Team 17 needs to determine ERP change impact on
employees’ ability to perform job duties (K-C).
Asset
Procedural
Team 17 needs to know how to illustrate positive
communication, including providing answers to questions
(K-P).
Asset
Team 17 needs to know how to apply techniques to address
employee resistance while rewarding ERP acceptance (K-P).
Asset
Metacognitive
Team 17 needs to reflect on how their critical leadership
behaviors impact the successful ERP outcome (K-M).
Asset

Table 25
Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed motivation influence Asset or need
Expectancy value: Team 17 needs to believe the ERP project
benefits them and their interests.
Asset
Self-efficacy: Team 17 needs to have the self-efficacy to
achieve a successful ERP implementation.
Asset

150

Table 26
Organizational Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed organization influence Asset or need
Cultural settings: Team 17 needs an effective
project team to execute the ERP
implementation.
Asset
Cultural model: Team 17 needs to be part of a
culture where management is committed to
the ERP change.
Need

The findings presented in this chapter were reported using the KMO categories outlined
in Chapter Two. Through the use of a survey, interviews, observations, and document analysis as
defined in Chapter Three, influences have been analyzed and determined to be needs to assets.
Chapter Five will present recommendations for solutions for those influences determined to be
needs based on empirical evidence.
151

Chapter Five: Recommendations
PL1 needs to implement the new ERP system without impacting its customer deliveries
and returning to baseline production rate according to plan. PL1 has business objectives and
customer deliveries relying on a successful implementation. The success of the PL1 ERP
project is critical to WidgetCo’s overall ERP strategy.
Organizational Performance Goal
Organizational success is defined as completing the ERP project on time with zero
customer disruptions and returning to 100% of the production rate prior to the implementation
(the baseline rate). The organizational performance SMART goal is that PL1 will Go-Live on a
new ERP system on May 1, 2023, and will return to the baseline production rate by September 1,
2023. This performance goal was established in alignment with Team 17 and the ERP project
team, as returning to baseline production rate is a leading indicator of customer OTD. ERP
implementations significantly disrupt the operations and supply chain during transition, which
highlights the risks associated with the ability of organizations to return to their baseline rate.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
WidgetCo is a conglomerate business with a matrixed organization. Customer
satisfaction and business financial commitments are accounted for by PLs with program
managers. The PLs and program managers are supported by individuals and teams across
functional areas such as engineering, operations, quality, supply chain, finance, and human
resources. WidgetCo has 20 PLs across its global business. Each product line has its own
program managers and teams across functional areas that are accountable to their own customers.
PL1 is the first of 20 product lines to adopt the common ERP.
PL1’s leadership team, known as Team 17, is made up of 17 leaders across multiple
functional areas and programs. Team 17 governs the PL1 organization and directs the thousands
152

of ERP system users. ERP implementations are highly complex and difficult to implement
(Mahraz et al., 2020). To increase the likelihood of success, WidgetCo has established an ERP
project team to partner with each product line to provide organizational support and document
lessons learned for future implementations. The matrix organization and stakeholder
relationships are shown in Figure 1.
The members of Team 17 were the stakeholders of focus for this study. Team 17,
identified in the blue box in Figure 1, are the 17 managers in PL1 responsible for implementing
the ERP across their various functionalities. Team 17 makes up the highest level of decision
makers within PL1. The leaders of Team 17 are primarily responsible for providing product on
time to the customer that meets quality requirements and executing the strategic business plan.
Team 17 has organizational responsibility over the thousands of ERP system users whose
adoption is required for system implementation. The ERP project team, shown in the green box
in Figure 1, represents WidgetCo’s ERP project team that will implement the common ERP
across all 20 PLs. The ERP project team is responsible for executing the project in collaboration
with Team 17 and interacts across multiple levels of the PL1 organization.
While the joint efforts of all stakeholders will contribute to a successful ERP
implementation and return to the baseline production rate, this study centered on the Team 17
stakeholder group. Team 17 sits at the epicenter of power between the customer, organization,
and resources. They serve as the primary voice to the customer and have accountability over the
resources required to meet customer commitments and expectations. Team 17 leaders are the
accountability directors who influence the priority and sustainability of the system users
fostering a sustainable environment. Additionally, the members of Team 17 are the primary
business partners who will determine success and validation that success is achieved. A
successful ERP implementation with enabled business processes and accurate, relevant, and
153

accessible data (Chofreh et al., 2018) benefits Team 17 the most, and they are in a position to
reinforce and support the project. According to the research (Acar et al., 2017; Finney & Corbett,
2007; Mahraz et al., 2020; Moon, 2007; Ha & Ahn, 2014), management support is one of the
most CSFs in ERP implementation and post-implementations.
Goal of the Stakeholder Group for the Study
The goal for WidgetCo is to implement a new ERP system across all of its PLs by the end
of 2024. The goal for PL1 is to implement the new ERP system on time and budget with zero
customer disruptions. For PL1 to achieve its goal, it must achieve its internal operational
performance goal of returning to baseline production rate within the four-month plan. The largest
contributor to achieving baseline rate is determined by system users adopting the new ERP and
physically transacting in the system (internal data). System usage and employee adoption are
most influenced by the management of an organization (Park, 2018), or in the case of this study,
Team 17.
While WidgetCo has mandated an ERP project team and provided many of the
organizational needs that will be discussed in detail in Chapter Two, the ERP project team
cannot successfully implement a new ERP system without the support of Team 17. Support from
Team 17 comes in the form of critical leadership behaviors that support communication, change
management and employee adoption of the new ERP system (Finney & Corbett, 2007; Martin &
Huq, 2007; Park, 2018). The performance goal for this specified stakeholder group is to ensure
Team 17 will consistently exhibit the critical leadership behaviors required for successful ERP
implementation by May 1, 2023. PL1’s organizational mission, organizational performance goal,
and aligned Team 17 performance goal are presented in Table 1.
According to Martin and Huq (2007), management should delegate ERP project
execution and project management to a competent and experienced team so they can continue to
154

perform their leadership duties required for the daily operation of the business. Given the
organizational structure supporting PL1 ERP project, the role of Team 17 is limited to a few
critical behaviors that, if enacted consistently, should achieve the organization’s ability to
transact in the new ERP system that results in a return to baseline rate and supports customer
delivery demands (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). As such, Team 17’s successful ERP
implementation requires them to exhibit the following critical behaviors consistently:
1. Consistently demonstrates positive language about the ERP project. Able to articulate
benefits and answer employee questions. Communicates bi-weekly to direct staff and
quarterly to all employees.
2. Takes action to address employee concerns as they arise. Consistently rewards
employee adoption.
3. Models engaged leadership. Visibly present at ERP events, able to consistently speak
positively about the ERP project, address employee resistance and reward adoption.
If Team 17 can exhibit the critical behaviors consistently, system users are more likely to adopt
the new ERP system, which correlates to more “fingers on keyboards” system transactions that
lead to PL1 returning to baseline rate with zero customer disruptions.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to conduct a needs analysis of the knowledge and
skill, motivation, and organizational resources needed to reach the stakeholder performance
goal. The possible stakeholder needs were examined systematically to focus on validated
stakeholder needs. Two research questions guided this study:
1. What are Team 17’s knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization needs
required to achieve successful ERP implementation?
155

2. What are the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
recommendations that can be made to Team 17 to achieve their goal?
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
The findings presented in this chapter were reported using the KMO influences outlined
in Chapter Two. Chapter Three defined the use of a survey, interviews, observations, and
document analysis. The KMO influences were analyzed and determined to be needs or assets in
Chapter Four. This chapter presents learning and accountability recommendations that influence
the critical leadership behaviors required for successful ERP implementations.
The recommendations presented in this chapter will be implemented as a training
program based on the new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The
model works backward, beginning with a desired outcome as the basis for a training program
(Level 4), and tailored to address participant behavior (Level 3), providing skills and knowledge
(Level 2) that are relevant and favorable to participants (Level 1; Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). The learning acquired through effective training needs to be transferred into behavior and
used on the job to impact the business mission (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). In the case of
Team 17, the recommendations were built based on desired behaviors required to implement
ERP.
Knowledge Recommendations
The assumed knowledge influences outlined in Chapter Two are factual, conceptual,
procedural, and metacognitive. The five influences have been identified as a need or asset based
on the data. The assumed influences were prioritized based on the findings and my knowledge as
a member of the WidgetCo organization. Table 27 summarizes each knowledge influence’s need
or asset determination, priority and recommendations based on theoretical principles.

156

Table 27
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed knowledge
influence
Asset or
need
Priority
Yes or
no
Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation
Team 17 needs to be able to
remember facts and data
that are current and
relevant (K-F).
Need No
Team 17 needs to
determine ERP change
impact on employees’
ability to perform job
duties (K-C).
Asset No
Team 17 needs to know
how to illustrate positive
communication, including
providing answers to
questions (K-P).
Asset Yes
Sociocultural
training
approach,
focused on the
cultural context
and social nature
of learning,
including
learning from
others within the
environment, the
self and history
(Rueda, 2011).
Provide Team 17 group
training with
opportunities to
practice steps in
answering questions
and feedback on their
answers from their
peers.

Team 17 needs to know
how to apply techniques
to address employee
resistance while
rewarding ERP
acceptance (K-P).
Asset Yes
Information
processing
system theory
connects new
information with
prior knowledge
to help
individuals
organize,
identify, and
recall important
information
(McCrudden et
al., 2006).
Provide Team 17 group
training with
opportunities to
practice steps for
addressing employee
resistance and
feedback on their
answers from their
peers.

