Stakeholder perspectiveon internal marketing

communicationAn ERP implementation case study

Sherry FinneyDepartment of Organizational Management,

Shannon School of Business, Cape Breton University, Sydney, Canada

Abstract

Purpose – Communication strategy during the management of change has been one success factorwidely cited in the literature. However, despite its recognition within the enterprise resource planning(ERP) domain, there has been little regard for stakeholder perspective and even less for practicalsuggestions regarding communication planning.

Design/methodology/approach – This mixed-method research investigated the ERPimplementation process from the perspective of four key stakeholder groups and generated greaterunderstanding of their differing views on communication effectiveness and preferred communicationsstrategies during the management of change process.

Findings – The findings of this study revealed that stakeholders differ, significantly in somerespects, in how each group believes certain aspects of the project should be handled, from a tacticalcommunication standpoint.

Research limitations/implications – The research is based on a single case study, which addscaution to the generalizability of the results. Further, the survey sample was self-selected and notrandom.

Practical implications – This paper has made a significant contribution in terms of understandingdiffering perspectives regarding communication strategies during change. Particularly, we havelearned how each group believes certain aspects of the project should be handled, from a tacticalstandpoint.

Originality/value – The lack of case studies addressing practical challenges has already beenidentified as a gap in the literature. Further, with a stakeholder perspective combined, this researchhas revealed another element, which is that the management of ERP projects is not as simple as a“one size fits all” strategy.

Keywords Educational institutions, Internal marketing, Resource management, Stakeholder analysis,Critical success factors, Communication management

Paper type Research paper

1. IntroductionResearch on enterprise resource planning (ERP) implementation and critical successfactors (CSFs) has been a relatively popular topic in the IS realm for the past decade.What is driving this agenda is the belief that greater understanding of the varioussuccess factors will enhance overall chances of implementation success. Given thatthe ERP market is so lucrative and the proposed benefits to the organization are sosignificant, if success is achieved, it is easy to understand this rationale. Most wouldagree that the range of CSFs cited in the literature is vast, varying from such factors asthe need to consider team composition to the need for visioning and planning.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-7154.htm

Internalmarketing

communication

311

Business Process ManagementJournal

Vol. 17 No. 2, 2011pp. 311-331

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1463-7154

DOI 10.1108/14637151111122365

However, while there has been no lack of research that has identified the diversity ofsuccess factors, there is less that provides greater understanding of how specific CSFsneed to be managed.

Particularly, it has been revealed that while change management is the most widely citedsuccess factor, the activities that are encompassed by “change management” varyconsiderably (Finney and Corbett, 2007). The most common emerging themes include: theneed to build acceptance and commitment to the change (Parr and Shanks, 2000;Motwani et al., 2002; Bajwa et al., 2004; Holland and Light, 1999; Abdinnour-Helm et al.,2003; Kumar et al., 2002) and address resistance (Ross and Vitale, 2000; Hong and Kim, 2002;Skok and Legge, 2002), the need to communicate (Ribbers and Schoo, 2002), the need tounderstand benefits and drawbacks (Bingi et al., 1999; Aladwani, 2001), the need to educate(Siriginidi, 2000a, b), and the need to consider and address organizational culture issues(Davison, 2002; Aladwani, 2001; Al-Mashari et al., 2003; Nah et al., 2001; Scott and Vessey,2000; Tarafdar and Roy, 2003; Skok and Legge, 2002). However, upon closer examination,the change management activities noted above reveal a common thread of communicationplanning, and while researchers frequently make reference to these terms or “like terms”,they rarely seem to explain in detail exactly what should be done or what tactics should beimplemented to manage the change (Finney and Corbett, 2007). Piercy suggests thatinternal marketing (IM) communication is one possible strategy to facilitate acceptance ofchange. Another gap in the ERP success factor literature centers on the lack of stakeholderperspective (Finney and Corbett, 2007). New technologies, such as ERPs, are typicallyadopted by a wide range of users; therefore, in order to facilitate acceptance of the change,usually brought with such an initiative, wider stakeholder consultation is advisable.

This article reports on a case study of an educational institution implementing a suiteof ERP modules. Exploratory research conducted through qualitative interviewsindicated dissension across stakeholder groups with regard to attitudes surroundingcommunication planning. The lack of stakeholder perspective in ERP studies reported inthe literature, coupled with this initial finding, supported the need for a more detailedexamination of the effectiveness and preferred approaches of communication strategiesand tactics used during change management projects. As a result, a quantitativeresearch design using survey methodology compared and contrasted four stakeholdergroups with regard to attitudes and preferences surrounding IM communication.Findings and conclusions present specific, tactical suggestions.

The paper is organized as follows. The following two sections cover relevant literaturein the wider domain of communication, and more specifically, IM communication, andstakeholder theory as it applies to ERP. Communication planning is considered anecessary aspect of marketing planning; in this instance, however, the marketing isfocused internally and is meant to facilitate the change and/or the acceptance of the newtechnology. Literature surrounding stakeholder theory focuses particularly on ERPstudies and there appears to be support for additional research in this domain. Next, theresearch methodology is outlined; justification is provided for a quantitative approachand the sample selection, sampling procedures and instrumentation are described.Key findings are presented, followed by conclusions and directions for future research.

2. Communication and change managementCommunication has often been referenced as a necessary component of ERPimplementation. Further, when one considers the activities of change management,

BPMJ17,2

312

another popular success factor, it is clear that communication is an inherent aspect.According to this researcher’s earlier work (Finney and Corbett, 2007) in the area of CSFidentification, there have been very few studies that have examined communicationwithin an ERP context. One report states that communication should occur among variousfunctions/levels (Mandal and Gunasekaran, 2003) and specifically between business andIT personnel (Grant, 2003). Another study cites the need for a communication plan(Kumar et al., 2002) to ensure that open communication occurs within the entireorganization. Finally, several researchers report that communication should encompassthe entire organization, including the shop-floor employees (Yusuf et al., 2004), as well assuppliers and customers (Mabert et al., 2003).

As previously noted, preliminary research for the current study revealed differences inopinion regarding appropriate communication strategies and tactics to gain acceptance ofa new system, as well as the degree of communication required. Introduction of an ERP is avery significant change initiative and in an effort to find an appropriate measurementscale for effective communication during change, the field of literature relating tocommunication for change management was reviewed. According to research byGoodman and Truss (2004, p. 220), research in this field is “complicated by the fact that[. . .] we lack appropriate and rigorous tools to measure the effectiveness of communicationduring change programmes”. Goodman and Truss, however, have presented a model thataddresses several key communication decisions surrounding message process andcontent that need to be addressed when implementing a major change initiative. Similarly,Harkness (2000, p. 67) has observed that “there are no straightforward tools that can beused uniformly to measure the impact of internal communication” He further posits thatthis is partly due to the fact that communication is a hugely dynamic human process.Another article outlines seven empirically founded principles of effective communication(Klein, 1996). IM literature was also consulted to determine if there might be an appropriatemeasurement tool for assessing internal communication when implementing change.Several researchers (Varey, 1995; Piercy, 1995, 1990, 2002; Piercy and Morgan, 1991;Causon, 2004) have supported the view that IM is an appropriate technique for effectiveimplementation of corporate change strategies. The conclusion, however, is that the IMliterature also does not present any specific measurement tools for assessing theeffectiveness of internal communications during a change management initiative. Basedon the communication/change management literature, two theoretically importantconstructs were identified (Table I) in addition to a set of measurement items for each.These items are further described in the research methodology.