Provide Team 17 a
“how to sheet” for
rewarding employees.
157

Assumed knowledge
influence
Asset or
need
Priority
Yes or
no
Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation
Team 17 needs to reflect on
how their critical
leadership behaviors
impact the successful
ERP outcome (K-M).
Asset No

Declarative Knowledge Solutions
The factual knowledge influence was validated as a need. Through survey, interview,
observations, and document analysis, it was determined that Team 17 did not know the facts and
details about the ERP project. The results and findings of this study indicated that Team 17 could
identify correct facts 58% of the time, nearly 20 points lower than the threshold score of 76%.
During the interview, when asked to remember facts about the project, Team 17 recalled benefits
and hopes 50% of the time (n = 8). While the influence was determined to be a need, it is not a
priority that requires a recommendation and solution. Team 17 has access to the facts and the
ability to leverage their respective ERP project team member, which according to the interview
data (n = 8), they do 63% of the time. The ERP project team provides the cultural setting and
support so that Team 17’s reliance on their personal ability to recall facts and data is less
important compared to other influences.
The conceptual knowledge influence that Team 17 needs to determine ERP change
impact on employees’ ability to perform job duties was validated as an asset. The data presented
in Chapter Four explains that Team 17 understands the big picture and some specifics of how
their employees’ jobs will change. In the survey, 94% (n = 17) recognized the impact on
employees. In the interviews (n = 8), 75% recognized process changes, and 50% mentioned other
specific impacts on employees. While it is important that Team 17 understand the impact on
158

employees’ job duties, the Team 17 members could articulate impacts without any previous
intervention or education on impact. Team 17 arrived at the conceptual knowledge through their
own leadership involvement. Given Team 17’s ability to understand employee impact through
their own leadership engagement and involvement, this is not a priority and does not require a
recommendation and solution.
Procedural Knowledge Solutions
The first solution is to provide Team 17 group training with opportunities to practice
answering questions and addressing employee resistance, followed by feedback from their peers.
Both procedural knowledge influences were validated as assets and priorities. The specific
know-how of Team 17 to illustrate positive communication, answer questions and apply
techniques to address employee resistance is foundational to the critical leadership behaviors
outlined earlier in this chapter. Team 17 needs to know the steps to reenact those steps as
appropriate when the situation calls for it. A sociocultural approach, which focuses on the
cultural context and social nature of learning, including learning from others within the
environment, the self and history (Rueda, 2011), was used as the basis of the recommendation.
Training supports the development of how-to knowledge through practice and feedback that
helps learners develop specific skills (Clark & Estes, 2008). Training in a group setting will
provide high-impact learning in this context (Clark & Estes, 2008), especially as Team17 can
practice learning scenarios in a sociocultural environment that is familiar to their cultural setting
(Rueda, 2011).
A good education provides general conceptual and analytical knowledge (Clark & Estes,
2008). Clark and Estes (2008) recommended that training provides important concepts,
processes, and how-to strategies. Recommended communication strategies include
communicating regularly (Finney & Corbett, 2007; Park, 2018) and using an adaptive style that
159

fits the organization or individual needs (Martin & Huq, 2007). Martin and Huq (2007)
recommended management proactively understand underlying cultural influences that impact the
change and develop a plan to address it. Reinforcing and rewarding the right employee behaviors
is another approach to combat resistance (Martin & Huq, 2007). Along with knowledge
strategies, individuals need a chance to practice that is followed by feedback (Clark & Estes,
2008). Practice scenarios that mimic setting and job context will have an impact on the result of
the training (Clark & Estes, 2008). The evidence affirms that providing group training classes
that include the opportunity to practice and receive feedback will facilitate Team 17’s know-how
to communicate positively and address resistance.
The second solution is to provide Team 17 with a how-to sheet for rewarding employees.
Information processing system theory connects new information with prior knowledge to help
individuals organize, identify and recall important information (McCrudden et al., 2006).
Information processing theory, with learning tools that organize information in a visual format
(Rueda, 2011), is the basis of the recommendation. Jobs aids provide information and offer
employees self-help that allows them to perform tasks independently (Clark & Estes, 2008).
WidgetCo has an established employee rewards and recognition system. In the case of Team 17,
they need a reminder of the scenarios and reward options available to them when recognizing
employee adoption. A job aid provides reminders about how learning can be applied (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Metacognitive Knowledge Solutions
Team 17’s metacognitive knowledge, meaning their ability to reflect on how their critical
leadership behaviors impact the successful ERP outcome, was validated as an asset and is not a
priority for learning and accountability recommendations. The study found that Team 17 self-
reflected on their behavior without intervention. In the survey, 82.3% (n = 17) reported adjusting
160

their leadership behaviors, while 62.5% (n = 8) of Team 17 discussed self-reflections in the
interviews. I attribute this behavioral asset to some of the foundational WidgetCo leadership
practices and valuing self-reflection behaviors in the organization. This influence is an asset that
exists without intervention and therefore is not prioritized in the learning and development plan.
Motivation Recommendations
The assumed motivation influences outlined in Chapter Two were expectancy value and
self-efficacy. The two influences were identified as needs or assets based on the data. The
assumed influences were prioritized based on the findings and my knowledge. Table 28
summarizes each motivation influence’s need or asset determination, priority and
recommendations based on theoretical principles.

161

Table 28
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed motivation
influence
Asset
or need
Priority
Yes or no
Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation
Team 17 needs to believe
the ERP project benefits
them and their interests.
Asset No

Team 17 needs to have
the self-efficacy to
achieve a successful
ERP implementation.
Asset Yes
To develop self-
efficacy, learners
need directed
practice and
performance
feedback
(Ambrose et al.,
2010).

Learners judge
their self-efficacy
based on their
previous
performances,
watching others
model the
behavior, social
persuasion, and
psychological
indices (Elliot et
al., 2018).
Provide Team 17
group training
with
opportunities to
observe and
practice critical
behaviors in real-
world scenarios
that includes
feedback from
peers.

Expectancy Value
Team 17’s expectancy value toward the benefits of the ERP project was validated as an
asset. In the survey, 94% of respondents self-reported that they expect to benefit from the ERP
implementation, and 88% of interview respondents said the ERP implementation is worth the
effort. Both survey and interview results exceed the threshold for a strong correlation of
evidence. This influence is an asset with high correlation and therefore is not prioritized in the
learning and development plan.
162

Self-Efficacy
Provide Team 17 group training with opportunities to observe and practice critical
behaviors in real-world scenarios that includes feedback from peers. Team 17’s self-efficacy in
their ability to perform critical behaviors was validated as an asset and is considered to be a
priority in the learning and development plan. To develop self-efficacy, learners need directed
practice and performance feedback (Ambrose et al., 2010), which was the basis of the
recommendation. People are motivated to take action, persist, and expend mental effort on the
actions that are perceived to impact their effectiveness the most (Clark & Estes, 2008). To
develop self-efficacy, learners need directed practice and performance feedback (Ambrose et al.,
2010). Learners judge their self-efficacy based on their previous performances, watching others
model the behavior, social persuasion, and psychological indices (Elliot et al., 2018). Training
followed by participating in or watching others model real-world scenarios and participating in
feedback helps learners develop self-efficacy skills (Ambrose et al., 2010). Immediate feedback
should be balanced with strengths and opportunities for improvement (Borgogni et al., 2011).
Students make assessments about their capabilities by watching others complete a task,
and their belief about other students’ abilities transfers onto themselves (Elliot et al., 2018).
According to Rueda (2011), motivation is best measured by participants self-reporting on a self-
rated scale. Individual members' self-ratings can be aggregated to determine group efficacy
(Bandura, 2000). The more Team 17 believes in their ability to perform the critical behavior, the
more likely they will perform the behavior, such as communicating benefits and persisting in
support of the new ERP when the organization resists.
Organization Recommendations
The assumed organizational influences outlined in Chapter Two were cultural settings
and cultural models. The two influences have been identified as needs or assets based on the
163

data. The assumed influences were prioritized based on the findings and my knowledge. Table
29 summarizes each organizational influence’s need or asset determination, priority and
recommendations based on theoretical principles.

Table 29
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed organization influence Asset
or
need
Priority
Yes or
no
Principle and
citation

Context-specific
recommendation
Cultural settings: Team 17 needs an
effective project team to execute
the ERP implementation.
Asset No

Cultural models: Team 17 needs to
be part of a culture where
management is committed to the
ERP change.
Need Yes
Utilize a
behavioral
approach
(Rueda, 2011),
align
organizational
structure with
project goals
(Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Provide Team 17
an incentive
system that
rewards leaders
for
demonstrating
commitment to
the ERP change.

164

Cultural Settings
Team 17’s need for an effective project team to execute the ERP implementation was
validated as an asset. In the survey, 88% of Team 17 members said they agree or strongly agree
that the ERP project team is capable of completing the ERP project, and 87.5% expressed
confidence in their abilities. During interviews, 62.5% of Team 17 members described examples
of the ERP project team being effective. Both survey and interview results exceed the threshold
for a strong correlation of evidence. This influence is an asset with high correlation and therefore
is not prioritized in the learning and development plan.
Cultural Models
The recommendation is to provide Team 17 an incentive system that rewards leaders for
demonstrating commitment to the ERP change. Regarding a cultural model, the notion that Team
17 needs to be part of a culture where management is committed to the ERP change was
validated as a gap and is considered a priority in the learning and development plan. A
behavioral approach focused on external behavior of participants to change the external
environment (Rueda, 2011) was used as the basis of the recommendation. Behaviors are
supported when the organization's structures and processes are aligned with goals (Clark &
Estes, 2008). The commitment, demonstrated through the commitment of their personal time and
resources (Lin, 2010; Mouakket & Nour, 2011) and their active involvement of top management
in organizational changes, is critical to the project's success (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The leadership structure needs to be defined and accountability established to ensure
everyone has the same assumptions (Schein, 2017). Assumptions should be specific to leadership
engagement and critical behaviors. Structure and accountability can be established using a
responsibility and accountability (RA) matrix and a leadership engagement pledge, where leaders
pledge to be engaged in the ERP project, sign and display it for the entire organization to see.
165

Consistency of leadership involvement in the program demonstrates priority to the organization
(Schein, 2017). Therefore, it is important to have a reward system for leaders who consistently
demonstrate the right behaviors (Schein, 2017). Establishing a leader incentive system (Rueda,
2011) that rewards leaders and monitors engagement (Schein, 2017) encourages the behavior and
engagement of leaders. Leader monitoring will be used to reinforce accountability and engaged
leadership expectations. It is important for leaders to check on their performance in relation to
their organizational goals (Schein, 2017). Leadership engagement metrics about actual group
performance, including self-reported measures and attendance, will be shown in leader meetings
and discussed between Team 17 and the ERP project team.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) begins with the end
in mind and fosters accountable change management in organizations. The model is based on
five foundational principles: (a) begin with the end in mind; (b) value is determined by the return
on expectations (ROE); (c) positive ROE requires business partnership; (d) create value before
demonstrating value; and (e) value demonstration requires compelling evidence (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). The model centers on stakeholder expectations to define success and value.
The ROE is defined as the ability of a training initiative to demonstrate and satisfy key business
stakeholder expectations. The stakeholder-centered approach ensures results are at the
organizational level in a way that all initiative participants understand the mission (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016).
The Kirkpatrick model begins with measurable terms defined at the organizational level
and then works backward to accomplish the mission. Organizational understanding of the
intended outcome increases the effective and efficient use of resources toward the change. The
model consists of four levels that must be considered throughout a change program’s design,
166

execution, and measurement. Effective training that is well received, applicable to the job and
provides relevant information and skills to participants begins before a change initiative and
continues after the program (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). What was learned needs to be
transferred into behavior and used on the job to impact the business mission. The relevant
improved job performance is defined as training effectiveness and can be used to demonstrate
ROE and value (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016)
implementation and evaluation framework serves as an organizational accountability model by
aligning stakeholder expectations framed for the organization.
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
The Kirkpatrick model begins with the end in mind, which, in terms of this study, is the
PL1’s organizational mission, performance goals and Team 17’s performance goals, and then
works backward to accomplish the mission. PL1’s organizational mission, organizational
performance goal, and aligned Team 17 performance goal are presented in Table 1.
The goal for WidgetCo is to implement a new ERP system across all of its PLs by the end
of 2024. The goal for PL1 is to implement the new ERP system with zero customer disruptions.
Thus, PL1 must achieve its internal operational performance goal of returning to the baseline
production rate within a four-month plan. The largest contributor to achieving baseline rate is
determined by system users adopting the new ERP and physically transacting in the system
(Internal Data). System usage and employee adoption are most influenced by the management of
an organization (Park, 2018). Support from Team 17 comes in the form of critical leadership
behaviors that support communication, change management and employee adoption of the new
ERP system (Finney & Corbett, 2007; Martin & Huq, 2007; Park, 2018).
The performance goal for this stakeholder group is to ensure that Team 17 will
consistently exhibit the critical leadership behaviors required for successful ERP implementation
167

by May 1, 2023. The expectation is that Team 17 will complete the recommendations prior to the
ERP implementation project Go-Live and fully exhibit the behaviors consistently by May 1,
2023. Working backward in the Kirkpatrick model, the expectations for Team 17 behaviors
establish the desired outcome as the basis for the training program (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). As stated, effective training begins before a change initiative and continues after the
program (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). What was learned needs to be transferred into
behavior and used on the job to impact the business mission.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Training programs that begin with the end in mind at Level 4 and start by identifying the
degree to which training results in targeted organizational outcomes (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). In Level 4, organizational results are clearly defined, typically as a combination of
financial commitments and organizational purpose (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The
leading indicators at Level 4 are short-term measurements to ensure organizational behaviors are
on track to achieve the desired results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
External and internal outcomes are the result of the stakeholder achieving their goal.
External outcomes refer to things that affect customers or the business outside of the
organization, whereas internal outcomes refer to those that affect the organization undergoing the
implementation. If the internal outcomes are met as expected, then the external outcomes should
also be achieved: An organization that effectively goes live on a new ERP system and returns to
the baseline production rate will result in zero customer disruptions. Table 30 shows the Level 4
organizational outcomes, metrics, and methods used to monitor and ensure the organization is on
track to achieve both the external and internal desired results.

168

Table 30
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metrics Methods
External outcomes
Zero customer disruptions
caused by the ERP project.
On-time customer delivery in
the 6 months post Go-Live
Downloaded from customer
scorecard website monthly
by the program manager
Internal outcomes
Go-Live on a new ERP
system on May 1, 2023.
New ERP system active, old
system disconnected
Record actual date of new
system start.
Return to the baseline
production rate by
September 1, 2023.
Number of units completed
compared to number of
units planned
Data pulled from ERP system
weekly beginning at Go-
Live by the program
manager

Level 3: Behavior
The Kirkpatrick model’s Level 3 is defined as the degree to which participants apply
knowledge from training to the job (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level 3 focuses on critical
behaviors, which are a few key behaviors that need to be consistently performed to bring about
targeted outcomes (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level 3 targets the required drivers,
defined as inputs that reinforce, monitor, and reward the demonstration of critical behaviors on
the job. Leading indicators, coupled with critical behaviors and required drivers, are key to
ensuring training programs deliver organizational value (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Critical Behaviors
The Kirkpatrick model points to the importance of personal responsibility and motivation
as key partners to organizational reinforcement (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The critical
behaviors required for successful ERP implementations are defined in Chapter One as
169

1. Consistently demonstrates positive language about the ERP project. Able to articulate
benefits and answer employee questions. Communicates bi-weekly to direct staff and
quarterly to all employees.
2. Takes action to address employee concerns as they arise. Consistently rewards
employee adoption.
3. Models engaged leadership. Visibly present at ERP events, able to consistently speak
positively about the ERP project, address employee resistance and reward adoption.
Team 17 members who consistently demonstrate critical leadership behaviors will set the
foundation for implementation success. Table 31 connects the stakeholder’s critical behaviors
with metrics, methods, and timing for evaluation. The critical behaviors will be monitored and
adjusted during the program to facilitate the intended outcome and adapt to unanticipated
cultural challenges.

Table 31
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical behavior Metrics Methods Timing
Consistently
demonstrate
positive language.
Number of times per
month Team 17
discusses the ERP
project as an agenda
item in staff or all-
employee meeting.
Number of times per
quarter Team 17
presents the ERP
project as an agenda
item to all
employees.
Team 17 shall self-
report to ERP
project team using a
shared metrics file.
Monthly following
the WS until
September 2023.
170

Critical behavior Metrics Methods Timing
Identify and address
ERP resistance.
Number of times per
month Team 17
members had to
address resistance,
including action
taken.
Team 17 shall self-
report to ERP
project team using a
shared metrics file.
Monthly following
the WS until
September 2023.
Acknowledging and
rewarding adoption.
Number of
employees
recognized per
month by Team 17,
including
recognition type.
Team 17 shall self-
report to ERP
project team using a
shared metrics file.
Monthly following
the WS until
September 2023.
Model engaged
leadership.
Attendance records,
Number of ERP
events, training and
meetings attended.
Program manager
shall track
attendance at all
required ERP
events, training, and
meetings.
Reported monthly.
Attendance recorded
in real-time as
events occur.
Self-reported
numbers meet
target thresholds.
Number of times
ERP on staff/all-
employee meeting
agenda.
Number of
employees
recognized per
month.
Program manager
shall track using
Team 17 shared
metrics file used for
self-reporting.
Monthly following
the WS until
September 2023.
Self-efficacy score,
indicate belief in
their ability to
explain the ERP
change and address
resistance
(confidence).
Team 17 shall self-
report on
“confidence in
ability to perform
critical behaviors”
using Qualtrics
survey.
During the workshop
at the start of the
ERP project and
both training
classes, nine and
seven months prior
to Go-Live.

Required Drivers
For Team 17 to consistently perform the critical behaviors, required drivers, based on the
KMO influences, need to be in place. Required drivers reinforce, encourage, reward, and monitor
Team 17’s critical leadership behaviors. Team 17 needs clear knowledge of their responsibilities
171

and role in the ERP implementation and to be committed to the ERP project. Knowledge
reinforcement is established by defined roles and training classes, followed by motivational
encouragement using a leadership pledge. A recognition mechanism is in place for leaders
modeling engaged behavior and includes a small financial award and public announcement.
Monitoring critical behaviors includes using attendance records and a self-efficacy score for
leaders to indicate belief in their ability to explain the ERP change and address resistance
measured during the leadership workshop and training classes throughout the ERP project. Team
17 can be monitored for their engagement, which considers attendance at all ERP meetings and
events, and self-reporting the number of times they perform critical behaviors. Drivers to support
stakeholder behaviors are intended to motivate through goal alignment, attainment value of
knowledge and training, and financial and public recognition. Table 32 outlines the required
drivers to support Team 17 critical behaviors.

172

Table 32
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors for Team 17
Methods Timing
Critical
behaviors
supported
Reinforcing (K-related)
Defined roles and responsibilities
for Team 17
Start of ERP project 1, 2, 3
Manager training: Communicating
through change. Includes post-
training survey
Nine months prior to Go-Live 1
Manager training: Addressing
resistance and rewarding adoption.
Includes post-training survey
Seven months prior to Go-Live 2
Job aid: Rewarding employees for
ERP adoption
Seven months prior to Go-Live,
during addressing resistance and
rewarding adoption manager
training
2
Encouraging (M-related)
Leadership pledge

Start of ERP project, posted
visibly for employees to see
daily

1, 2, 3
Specific feedback which is aligned
to desired behaviors and includes
procedural advice

During manager training, nine and
seven months prior to Go-Live
1, 2
Rewarding (M-related)
Recognition mechanism for leaders
modeling engaged behavior,
including small financial award
and public announcement
Monthly in Team 17 staff
meetings

1, 2, 3
Participants who engage in
modeling will be rewarded with a
certificate and public recognition
WS1, T1 and T2
1, 2, 3
Monitoring (O-related)
Team 17 attendance records Recorded during events, meetings,
and training
3
Self-reported numbers
Number of times ERP on staff/all-
employee meeting agenda
Number of employees recognized
per month

Self-reported monthly using a
shared metrics file
1, 2, 3
173

Methods Timing
Critical
behaviors
supported
Monitoring (O-related)
Self-efficacy score, self-reported
belief in their ability to explain the
ERP change and address resistance
During the workshop at the start of
the ERP project and both
training classes, nine and seven
months prior to Go-Live
1, 2, 3

Organizational Support
The ERP implementation is viewed as a strategic business initiative by WidgetCo and
PL1. The priority has been legitimized through the allocation of funding and resources. The
critical behaviors and required drivers will be reinforced by PL1’s president and vice presidents,
who are key project stakeholders. The ERP project team will monitor, reinforce, and report the
progress of Team 17’s leadership engagement and demonstration of critical behaviors.
Level 2: Learning
Level 2 is defined as the degree to which participants acquire the intended knowledge,
skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment based on their participation in the training
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Otherwise stated, Level 2 is the degree to which participants
know it, can do it right now, believe it is worthwhile to do on the job, think they can do it, and
are willing to do it based on their participation in the training (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
The learning goals in support of these behaviors are heavily focused on stakeholder KMO
priorities around the change. To support the required drivers and the desired stakeholder critical
behaviors, a learning program has been developed to target Level 3 behaviors.
174