3. IM for change managementAccording to Moran and Brightman (2001, p. 111), change management is the “process ofcontinually renewing an organisation’s direction, structure, and capabilities to serve

Communication constructs Construct items

Communication methods Timing, media choices and delivery agent, and feedback mechanismsCommunication content Information relevance, information sought, information conveyed

Note: Construct items were determined based on the following articles: Klein (1996), Harkness (2000),Armenakis and Harris (2002) and Goodman and Truss (2004)

Table I.IM communication

construct items

Internalmarketing

communication

313

the ever-changing needs of external and internal customers”. Employees are oftenresistant to change, whatever the nature or cause. Work by Armenakis and Harris (2002)purports that stakeholders play a significant role in changing organizations and in orderto motivate employees, the employees must believe that something is wrong andsomething needs to change. It is in the creation or realization of this belief that IM canplay a role. Recent work by Causon (2004) concludes that people resist change becausethe old way of doing things is always easier; she believes that IM is necessary foremployees to understand the reason behind the change. Similarly, Rafiq and Ahmed(1993) support this notion as they see IM as a planned effort to overcome organizationalresistance to change and to align, motivate and integrate employees towards theeffective implementation of corporate and functional strategies. Finally, work by Piercy(1990) reveals that effective change requires a resourced and realistic implementationprocess that confronts the structural and process issues that have been aligned with newstrategies. One mechanism that has been proven effective for addressing this issue is IM(Piercy, 1990; Piercy and Morgan, 1991; Varey, 1995; Causon, 2004). According to Piercy(2002, p. 401), “Internal marketing provides the skills and tools to make implementationeffective”. In fact, Piercy and Morgan (1991) go as far as stating that IM is unavoidablebecause marketing plans and strategies imply organizational change; they furtherprofess that it is not enough to analyze external markets in order to carry out theorganizational change, and acknowledge that it is naıve to think that marketing plansand strategies will sell themselves to those whose support is needed. While the researchis limited, there is clear support of IM as a mechanism to facilitate change.Notwithstanding, it is also important to consider the impact of stakeholder perspectivewith regard to organizational change.

4. Stakeholder theory and ERPA stakeholder is defined as, “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by theachievement of the organization’s objectives” (Freeman, 1984, p. 25). The application ofstakeholder theory provides methods for identifying and managing stakeholder goalsand objectives, which is done from two perspectives: inside-in and inside-out (Freeman,1984). The inside-in perspective considers actors internal to the company (i.e. employees,managers), while the inside-out view looks at groups connected to the organization, butto a lesser degree and in a different capacity (i.e. shareholders). As a method to facilitateorganizational change, stakeholder perspective is well-supported. As noted byHaberberg and Rieple (as cited in Lovegrove, 2005), stakeholder approach is based onthree basic declarations: organizations possess a number of constituencies that affectand are affected by others; the interactions and the outcomes of processes undertaken bythese groups affects the organization as well as other stakeholder groups; stakeholderperceptions affect the viability of strategic action. The introduction of an ERP is one suchexample of a strategic action that is also a change initiative. It is a commonly held beliefthat without engagement and acceptance by stakeholders, it is unlikely that any changewill deliver the potential benefits promised. Therefore, it can be clearly justified thatstakeholder consultation is a necessary element of any change management program.

A look more specifically, at the stakeholder literature in the IS field reveals thatidentified stakeholder groups have included managers, IT professionals, end-users, andinternal auditors (Infinedo and Nahar, 2007). Lyytinen, Mathiassen and Ropponen(as cited in Infinedo and Nahar, 2007), however, believe that stakeholders can be

BPMJ17,2

314

identified based on research purpose, or more particularly as actors that can set forthclaims or benefit from IT systems development issues. Therefore, depending on thesituation, identified stakeholders may extend to broader groups. More particularly in theERP field, Legris and Collerette (2006) have introduced a table summarizing the ERPimplementation process and have identified stakeholders as project managers, vendors,users and system owners. Similarly, Akkermans and van Helden (2002) also includeproject managers and vendors, but they add project champion and top management tothat group. External to the company, however, there are other groups to consider, suchas customers, suppliers and business partners (Bajwa et al., 2004). These differencesdemonstrate how, as noted above, the nature or purpose of the research will determinethe stakeholder groups considered.

A review of the literature has also provided insight into documented differences instakeholder perspective. For instance, it has been suggested by Grindley (as cited inInfinedo and Nahar, 2007) that due to cultural differences, some of the identified groupswill hold conflicting views on IT related issues. Several studies have explored thisdimension. Particularly, Schein (1992) concluded that top management and IT personnelbelonged to distinct subcultures. Similar research by Ward and Peppard (1999) revealedcultural gaps between IT and business departments. One of the reasons cited for thedivergence between these two groups extends to different goals regarding IT issues.In the domain of ERP, research by Singletary et al. (as cited in Infinedo and Nahar, 2007)has revealed differences between managers, IT professionals and end-users on benefitsand drawbacks of ERP implementation. Finally, work by Bradley and Lee (2004)has revealed discrepancy between technical and management personnel regardingunderstanding of necessary levels of training. This kind of research is limited, however,as the majority of study has been managerially focused and the stakeholder perspectivehas not been often considered (Amoako-Gyampah, 2004). Kossek’s (1989) work bringsattention to the need to consider the perceptions of other important groups andAmoako-Gyampah (2004, p. 171) more specifically states that knowledge of anydifferences can “help implementers develop appropriate intervention mechanism suchas training and communication that can lead to successful ERP implementation”.

5. Research methodologyThis research utilized a case study informed primarily by quantitative research design.The selected organization was a public-sector educational institution that had undergonean implementation of three modules of the PeopleSoft ERP suite. Users of the suite werefaculty and staff only. Exploratory qualitative interviews with a representative sampleof four stakeholder groups were succeeded by a quantitative survey. A content analysisof the interviews indicated dissension with regard to communication planning duringchange, which was in this case an ERP implementation. The focus of the research movedtoward gaining a broader understanding of the views of the client organization,in general, through survey research. Survey methodology allows researchers to focus ona sample to learn something about the larger population of interest, which is in thisinstance the case study organization. It is an efficient and economical means of gatheringdata about people’s knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, expectations, and behavior.

Data collection occurred through development of an online questionnaire andinvitation online sampling by e-mail (Burns and Bush, 2006). A subscription to acommercially available online survey provider was secured and the instrument was

Internalmarketing

communication

315

built online. An online survey administration was deemed to be acceptable as thepopulation of interest was obviously computer literature and had access to the internet.Discussions with the pre-test sample and members of the case study organization alsorevealed that this was the preferred method and the one that they believed would elicitthe greatest response rate, depending on the timing of the delivery. There were threee-mail campaigns, occurring at approximate two-week intervals. A total of 85 usablequestionnaires resulted. The statistical methods used in analysis included descriptiveand inferential statistics (ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis).

5.1 Sample descriptionFor the quantitative survey, the target population was defined as all current users ofthe case study unit’s PeopleSoft system and all former members of the PeopleSoftImplementation team. The current users of the system were further divided into threegroups: staff users, management, and IT staff.

The four primary stakeholder groups that were examined in the data analysis wereUsers (current staff who are day-to-day users of the system); Managers (currentmanagement who are users of the system and those managers with access to the system);IT staff (all IT staff seconded to the implementation team and current IT/computerservices staff); and Consultants (all outside consultants contracted to work with theimplementation team).

5.2 Sampling proceduresSampling methodology was not applied in this instance as the survey instrument wasadministered to all members of the population, which totaled 325 individuals. Thisprocedure was possible given there was ample time, the population size was not toolarge or difficult to access, there was an expectation of variance, and the expense wasnot an inhibiting factor.