Learning Goals
Level 2 learning goals make up the desired knowledge and skills coupled with a positive
attitude, confidence and commitment based on participation in the training (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Following the completion of the training program, Team 17 will be able to
• Recognize their role as leaders in the ERP implementation (K-D).
• Explain why the change is good for the organization (K-D).
• Generate responses to questions about the change (K-P).
• Demonstrate ability to address employee concerns (K-P).
• Show confidence in their ability to explain the ERP change (confidence).
• Show confidence in their ability to address resistance (confidence).
• Communicate with frequency (commitment).
• Reward employees for ERP adoption (commitment).
• Attend project meetings (commitment).
Program
The training program that supports the learning goals will be done across a workshop and
training events. Social cognitive theory states that behavioral learning occurs in social
environments (Schunk & Usher, 2019). Creating a training program to address stakeholder
behaviors is best done in a group setting with time for individual reflection and processing.
Workshops are used to facilitate learning in social environments where participants learn through
enactive and vicarious experiences.
The training program consists of one two-hour workshop and two one-and-a-half-hour,
instructor-led training classes. The workshop (WS) occurs at the beginning of the ERP
implementation project, followed by training (T1) nine months prior to the ERP Go-Live and
another training class (T2) approximately seven months prior to Go-Live. Various methods will
175

be used to assess participants’ engagement, including menti.com polls, Zoom polls, and
question-and-answer sessions.
The first workshop in the training program will be focused on the what and the why of
the change. The workshop begins with the big picture, company vision, ERP history and ERP
benefits. The workshop is aimed at appealing to the hearts and minds of the participants in
preparation for the change. Participants will be asked to articulate “their own why” for the
change, self-reflect and express concerns in a public forum. Participants will be encouraged to
openly discuss perceived benefits and concerns; ideas will be documented and displayed on a
large whiteboard. Participants that engage in modeling will be rewarded with a certificate and
public recognition. Participant questions will be answered.
To support the WS learning goals, an RA matrix will be established with participants to
ensure a clear understanding of their roles as a leader during the ERP project. Additionally, a
leadership pledge of support and engagement will be written, signed by all leaders, and hung
publicly in the facility for all employees to see. At the end of the workshop, participants will be
asked to rate the value they place on the ERP project (attitude), their belief that they can explain
the change and address resistance (confidence), and their willingness to communicate with
regular frequency, regularly reward employees and attend ERP project events (commitment) and
be surveyed for satisfaction and relevance of the event. Appendix H presents the immediate
evaluation instrument.
Approximately nine months prior to Go-Live, the same audience will participate in a 90-
minute, instructor-led, virtual training class (T1) focused on “communicating through change.”
The course will be a combination of instructor-led training material interwoven with three to four
real-life communication examples from a credible leader. The credible leader stories and
experiences will model good communication practices for participants. Participants will have the
176

opportunity to practice modeling and receive specific feedback that includes procedural advice.
Audience polls will be used throughout the training to access knowledge transfer and
engagements. During the training, participants will be asked open-ended questions and be asked
to generate answers. Participants will be provided with job aids to reference in the future.
Participants that engage in modeling will be rewarded with a certificate and public recognition.
At the end of the training, participants will be asked to rate the value they place on the ERP
project (attitude), their belief that they can explain the change and address resistance
(confidence), and their willingness to communicate with regular frequency, regularly reward
employees and attend ERP project events (commitment) and be surveyed for satisfaction and
relevance of the training.
The training class (T2) will take place approximately seven months prior to Go-Live with
the same audience. T2 will be a 90-minute, instructor-led, virtual training class addressing
resistance and rewarding adoption. The course will be a combination of instructor-led training
material interwoven with three to four real-life communication examples from a credible leader.
Participants will also have the opportunity to practice modeling and receive feedback. Audience
polls will be used throughout the training to access knowledge transfer and engagements. During
the training, participants will be asked open-ended questions and be asked to generate answers.
Participants will be provided with job aids to reference in the future. Participants that engage in
modeling will be rewarded with a certificate and public recognition. At the end of the training,
participants will be asked to rate the value they place on the ERP project (attitude), their belief
that they can explain the change and address resistance (confidence), and their willingness to
communicate with regular frequency, regularly reward employees and attend ERP project events
(commitment) and be surveyed for satisfaction and relevance of the training.
177

Evaluation of the Components of Learning
Learner reaction to training correlates directly to the level of learning, especially
participants who are actively engaged in the learning experience, find relevance to their job, and
have the ability to apply what was learned (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table 33 lists the
evaluation methods and timing to evaluate learner goals.

178

Table 33
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program.
Methods or activities Timing
Declarative knowledge: “I know it.”
Knowledge check using that require them to
identify their responsibilities in a list of
responsibilities
During the WS at the start of the ERP project
Knowledge checks using menti.com or Zoom
polls asking participants to paraphrase and
summarize why the change is good for the
business
During the WS at the start of the ERP project
Procedural skills: “I can do it right now.”
Demonstration in groups or individually that
the participant can explain why the ERP
change is good for the organization
During the WS at the start of the ERP project
Demonstration in groups or individually that
the participant can answer questions about
the ERP project
During manager training: Communicating
through change, nine months prior to Go-
Live
Demonstration in groups or individually that
the participant can determine strategies to
address resistance
Manager training: Addressing resistance and
rewarding adoption, seven months prior to
Go-Live
Attitude: “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Indicate value they place on the ERP project. During the WS at the start of the ERP project
and both training classes, nine and seven
months prior to Go-Live
Confidence: “I think I can do it on the job.”
Self-efficacy score: confidence in their ability
to explain the ERP change (confidence)
During the WS at the start of the ERP project
and both training classes, nine and seven
months prior to Go-Live
Self-efficacy score: confidence in their ability
to address resistance (confidence)
During the WS at the start of the ERP project
and both training classes, nine and seven
months prior to Go-Live
Commitment: “I will do it on the job.”
Demonstration of commitment by signing
leaders pledge
During the WS at the start of the ERP project
Communicate with frequency (commitment) During the WS at the start of the ERP project
and both training classes, nine and seven
months prior to Go-Live
Rewards employees for ERP adoption
(commitment)
During the WS at the start of the ERP project
and both training classes, nine and seven
months prior to Go-Live
Attends project meetings (commitment) During the WS at the start of the ERP project
and both training classes, nine and seven
months prior to Go-Live
179

Level 1: Reaction
Level 1, commonly known as “customer satisfaction,” is the degree to which participants
enjoy and are engaged in the training (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). There is a direct
relationship between customer satisfaction and level of learning, particularly when participants
are actively engaged in the learning experience (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Ultimately,
job relevance, or opportunity to apply what was learned, is an important value to ensure the
proper use of resources and time (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table 34 lists the evaluation
methods and timing for assessing learner reactions.

Table 34
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Methods or tools Timing
Engagement
Audience polls (menti.com) used throughout
the training to access engagement
During WS, T1 and T2
Observation by facilitator During WS, T1 and T2
Attendance During WS, T1 and T2
Relevance
Course evaluation, participants will be
surveyed for satisfaction and relevance of the
training/event
During WS, T1 and T2
Customer satisfaction
Course evaluation, participants will be
surveyed for satisfaction and relevance of the
training/event
During WS, T1 and T2

180

Evaluation Immediately Following the Program Implementation
At the end of the workshops and both training classes, participants will be asked to rate
the value they place on the ERP project (attitude), their belief that they can explain the change
and address resistance (confidence), and their willingness to communicate with regular
frequency, regularly reward employees and attend ERP project events (commitment) and be
surveyed for satisfaction and relevance of the training. The immediate evaluation instrument will
be a menti.com or Zoom poll given to all participants during the last five minutes of each event.
Participants will be asked to rate each question using a Likert scale from highly disagree to
highly agree. Results will be recorded and compared across each event.
Evaluation Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation
The learning gained by the participants during the training program will set the
foundation for a successful implementation. ERP implementations are long, which requires
stakeholder learning and program value to extend through multiple project phases. Stakeholder
follow-on reaction, learning relevance, behavior outcomes, and results throughout the
implementation program will be a determination in the training program’s success. Participants
will be surveyed following the training program and again one month prior to the project Go-
Live. Participants will be surveyed using Level 1, 2, 3, and 4 questions on a Likert scale from
highly disagree to highly agree. Appendix I presents the delayed evaluation instrument.
Data Analysis and Reporting
During and at the end of workshops, participants will be asked Level 1, 2, 3, and 4 type
questions on a Likert scale to gauge their procedural skills, attitude, confidence and commitment,
reference Appendix H. The data will be gathered using a menti.com poll or Zoom meeting poll
and will be compiled and compared across topics and across WS, T1 and T2. The data collected
at the end of workshops and training will measure the same answers from the same group of
181

stakeholders to understand the training program’s effect on the stakeholder’s procedural skills,
attitude, confidence, and commitment.
Ideally, stakeholder scores will increase across the workshops and training in support of
the ERP implementation Go-Live in May 2023. Alternatively, if the immediate evaluation
instrument yields low scores, that will indicate potential upcoming change conflicts. Appendix J,
Data and Reporting, combines stakeholder self-efficacy, or confidence, in their ability to perform
critical behaviors over time. In a similar fashion, results will be compiled and compared across
time at key implementation milestones (Appendix I). Assessing Level 1, 2, 3, and 4 stakeholder
behaviors over time will validate the training program and inform the need for any additional
interventions throughout the ERP implementation project.
Summary
The Kirkpatrick implementation and evaluation framework (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016) serves as an organizational accountability model by aligning stakeholder expectations and
the ROE framework. The organizational goal is to implement a sustainable ERP system, which
requires stakeholders who are bought in and supportive of the change. The training program is
built around developing stakeholder knowledge, skills and attitude, confidence, and commitment
to achieving the stakeholder goal. Stakeholder support and accountability directly correlate to
improved performance and positive outcomes (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The
stakeholders, who sit at the epicenter of power, have the most authority to influence the change
through their behaviors. The training and evaluation program will yield the desired stakeholder
goal of Team 17: consistently demonstrate the critical leadership behaviors required for
successful ERP implementation. ROE is centered on the stakeholders’ expectations and
satisfaction around workshops and training, demonstrated by quantitative and qualitative data at
each of the four levels (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
182