5.3 InstrumentationThe qualitative interviews revealed differences in opinion regarding appropriatecommunication strategies and tactics to gain acceptance of the new system, as well asthe degree of communication required. Because the literature review revealed no suitablescale to measure IM communication during ERP, attention was placed on compiling alist of constructs that were hypothesized to be important determinants ofcommunication effectiveness. Based on the communication/change managementliterature, two theoretically important constructs were identified (Table I) in addition toa set of measurement items for each. It should be noted that this measurement scale hadnot been tested for reliability. However, this was not a concern since the main objectiveof the research was not to assess the effectiveness of the communication strategies assuch, but to determine if there are stakeholder differences regarding communicationstrategy.

The following sections outline the process for question development for the variousconstruct items addressing communication methods and communication content.

Communication methods. The questions relating to timing are based on thecommunication needs model according to stages of organizational change, as proposedby Klein (1996). See the relevant part of the model in Table II. His work, in turn, is basedon the Kurt Lewinian model (Lewin, 1951) that incorporates three stages of change;

BPMJ17,2

316

unfreeze, change, refreeze. Questions were presented on a five-point Likert scale andrespondents were asked to indicate their degree of agreement with the statements.

Media choices need to change with the stages of the implementation process (Klein,1996). Further, a communication strategy needs to consider all available choicesincluding verbal, written and electronic media (Klein, 1996; Pitt et al., 2001). Parr andShanks (2000) present a model of ERP implementation that synthesizes the work of otherresearchers, notably Bancroft et al. (1998), Ross (1998) and Markus and Tanis (2000).Parr and Shanks’ model presents three major phases of ERP implementation: planning,project and enhancement. In order to develop questions for this construct, the first twophases have been used as a guide. Specifically, for each task identified in the planningand project phases, respondents were asked to identify their most preferred method ofcommunication. Based on the literature and the preliminary interviews, possiblecommunication media included: face to face with immediate supervisor, face to face withproject team member, face to face with senior administration, face to face with projectchampion, project web page, e-mail, electronic newsletters, informational memos,web-cast, teleconference, other print media.

Finally, effective communication can only occur if there is a mechanism for feedbackso that the sender can check to make sure his/her message is understood (Klein, 1996).

Communication content. The second communication construct addresses the contentof the message itself. According to Pearson and Thomas (1997), there are three kinds ofinformation that can make up communication content: information that employees mustknow because it affects his/her job; information that they should know because it affectssome aspect of the organization and finally, information they could know, which mightinclude unimportant office gossip. Question addressing this construct sought to determineif the organization stakeholders felt that they received the information they must andshould have.

6. Data analysis and results6.1 Descriptive analysisFor almost every construct item, the consultants expressed the highest levels ofagreement while the users reported the lowest. These results may be viewed in Table III.

Unfreezing Changing Refreezing

Communication needsExplaining issues, needs, rationale Informing employees of progress Publicizing the success of

the changeIdentifying and explainingdirectives

Getting input as to effect of theprocess

Spreading the word toemployees

Identifying and explaining firstfew steps

Developing sophisticated

Reassuring people knowledge among all supervisorymanagement personnel

Informing management cadre Challenging misconceptionsContinual reassurance of employeesDelineating and clarifying rolerelationships and expectations

Source: Klein (1996)

Table II.Klein’s communication

needs for organizationalchange

Internalmarketing

communication

317

Descriptive statistics were also calculated to determine the preferred media choice forspecific ERP tasks, according to the various stakeholder groups. For some tasks, allstakeholder groups were very close in agreement on the preferred method ofcommunication. For instance, when it comes to the task of backfilling/planning for staffto be placed on the project, everyone was in agreement that communication face to facewith a supervisor was the best method. For the selection of the ERP package itself, themajority of stakeholders considered e-mail an appropriate medium. As well, everyoneagreed very strongly that when it comes to user training, communication face to face withmembers of the project team is decidedly one of the very few accepted modes of contact.