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
This study used two methodological approaches to investigate the problem of practice
and recommend solutions. Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework was used to
establish and organize KMO factors in Chapter Two, design the data collection in Chapter Three
and report the results in Chapter Four. Clark and Estes’s model was then coupled with the new
world Kirkpatrick model to identify recommended solutions and priorities for implementing a
training and evaluation plan in Chapter Five. All methodological approaches have inherent
strengths and weaknesses. Clark and Estes’s KMO framework is a highly regarded method and is
a common approach to addressing problems of practice. The KMO model centers on stakeholder
behaviors aligned with organizational goals and missions. The theories of learning, motivation
and organizational needs relate to all types of organizational performance gaps. Using the KMO
framework, gaps were easily identified within the organization, making this a robust approach
for problem solving. Additionally, the new world Kirkpatrick model supported a learning and
evaluation program to address stakeholder needs. The new world Kirkpatrick model backward
planned a training program to put in place the KMO needs for Team 17 to perform critical
behaviors regularly. The KMO influences are closely related in this study, especially with the
cultural model of leaders demonstrating engagement in the ERP project. While the learning and
evaluation program gives leaders the knowledge and motivation they need to enact behaviors, it
is up to the leaders themselves to enact the cultural model that is taught.
Limitations and Delimitations
Potential limitations and delimitations of this study were first outlined in Chapter Three.
Now that the study is complete, additional limitations and delimitations have been identified.
This study surveyed all of Team 17, and a higher than 50% sampling across leaders of varying
engagement was interviewed, which brought validity to the data collection. Mixed methods and
183

data triangulation were used to prove assertions about influences being needs or assets. The
alignment of survey results, interviews, observations, and document analysis provides validity
and credibility to the quantitative and qualitative data.
Limitations of this study are related to timing. While the study was conducted, there were
active involvement and interventions happening within Team 17. The study was also conducted
in the middle of the ERP project, in time for interventions prior to Go-Live, but also after and
between previously planned training and engagement events with Team 17. The data collection
represents a moment in time; however, the results continually evolve because of the nature of the
ERP project as it moves toward Go-Live. A delimitation to the timing is that I will implement the
recommendations and learning program. Given my position as the executive overseeing the ERP
project team, I can direct timing and resources to ensure the recommendations in this chapter are
used by the organization for PL1’s ERP implementation and future PL ERP projects.
Future Research
The purpose of this study was to understand the KMO influences and gaps required for
leaders to demonstrate critical behaviors that support successful ERP implementations. This
study was selected because of WidgetCo’s multi-year, multi-project ERP strategy in an attempt
to increase the likelihood of success and meeting stakeholder expectations. The work done in this
study and within the PL1 ERP project implementation supports the successful Go-Live of PL1
and plans for future implementations. The KMO influences and learning and evaluation plans are
being incorporated into WidgetCo’s “playbook” for ERP projects and will be planned in the PL2
project and so on.
Future research in this area could be conducted in each PL implementation, which will
have a different set of Team 17 members. Outcomes from future PL implementations can be
compared to the initial PL1 study incorporated into the playbook as improvements and best
184

practices are identified. The influences and learning program identified in this study will benefit
the upcoming implementations and contribute to WidgetCo’s ERP strategy.
Conclusion
The ERP systems are considered highly desirable operational tools, providing
organizations with a competitive advantage (Acar et al., 2017; Mahraz et al., 2020; Menon et al.,
2019). The need for organizations to implement new ERP systems will continue as long as
businesses merge and industries evolve. ERP implementation is often the largest (Mahraz et al.,
2020), most challenging, expensive, complex (Mahraz et al., 2020) and risky (Finney & Corbett,
2007; Ha & Ahn, 2014; Ram & Corkindale, 2014; Ravnikar, 2010) project an organization will
ever undertake. ERP systems are commonly implemented ineffectively, resulting in
cancellations, significant cost overruns (Mahraz et al., 2020; Menon et al., 2019) and failure to
meet organizational expectations (Acar et al., 2017; Menon et al., 2019; Park, 2018).
According to Finney and Corbett (2007), management support and commitment are the
most common CSF to successful ERP implementations. Additionally, insufficient management
involvement is cited as a significant contributor to the failure of ERP system implementations
(Boonstra & Govers, 2009; Martin & Huq, 2007). This study examined the KMO needs that
influenced Team 17’s ability to consistently exhibit critical leadership behaviors resulting in a
successful ERP implementation. Critical leadership behaviors required for successful ERP
implementations are that leaders (a) consistently demonstrate positive language about the ERP
project, including articulating benefits and answering questions; (b) take action to address
employee concerns as they arise, which reward employee adoption; and (c) model engaged
leadership.
Clark and Estes’s (2008) framework was used to understand the literature on the topic
and define KMO influences. Data was collected using a mixed-methods approach that included
185

the use of a survey, interviews, observations, and document analysis. KMO influences were
analyzed and were determined to be needs or assets. At the conclusion of the study, it was clear
that the cultural model and gap in leader engagement influenced leaders’ abilities to answer
questions, communicate regularly and prioritize the ERP project.
As a result of the findings, learning and accountability recommendations that influence
the critical leadership behaviors were generated. They included increased leader visibility and
engagement, which influence the success of ERP Go-Live and return to production rate. The
recommendations provided by this study have been immediately adopted and adapted for Team
17. The training, workshops, critical drivers, and rewards will be enacted between now and the
ERP Go-Live date, May 1, 2023. An intended outcome of the research is that the learning and
development program can support Team 17’s PL1 ERP implementation as well as future
WidgetCo ERP projects. As future ERP projects are initiated, WidgetCo plans to enact the
recommendations coupled with the anticipated learning from PL1’s Go-Live. It is my belief that
the research and evidence-based focus on stakeholder behaviors will increase the likelihood of
success in these significant organizational change projects. Given WidgetCo’s multi-year
strategy, it is critical for the ERP project team to become proficient at engaging and driving the
stakeholder group that most influences the adoption and success of the ERP implementation. The
success of WidgetCo’s ERP strategy depends on it.

186

References
Abrol, B., Florio, N. M., Koenigsknecht, J., & Vickman, S. (2017). Merger and acquisition
trends in aerospace and defense: A closer look at value creation. Deloitte
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/tw/Documents/manufacturing/tw-
aerospace-defense-trends.pdf
Acar, M. F., Tarim, M., Zaim, H., Zaim, S., & Delen, D. (2017). Knowledge management and
ERP: Complementary or contradictory? International Journal of Information
Management, 37(6), 703–712. https://https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.05.007
Al-Hinai, H., Edwards, H. M., & Humphries, L. (2013). The changing importance of critical
success factors during ERP implementation: An empirical study from Oman.
International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems, 9(3), 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.4018/jeis.2013070101
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works. Jossey-Bass.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and
assessing. A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Pearson
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 2000(9), 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064
Bandura, A. (2006). Chapter 14: Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In T. Urdan & F.
Pajares (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Information Age
Publishing.
Bohorquez López, V. W. (2018). Beyond knowledge integration barriers in ERP
Implementations: An institutional approach. Journal of Information and Organizational
187

Sciences. Journal of Information and Organizational Sciences, 42(2), 159–178.
https://doi.org/10.31341/jios.42.2.1
Boonstra, A., & Govers, M. J. G. (2009). Understanding ERP system implementation in a
hospital by analysing stakeholders. New Technology, Work and Employment, 24(2), 177–
193. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-005X.2009.00227.x
Borgogni, L., Russo, S. D., & Latham, G. P. (2011). The relationship of employee perceptions of
the immediate supervisor and management with collective efficacy. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18, 5–13.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051810379799
Chofreh, A., Goni, F. A., & Klemeš, J. J. (2018). Sustainable enterprise resource planning
systems implementation: A framework development. Journal of Cleaner Production,
198, 1345–1354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.096
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Elliot, A. J., Dweck, C. S., Yeager, D. S., & Sternberg, R. J. (2018). Chapter Two: Intelligence
and competence in theory and practice. In A. J. Elliott & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook
of competence and motivation (pp. 9–24). Guilford Press.
Fink, A., (2017). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. (6th Ed) Sage.
Finney, S., & Corbett, M. (2007). ERP implementation: A compilation and analysis of critical
success factors. Business Process Management Journal, 13(3), 329–347.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150710752272
188

Fortune Business Insights. (2022). ERP Software Market, 2021-2028.
https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2022/02/22/2389161/0/en/ERP-
Software-Market-to-Reach-USD-93-34-Billion-by-2028-Announcement-of-ERPx-ERP-
Suite-by-Unit4-to-Elevate-Market-Fortune-Business-Insights.html
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Ghosh, S., & Skibniewski, M. J. (2010). Enterprise resource planning systems implementation as
a complex project: A conceptual framework. Journal of Business Economics and
Management, 11(4), 533–549. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2010.26
Ha, Y. M., & Ahn, H. J. (2014). Factors affecting the performance of Enterprise Resource
Planning (ERP) systems in the post-implementation stage. Behaviour & Information
Technology, 33(10), 1065–1081. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2013.799229
Ifinedo, P., & Nahar, N. (2007). ERP systems success: An empirical analysis of how two
organizational stakeholder groups prioritize and evaluate relevant measures. Enterprise
Information Systems, 1(1), 25–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/17517570601088539
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Association for Talent Development.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41, 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Lin, H. (2010). An investigation into the effects of IS quality and management support on ERP
system usage. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 21(3), 335–349.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14783360903561761
189

Mahraz, M., Benabbou, L., & Berrado, A. (2020). A compilation and analysis of critical success
Factors for the ERP implementation. International Journal of Enterprise Information
Systems, 16(2), 107–133. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJEIS.2020040107
Martin, T. N., & Huq, Z. (2007). Realigning management’s strategic change actions for ERP
implementation: How specializing on just cultural and environmental contextual factors
could improve success. Journal of Change Management, 7(2), 121–142.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14697010701531749
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage
Publications.
McCrudden, J. P., Schraw, G., & Hartley, K. (2006). The effect of general relevance instructions
on shallow and deeper learning and reading time. Journal of Experimental Education,
74(4), 293–310.
Meng, Z., & Zhao, F. (2017). Change management of ERP Usage. Springer International
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58071-5_15
Menon, S. A., Muchnick, M., Butler, C., & Pizur, T. (2019). Critical challenges in enterprise
resource planning (ERP) implementation. International Journal of Business and
Management, 14(7), 54. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v14n7p54
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Moon, Y. B. (2007). Enterprise resource planning (ERP): A review of the literature.
International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, 4(3), 235–264.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMED.2007.012679
190

Mouakket, S., & Nour, M. A. (2011). A classification framework of critical success factors for
ERP systems implementation: A multi-stakeholder perspective. International Journal of
Enterprise Information Systems, 7(1), 56–71. https://doi.org/10.4018/jeis.2011010104
Park, K. O. (2018). The relationship between BPR strategy and change management for the
sustainable implementation of ERP: An information orientation perspective.
Sustainability, 10(9), Article 3080. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093080
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
Pishdad, A., & Haider, A. (2013). ERP institutionalization: Exploring the influential factors.
Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 26(6), 642–660.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-07-2013-0046
Ram, J., & Corkindale, D. (2014). How “critical” are the critical success factors (CSFs)?
Examining the role of CSFs for ERP. Business Process Management Journal, 20(1),
151–174. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-11-2012-0127
Rashid, A., Masood, T., Erkoyuncu, J. A., Tjahjono, B., Khan, N., & Shami, M. (2018).
Enterprise systems’ life cycle in pursuit of resilient smart factory for emerging aircraft
industry: A synthesis of critical success factors (CSFs), theory, knowledge gaps, and
implications. Enterprise Information Systems, 12(2), 96–136.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17517575.2016.1258087
Ravnikar, F. (2010). The impact of managers on successful ERP implementation. Organizacija,
43(4), 186–196. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10051-010-0018-x
Robinson, S. B., & Leonard, K. F. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Sage
Rockart, J. F. (1979). Chief executives define their own data needs. Harvard Business Review,
57(2), 81–93.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. Teachers College Press.
191

Salkind, N. J. (2014). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. Sage.
Salkind, N. J., & Frey, B. B. (2019). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. Sage.
Schein, E. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Schunk, U., & Usher, E. L. (2019). Social cognitive theory and motivation. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.),
Oxford handbook of human motivation (2nd ed., pp. 10–26). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190666453.013.2
Shaul, L., & Tauber, D. (2013). Critical success factors in enterprise resource planning systems:
Review of the last decade. ACM Computing Surveys, 45(4), 1–39.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2501654.2501669
Tarhini, A., Ammar, H., Tarhini, T., & Masa’deh, R. (2015). Analysis of the critical success
factors for enterprise resource planning implementation from stakeholders’ perspective:
A systematic review. International Business Research, 8(4).
https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v8n4p25
Voth, J. M. (2020). Five essentials for successful merger integration: What the aerospace and
defense industry knows. The Journal of Business Strategy, 42(5), 304–314.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JBS-02-2020-0045

192

Appendix A: Pre-Interview Recruiting Communications
The following email was sent to PL1 Team 17.
Pre-Interview: Initial Email to Request Study Participation
Dear Leader,
I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern California, and I am currently
conducting research on leadership behaviors that support successful ERP implementations. My
goal as a student practitioner is to understand more about what leaders need to be successful
during ERP implementation projects. Ultimately, it is my hope that this information will benefit
both the PL1 ERP implementation as well as future WidgetCo ERP projects. I have received the
necessary approvals from WidgetCo’s leadership and The University of Southern California and
am in the stage of my dissertation where I am gathering data. Data includes surveys and
interviews with several key leaders of the PL1 organization.
You have been identified as a key leader in the PL1 organization. As a key leader, I am
requesting your participation in a short anonymous online survey and a one-hour Zoom
interview. All participant and organizational information will be completely confidential. While I
know how busy you are, it would mean the world to me if you would consider participating in an
interview and giving me an hour of your time. I will share the findings of the study with the
leadership group. It is my hope that some of these findings could be of professional value to you.
To participate in the study, take the following two actions:
1. Complete the short 10-minute survey using the link below.
https://usc.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_8cPQoiJcMs0b4B8
2. Respond back to this email by Friday, September 16
th
, with your willingness to
participate in a one-hour Zoom interview. I will then schedule meetings accordingly.

193

Please feel free to reply to this email with any questions or concerns. Thank you very
much for your time and consideration.
Thanks,

Melissa Yacono
Sr. Director, Global ERP Implementations
Doctoral Candidate, Rossier School of Education
The University of Southern California

194

Pre-Interview: Meeting Notification to Confirm Participation for Study
In the meeting invitation for the interview, the following language was included. By
accepting the meeting invitation, the participant consented to the interview.

Hi ___________,
Thank you very much for agreeing to participate in my research study concerning the
topic of leadership behaviors that support successful ERP implementations. As a reminder your
identity will be known only to me, and I am conducting this study for my doctoral dissertation at
the University of Southern California. I am attaching a pdf file to this meeting notice regarding
the formal notice of participant rights and the protocol surrounding how the information you
provide will be used and protected. Please reach out to me if you have any questions about this.
Thank you so very much for taking time out of your schedule to assist me with this research, and
I look forward to our conversation.
Best regards,

Melissa Yacono
Sr. Director, Global ERP Implementations
Doctoral Candidate, Rossier School of Education
The University of Southern California

195

Appendix B: Information Sheet for Exempt Research
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Pkwy Ste 1100, Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMATION SHEET FOR EXEMPT RESEARCH
STUDY TITLE: Leadership Behaviors Required for Successful Enterprise
Resource Planning (ERP) System Implementation: A Gap Analysis
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Melissa Yacono, Doctoral Candidate
FACULTY ADVISOR: Dr. Adrian J. Donato

You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This
document explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is
unclear to you.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to understand the leadership behaviors that support
successful ERP implementations. What we are able to learn from you in this study will benefit
the upcoming implementations and contribute to WidgetCo’s ERP strategy. You are invited as a
participant because of your specific role within your organization, which fits the defined research
population of the study.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
You are asked to participate in a Zoom meeting to be interviewed about the research
topic. The interview is expected to last no more than 1 hour. All interaction for you and your
organization is confidential and anonymous. Neither you nor your organization will be named or
alluded to in a manner that would provide identification.
196

While it is the desire of the researcher to record the conversation for subsequent
confidential and anonymous transcription so that your responses can be accurately analyzed,
such recording is purely voluntary on your part and is not a condition for participation. The
researcher will take notes as an alternative during the interview as needed.
There is no ‘prework’ necessary for the interview, and it will be held at a time that is to
your convenience and with respect to your schedule and responsibilities.
CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
When the findings of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
identifiable information will be used.
Audio recordings, if made, will not have any direct reference to the full name or
organization of the participant and will be used solely for the purpose of analyzing the transcript
for relevant content. The recordings will remain in the sole possession of the research team and
will be destroyed not later than 1 year from completion and final approval of the study. The
study is expected to be fully completed by May 2023. For this study, the research team is the
researcher and the chair of the researcher’s dissertation committee.
Audio recordings, if made, will not be started until the preliminary and identifying
remarks of the participant, and their organization, are concluded. The researcher will refer to the
participant by an arbitrary identification to maintain confidentiality and anonymity.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Melissa Yacono at
melissa.yacono@collins.com, or Dr. Adrian J. Donato: adonato@usc.edu
197

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.

USC IRB Information Sheet Template Version Date: 01/30/2021

Appendix C: KMO Crosswalk Analysis
Assumed
influences
Survey Survey question Interview Observation Documentation
Knowledge
Team 17 needs to
be able to
remember facts
and data that are
current and
relevant (K-F).
Summarize facts
relevant to the
ERP project (K-
F).
Rank in order.
1. Rank in order the critical
success factors for the ERP
project
a) Implement the ERP system
according to business
requirements on time and
budget *3
b) Zero customer disruptions
caused by the ERP
implementation *1
c) Production rate returns to
pre-Go-Live according to the
plan *2
d) The business case is
achieved *4
e) Implement standard
processes *5

Multiple Choice. Choose one.
2. The ERP project is in which
phase:
a) pre-project
b) design
c) configuration
d) business simulation and test
1
e) business simulation and test
2 *
Can you tell me
what is happening
in the ERP
project right
now? (K-F)

Observe
management
citing and
presenting facts
and information
during meeting
and events.
Historical and
current
attendance at
events and
meetings

Presentation
material,
emails, other
communicati
on methods
198

Assumed
influences
Survey Survey question Interview Observation Documentation
f) business simulation and test 3
g) data and transactional freeze
h) Go-Live
i) transition to service

Multiple choice. Choose one.
3. The project Go-Live date is
a) May 1, 2023 *
b) Feb 7, 2023
c) July 1, 2023
d) I do not know the date

Multiple choice. Choose one.
4. The last Gate Review
completed was
a) Gate 1
b) Gate 2
c) Gate 3
d) Gate 4*
e) Gate 5
e) I do not know the Gate
Team 17 needs to
determine ERP
change impact
on employees’
ability to
perform job
duties (K-C).
Articulate how the
ERP
implementation
affects their
employees (K-C)

Check all that apply.
5. The ERP project will affect the
way my employees:
a) perform their tasks and
responsibilities*
b) collect data and report
metrics*
c) the time it takes to perform
tasks*
d) interact with other sites*
Can you describe
for me how the
ERP
implementation
affects your
employee’s job
duties (K-C)
Observe
management
presentation to
staff using job aid
Staff meeting
agenda or
presentation
used to
articulate
changes
199

200
Assumed
influences
Survey Survey question Interview Observation Documentation
e) use job order numbers
f) interact with suppliers
g) process material through the
facility
h) other, explain:
_______________________

Likert scale. Choose one.
6. The impact of the ERP change
on my team is
a) High: major process
changes*
b) Medium: some process
changes*
c) Low: minimal or no process
changes

Team 17 needs to
know how to
illustrate
positive
communication,
including
providing
answers to
questions (K-P).
Demonstrate ability
to communicate
positively about
the ERP project
(K-P)
Multiple choice. Check all that
apply.
7. Positive communication about
the ERP change looks like
a) detailing the benefits of the
ERP change*
b) telling the team the ERP
change will be a disaster
c) communicating regularly
about the change*
d) answering employee
questions when they arise to
the best of my ability*
e) encouraging my team to
collaborate with other groups
Can you describe
the steps you
follow when
communicating
ERP project
implementation to
employees (K-P)

Can you share with
me some of the
common
questions related
to ERP
implementation?
Probe: How do
Observe
management
presentation to
staff using job aid
and answering
questions
Staff meeting
agenda or
presentation
used to
articulate
changes

Assumed
influences
Survey Survey question Interview Observation Documentation
to solve problems/concerns*
f) addressing concerns as a
group if necessary*
g) encouraging participation in
ERP training and events*
h) laughing at their questions
i) admitting when I don’t know
the answer to a question*

Multiple choice. Choose one.
8. The last time I communicated
with my employees about the
ERP project is
a) within the last week*
b) within the last month
c) once or twice since the
project started
d) I plan to do it soon

Open-ended.
9. When my employees ask me
“why” we are changing ERPs, I
give them this explanation
________________________

Multiple Choice. Choose one.
10. The last time I answered
questions from a member of my
team about the ERP project was
a) within the last week*
b) within the last month
c) once or twice since the
you respond to
those questions?
(K-C)?
201

Assumed
influences
Survey Survey question Interview Observation Documentation
project started
d) I haven’t received any
questions
e) I haven’t discussed it with my
team
Team 17 needs to
know how to
apply techniques
to address
employee
resistance while
rewarding ERP
acceptance (K-
P).
Design an
approach to
reduce resistance
(K-P)

Multiple choice. Check all that
apply.
11. Employee resistance to the
new ERP may reveal itself
through these behaviors
a) noticeable frustration*
b) missing work*
c) refuses to attend training or
events*
d) change in engagement,
becomes disengaged*
e) other, explain*:
_____________________

Multiple choice. Check all that
apply.
12. When a team member is
demonstrating ERP concern or
resistance, these are some of the
steps I would take to address
the resistance
a) pull them aside and have a
confidential conversation*
b) engage in active listening*
c) ask open-ended questions*
d) hold it against them
Can you discuss for
me steps you take
to address an
employee
expressing
concern/resistanc
e (K-P)

Can you share out
steps you follow
to acknowledge
employee
adoption (K-P)?