There were also some distinct differences in opinion as well, and in many cases, thedifferences were expressed by the users. For instance, when considering the ERP task ofanalysis and redesign of business processes, managers, IT staff and consultants feltvery strongly that this kind of communication should occur face to face with the projectteam members. Surprisingly, the majority of users felt that e-mail would the bestmethod, followed by face to face with supervisor. Managers, IT staff and consultantsalso felt that the training of the project team needed to occur face to face with the projectteam, and yet again, the users differed and wanted to receive this communicationeither by e-mail or from the project champion. Another ERP task involves planning

Scale Item Managers Users IT staff Consultants

The rationale for the new ERP was clearly explainedto employees 2.07 (0.59) 2.65 (1.02) 2.25 (1.16) 1.94 (0.68)The initial communication about the new systemshould come from senior management 1.80 (0.41) 2.17 (0.88) 1.63 (0.74) 1.31 (0.48)Managers and supervisors were informed and ableto answer most employee questions about the newsystem 2.87 (1.25) 3.50 (0.98) 2.75 (1.28) 2.44 (0.81)Employees were periodically informed of theprogress of the PeopleSoft project 1.87 (0.52) 1.98 (0.65) 2.00 (1.07) 1.81 (0.83)The implementation team sought employee inputregarding the new system and its effect on my job 2.87 (1.25) 2.76 (1.04) 2.38 (1.06) 2.00 (0.82)Employees who were not part of the project teamwere made aware of how they would be affected bythe new system 2.73 (1.03) 3.07 (1.04) 2.50 (1.31) 2.31 (0.70)Any misconceptions about the impact of the newsystem were quickly addressed by the project team 2.60 (0.91) 2.76 (0.99) 2.13 (1.13) 2.38 (0.62)After the system was implemented, employees wereinformed of how the new system met theorganization’s objectives 2.73 (1.28) 2.72 (0.96) 2.38 (1.19) 2.56 (0.63)There were effective feedback mechanisms in placefor employees to ask questions about the new ERPsystem? 2.53 (0.99) 2.48 (1.00) 2.25 (1.16) 2.25 (0.68)Employees were provided with information abouthow the ERP would affect their job 2.93 (1.16) 3.07 (0.98) 2.63 (1.30) 2.38 (0.62)Employees were provided with information abouthow the ERP was affecting other parts of theorganization 3.07 (1.28) 3.35 (0.92) 2.88 (1.25) 2.50 (0.63)

Notes: Scale: 1 – strongly agree; 2 – agree; 3 – neither agree or disagree; 4 – disagree; 5 – stronglydisagree

Table III.Mean (SD)communication methodscale scores bystakeholder

BPMJ17,2

318

of resources, both human and financial. For this task, the users were almost equally splitbetween preference for various forms of personal and non-personal communication andthe other groups preferred some form of face to face contact. With respect to teammember selection, managers and users preferred e-mail, while IT staff and consultantspreferred some form of face-to-face contact. Finally, for the clarification of the rationalefor ERP, the IT staff and were largely in favor of electronic methods of communique,consultants were split on their preferences, while the management and users preferredface to face communication. These results may be viewed in Table IV.

6.2 Tests of difference – IM communication strategyIn order to determine if there were any statistically significant differences among thestakeholder groups for the IM communication scale, further tests were required. Thescale for the above measure was interval, which indicated parametric tests; however,it was also necessary to examine the normality of the distribution through calculation ofZ-scores. Results revealed that all but two of the 11 communication construct itemssatisfied the normality criterion. For these two items, the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallistest was performed. For the remaining nine items, one-way between-subjects ANOVAdetermined if any differences existed, while post hoc tests determined how precise thedifferences were and exactly which mean scores were different (Burns and Bush, 2006).

Two types of analysis were performed. One considered significant differences amonggroups on the total score for the scale. The second considered differences among groupson individual scale items. An analysis of variance showed that there was a significantdifference among groups with regard to the overall mean scores of the communicationmethods and content scale; F(3, 81) ¼ 3.22, p ¼ 0.027 (Table V). Post hoc analyses usingthe Tukey post hoc criterion for significance indicated that the total scale mean score forthe consultants (M ¼