Observe
management
during events,
workshops, or
meetings
Historical and
current
attendance at
training
202

Assumed
influences
Survey Survey question Interview Observation Documentation
e) tell them it’s no big deal, and
they are worried about nothing
f) follow up with them*
g) take actions (if needed) to
address their concerns*
h) call them out for being
resistant
i) other, explain:
_______________________

Open-ended.
13. A recent example of how I
addressed employee concerns
or resistance is
________________________

Multiple choice. Check all that
apply.
14. When a team member is
demonstrating ERP adoption
and acceptance, these are some
of the steps I would take to
recognize them
a) given them an excellence or
STAR award*
b) tell someone to do something
c) acknowledge their
contributions in staff
meetings*
d) highlight them in an all-
hands meeting*
e) Acknowledge their
203

Assumed
influences
Survey Survey question Interview Observation Documentation
contributions privately during
one-on-one meetings*
f) Remind them the old system
was better
g) other, explain:
________________________

Multiple choice. Choose one.
15. The last time I recognized an
employee for supporting the
ERP project is
a) within the last week*
b) within the last month*
c) once or twice since the
project started*
d) I plan to do it soon

Team 17 needs to
reflect on how
their critical
leadership
behaviors
impact the
successful ERP
outcome (K-M).
Reflect on how
their critical
leadership
behaviors impact
the successful
ERP outcome (K-
M)
Likert scale. Choose one.
16. I adjust my critical leadership
behaviors to influence [ERP]
adoption by my team
a) strongly disagree
b) disagree
c) agree*
d) strongly agree*

Open-ended.
17. When you think about
leading your team through a
successful ERP
implementation, in what ways
Can you talk me
through any
adjustments you
made to your own
behavior to
improve the
success of the
implementation?
(K-M)

None

None
204

Assumed
influences
Survey Survey question Interview Observation Documentation
do you adjust your critical
leadership behaviors to
facilitate employee adoption of
the new ERP system?
________________________

Motivation
Team 17 needs to
believe the ERP
project benefits
them and their
interests.
The ERP project is
beneficial
(expectancy
value)
Likert scale. Choose one.
18. Moving to [ERP] will benefit
me
a) strongly disagree
b) disagree
c) agree*
d) strongly agree*

Likert scale. Choose one.
19. The ERP change is worth the
effort
a) strongly disagree
b) disagree
c) agree*
d) strongly agree*
How do you expect
the ERP
implementation to
benefit you?
Observe
management
endorsement of
the ERP project
during meeting
and events
Emails,
agendas,
presentations,
quotes,
communicati
on material,
etc. with
Team 17
endorsement
of the ERP
project
Team 17 needs to
have the self-
efficacy to
achieve a
successful ERP
implementation.
Confidence in the
ability to lead a
successful
implementation
(self-efficacy)
20. Rate your confidence level in
your ability to do the things
discussed below right now.
Scale 1–10.
(1 = cannot do at all, 5 =
moderately can do, 10 = Highly
certain can do)

How do you feel
about your ability
to consistently
demonstrate
critical leadership
behaviors?

None

None
205

Assumed
influences
Survey Survey question Interview Observation Documentation
I am confident that I will attend
ERP events, meetings,
workshops.

I am confident in my ability to
communicate positively about
the ERP project to my team.

I am confident in my ability to
answer questions about the ERP
project.

I am confident in my ability to
address ERP resistance.

I am confident in my ability to
reward ERP adoption.

Organizational
Cultural settings

Team 17 needs an
effective project
team to execute
the ERP
implementation.
My organization
has an effective
project team to
execute the ERP
project
Likert scale. Choose one.
21. My organization has a project
team that is capable of
successfully completing the
ERP project.
a) strongly disagree
b) disagree
c) agree*
d) strongly agree*

Likert scale. Choose one.
Describe a recent
example where
the ERP Team
was effective in
running the ERP
project.
Probe: Describe a
recent example
where the ERP
Team was
effective in
Observe
management
during events,
workshops, or
meetings
Presentation
material,
emails, other
communication
methods
206

Assumed
influences
Survey Survey question Interview Observation Documentation
22. The project team is
empowered to execute the ERP
project.
a) strongly disagree
b) disagree
c) agree*
d) strongly agree*
running the ERP
project.
Cultural models

Team 17 needs to
be part of a
culture where
management is
committed to the
ERP change.
My organization
has leaders
(Team 17) that
are committed to
the ERP project
Likert scale. Choose one.
23. The PL1 Leadership team is
committed to the ERP project
a) strongly disagree
b) disagree
c) agree*
d) strongly agree*
Describe a recent
example of a
Team 17 member
demonstrating
critical behaviors.
Observe
management
during events,
workshops, or
meetings
Presentation
material,
emails, other
communication
methods
Historical and
current
attendance at
training,
events,
workshops, and
meetings.
207
208

Appendix D: KMO Survey Protocol
The following multiple-choice questions will be sent to all Team 17 members through a
Qualtrics.com online survey. An introduction to the survey reminding participants of the reason
for the survey. Additionally, participants will be reminded that the survey is anonymous and will
help drive specific recommendations for future WidgetCo ERP implementations.

Table D1
Survey Protocol
Survey item
Survey question, required answer. Various forms: Multiple choice,
Likert scale, rank in order, open-ended
Knowledge
Summarize facts
relevant to the ERP
project (K-F)
Rank in order.
1. Rank in order the critical success factors for the ERP project
a) Implement the ERP system according to business requirements
on time and budget *3
b) Zero customer disruptions caused by the ERP implementation *1
c) Production rate returns to pre-Go-Live according to the plan *2
d) The business case is achieved *4
e) Implement standard processes *5
Multiple choice. Choose one.
2. The ERP project is in which phase:
a) pre-project
b) design
c) configuration
d) business simulation and test 1
e) business simulation and test 2 *
f) business simulation and test 3
g) data and transactional freeze
h) Go-Live
i) transition to service
Multiple choice. Choose one.
3. The project Go-Live date is
a) May 1, 2023 *
b) Feb 7, 2023
c) July 1, 2023
d) I do not know the date
Multiple choice. Choose one.
4. The last Gate Review completed was
209

Survey item
Survey question, required answer. Various forms: Multiple choice,
Likert scale, rank in order, open-ended
a) Gate 1
b) Gate 2
c) Gate 3
d) Gate 4*
e) Gate 5
e) I do not know the Gate
Articulate how the ERP
implementation
affects their
employees (K-C)
Check all that apply.
5. The ERP project will affect the way my employees:
a) perform their tasks and responsibilities*
b) collect data and report metrics*
c) the time it takes to perform tasks*
d) interact with other sites*
e) use job order numbers
f) interact with suppliers
g) process material through the facility
h) other, explain: ____________________________
Likert scale. Choose one.
6. The impact of the ERP change on my team is
a) High: Major process changes*
b) Medium: some process changes*
c) Low: minimal or no process changes
Demonstrate ability to
communicate
positively about the
ERP project (K-P)
Multiple choice. Check all that apply.
7. Positive communication about the ERP change looks like
a) detailing the benefits of the ERP change*
b) telling the team the ERP change will be a disaster
c) communicating regularly about the change*
d) answering employee questions when they arise to the best of my
ability*
e) encouraging my team to collaborate with other groups to solve
problems/concerns*
f) addressing concerns as a group if necessary*
g) encouraging participation in ERP training and events*
h) laughing at their questions
i) admitting when I don’t know the answer to a question*
Multiple choice. Choose one.
8. The last time I communicated with my employees about the ERP
project is
a) within the last week
b) within the last month
c) once or twice since the project started
d) I plan to do it soon
Open-ended.
9. When my employees ask me “why” we are changing ERPs, I give
210

Survey item
Survey question, required answer. Various forms: Multiple choice,
Likert scale, rank in order, open-ended
them this explanation____________________________
Multiple choice. Choose one.
10. The last time I answered questions from a member of my team
about the ERP project was
a) within the last week
b) within the last month
c) once or twice since the project started
d) I haven’t received any questions
e) I haven’t discussed it with my team
Design an approach to
reduce resistance (K-
P)
Multiple choice. Check all that apply.
11. Employee resistance to the new ERP may reveal itself through
these behaviors
a) noticeable frustration*
b) missing work*
c) refuses to attend training or events*
d) change in engagement, becomes disengaged*
e) other, explain*: ____________________________
Multiple choice. Check all that apply.
12. When a team member is demonstrating ERP concern or
resistance, these are some of the steps I would take to address the
resistance
a) pull them aside and have a confidential conversation*
b) engage in active listening*
c) ask open-ended questions*
d) hold it against them
e) tell them it’s no big deal, and they are worried about nothing
f) follow up with them*
g) take actions (if needed) to address their concerns*
h) call them out for being resistant
i) other, explain: ____________________________
Open-ended.
13. A recent example of how I addressed employee concerns or
resistance is ____________________________
Multiple choice. Check all that apply.
14. When a team member is demonstrating ERP adoption, these are
some of the steps I would take to recognize them
a) Given them an excellence or STAR award*
b) Tell someone to do something
c) Acknowledge their contributions in staff meetings*
d) Highlight them in an all-hands meeting*
e) Acknowledge their contributions privately during one-on-one
meetings*
f) Remind them the old system was better
211

Survey item
Survey question, required answer. Various forms: Multiple choice,
Likert scale, rank in order, open-ended
g) other, explain: ____________________________
Multiple choice. Choose one.
15. The last time I recognized an employee for supporting the ERP
project is
a) within the last week*
b) within the last month*
c) once or twice since the project started*
d) I plan to do it soon
Reflect on how their
critical leadership
behaviors impact the
successful ERP
outcome (K-M)
Likert scale. Choose one.
16. I adjust my critical leadership behaviors to influence ERP
adoption by my team.
a) strongly disagree
b) disagree
c) agree*
d) strongly agree*
Open-ended
17. When you think about leading your team through a successful
ERP implementation, in what ways do you adjust your critical
leadership behavior facilitate employee adoption of the new ERP
system?
Motivation
The ERP project is
beneficial
(expectancy value)
Likert scale. Choose one.
18. Moving to [ERP] will benefit me
a) strongly disagree
b) disagree
c) agree*
d) strongly agree*
Likert scale. Choose one.
19. The ERP change is worth the effort
a) strongly disagree
b) disagree
c) agree*
d) strongly agree*
Confidence in the
ability to lead a
successful
implementation (self-
efficacy)
20. Rate your confidence level in your ability to do the things
discussed below right now. Scale 1–10.
(1 = cannot do at all, 5 = moderately can do,
10 = Highly certain can do)
I am confident that I will attend ERP events, meetings, workshops
I am confident in my ability to communicate positively about the ERP
project to my team
I am confident in my ability to answer questions about the ERP
212

Survey item
Survey question, required answer. Various forms: Multiple choice,
Likert scale, rank in order, open-ended
project
I am confident in my ability to address ERP resistance
I am confident in my ability to reward ERP adoption
Organizational
My organization has an
effective project team
to execute the ERP
project
Likert scale. Choose one.
21. My organization has a project team that is capable of successfully
completing the ERP project.
a) strongly disagree
b) disagree
c) agree*
d) strongly agree*
Likert scale. Choose one.
22. The project team is empowered to execute the ERP project.
a) strongly disagree
b) disagree
c) agree*
d) strongly agree*
My organization has
leaders (Team 17)
that are committed to
the ERP project
Likert scale. Choose one.
23. The PL1 Leadership team is committed to the ERP project
a) strongly disagree
b) disagree
c) agree*
d) strongly agree*

213

Appendix E: KMO Interview Protocol
The researcher interviewed eight members of Team 17 as a part of the study.
Predetermined standardized questions were asked in a semistructured format to allow for a more
casual interview and space for spontaneous follow-up questions in case clarification is required.
Each interview began with an introduction reminding them of the participant sheet and that
participation, including answering questions, is voluntary. Participants were reminded that their
anonymity was protected so that no one can connect them personally to the data. Transcriptions
were kept confidential and will be destroyed within one-year of the interview.
Interview Questions
1. Can you summarize for me the details of the ERP project (K-F)?
2. Can you describe for me how the ERP implementation affects your employee’s job
duties (K-C)?
3. Can you describe the steps you follow when communicating ERP project
implementation to employees (K-P)?
4. Can you share with me some of the common questions related to ERP
implementation. Probe: How do you respond to those questions? (K-C)?
5. Can you discuss for me steps you take to address an employee expressing
concern/resistance (K-P)?
6. Can you share out steps you follow to acknowledge employee adoption (K-P)?
7. Can you talk me through any adjustments you made to your own behavior to improve
the success of the implementation?
8. How do you expect the ERP implementation to benefit you?
9. How do you feel about your ability to consistently demonstrate critical leadership
behaviors?
214

10. Describe a recent example where the ERP Team was effective in running the ERP
project. Probe: Describe a recent example where the ERP Team was effective in
running the ERP project.
11. Describe a recent example of a Team 17 member demonstrating critical behaviors.

215

Appendix F: KMO Observation Protocol
Observations took place in both in-person and virtual settings. Team 17 was observed in
planned meetings and events that occurred during the period of the study. Observations were
coded, and field notes were kept confidential to protect their anonymity. The organization has
been given a pseudonym, and its identity was not included in the study, nor were any of its
branding, logos, or company markings.

Table F1
Observation Protocol
Assumed knowledge
influence
Observation Purpose of analysis
Knowledge
Team 17 needs to be able to
remember facts and data
that are current and
relevant (K-F).
Observe management citing
and presenting facts and
information during meeting
and events
Evidence of Team 17 attendance
at events, meetings, etc.

Evidence Team 17 completed
training.
Team 17 needs to determine
ERP change impact on
employees’ ability to
perform job duties (K-C).
Observe management
presentation to staff using
job aid
Evidence that Team 17 is
communicating about the change
with their employees
Team 17 needs to know
how to illustrate positive
communication, including
providing answers to
questions (K-P).
Observe management
presentation to staff using
job aid and answering
questions
Demonstration of types of
messaging around the project to
staff

Demonstration of frequency of
communication

Triangulation with survey answers
Team 17 needs to know
how to apply techniques
to address employee
Observe management during
events, workshops, or
meetings
Evidence Team 17 completed
training.

216

Assumed knowledge
influence
Observation Purpose of analysis
resistance while
rewarding ERP
acceptance (K-P).
Evidence Team 17 has
awarded/recognized employees,
including frequency
Motivation
Team 17 needs to believe
the ERP project benefits
them and their interests.
Observe management
endorsement of the ERP
project during meeting and
events
Evidence of Team 17 commitment
or endorsement
Organizational
Cultural settings

Team 17 needs an effective
project team to execute
the ERP implementation.
Observe management during
events, workshops, or
meetings
Evidence of an effective project
management team
Cultural models

Team 17 needs to be part of
a culture where
management is committed
to the ERP change.
Observe management during
events, workshops, or
meetings
Evidence of management
commitment to ERP projects

217

Appendix G: KMO Document Analysis Protocol
Document analysis consisted of a combination of electronic and hardcopy documents.
The organization has been given a pseudonym, and its identity was not included in the study, nor
were any of its branding, logos, or company markings.

Table G1
Document Analysis Protocol
Assumed knowledge
influence
Documentation Purpose of analysis
Knowledge
Team 17 needs to be able to
remember facts and data
that are current and
relevant (K-F).
Historical and current
attendance at events and
meetings

Presentation material, emails,
other communication
methods
Evidence of Team 17 attendance at
events, meetings, etc.

Evidence that Team 17 completed
training.
Team 17 needs to determine
ERP change impact on
employees’ ability to
perform job duties (K-C).
Staff meeting agenda or
presentation used to
articulate changes
Evidence that Team 17 is
communicating about the change
with their employees.
Team 17 needs to know
how to illustrate positive
communication, including
providing answers to
questions (K-P).
Staff meeting agenda or
presentation used to
articulate changes
Demonstration of types of
messaging around the project to
staff

Demonstration of frequency of
communication
Triangulation with survey answers
Team 17 needs to know
how to apply techniques
to address employee
resistance while
rewarding ERP
acceptance (K-P).
Historical and current
attendance at training
Evidence that Team 17 completed
training.

Evidence that Team 17
awarded/recognized employees,
including frequency.
Motivation
Team 17 needs to believe
the ERP project benefits
them and their interests.
Emails, agendas,
presentations, quotes,
communication material,
Evidence of Team 17 commitment
or endorsement
218

Assumed knowledge
influence
Documentation Purpose of analysis
etc. with Team 17
endorsement of the ERP
project.
Organizational
Cultural Settings

Team 17 needs an effective
project team to execute
the ERP implementation.
Presentation material, emails,
other communication
methods
Evidence of an effective project
management team
Cultural Models

Team 17 needs to be part of
a culture where
management is committed
to the ERP change.
Presentation material, emails,
other communication
methods
Historical and current
attendance at training,
events, workshops, and
meetings
Evidence of management
commitment to ERP projects
219

Appendix H: Immediate Evaluation Instrument
Levels 2 and 1, surveyed on the day of the workshop or training, Likert Scale of highly
disagree to highly agree.

Table H1
Immediate Evaluation Instrument
L2 and L1 combined
evaluation
Likert survey question Practice evaluation
Declarative knowledge
“I know it.”
I know what my responsibilities are as a
leader in an ERP project.
Participant identifies their
responsibilities from a list.
Procedural skills “I can
do it right now.”
I can follow the steps of my
communication plan.

Procedural skills “I can
do it right now.”
I can summarize the benefits of the ERP
project.
Peers observe participant
summarizing benefits and
provide feedback.
Procedural skills “I can
do it right now.”
I can execute steps to address employee
resistance when it arises.
Peers observe participant
summarizing benefits and
provide feedback.
Attitude “I believe this
is worthwhile.”
I believe the ERP change is good for
our organization.

Confidence “I think I
can do it on the job.”
I am confident in my ability to explain
the ERP project and answer questions.

Confidence “I think I
can do it on the job.”
I am confident in my ability to address
resistance.

Commitment “I will do
it on the job.”
I will communicate with a regular
frequency.

Commitment “I will do
it on the job.”
I will regularly reward employees for
ERP adoption.

Commitment “I will do
it on the job.”
I will act on the responsibility and
accountability matrix definition sheet
characteristics.

Engagement I was interested during the training.
Relevance
The training was useful to me during
the change.

Customer satisfaction
I would recommend this training to
others.

220

Appendix I: Delayed Evaluation Instrument
Levels 4, 3, 2, 1 Likert Scale of highly disagree to highly agree.

Table I1
Delayed Evaluation Instrument
Level Likert survey question
L1: Reaction
What I learned in the workshops and training continues to be valuable
during the ERP implementation
L2: Learning
I was able to communicate benefits about the ERP implementation more
fully after the workshop/training
L2: Learning
I was able to better answer questions about the ERP implementation more
fully after the workshop/training
L2: Learning
I was able to develop strategies to address resistance better after the
workshop/training
L3: Behavior
I continue to communicate frequently to my staff and employees about
the ERP project
L3: Behavior
As a consequence of my training, I now demonstrate the critical
leadership behaviors required for successful ERP implementation
L4: Results
As a result of my training in this program, our new ERP implementation is
returning to baseline production rate on time with zero customer
disruptions.

221

Appendix J: Data and Reporting

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Role understanding as a pillar of employee engagement: an evaluation gap analysis

PDF

Gender diversity in optical communications and the role of professional societies: an evaluation study

PDF

Mentoring as a capability development tool to increase gender balance on leadership teams: an innovation study

PDF

Inclusionary practices of leaders in a biotechnology company: a gap analysis innovation study

PDF

Lean construction through craftspeople engagement: an evaluation study

PDF

A framework for customer reputation evaluation: an innovation study

PDF

U.S. Navy SEALs resilience needs assessment: an innovation study

PDF

Navigating race, gender, and responsibility: a gap analysis of the underrepresentation of Black women in foreign service leadership positions

PDF

Recruiting police diversity

PDF

Executive succession planning: a study of employee competency development

PDF

“A thread throughout”: the KMO influences on implementing DEI strategic plans in state and municipal governments

PDF

Best practices for increasing Black technical managers in the executive space

PDF

Improving the evaluation method of a military unit: a gap analysis

PDF

Millennial workforce retention program: an explanatory study

PDF

Employee standardization for interchangeability across states: an improvement study

PDF

Implementing comprehensive succession planning: an improvement study

PDF

From a privilege to an option: hybrid work schedule: a gap analysis

PDF

Sticks and stones: achieving educational equity for Black students through board advocacy: an innovation study

PDF

ReQLes technology's this is your life: an innovation study

PDF

Workplace bullying of women leaders in the United States

Asset Metadata

Creator Yacono, Melissa D. (author)

Core Title Critical behaviors required for successful enterprise resource planning system implementation: an innovation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-05

Publication Date 04/03/2023

Defense Date 02/23/2023

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag critical success factors,enterprise resource planning,Management,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Donato, Adrian (committee chair), Foulk, Susanne (committee member), Yates, Kenneth (committee member)

Creator Email melissadawnroot@yahoo.com,myacono@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112922131

Unique identifier UC112922131

Identifier etd-YaconoMeli-11556.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-YaconoMeli-11556

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Yacono, Melissa D.

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230404-usctheses-batch-1015 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu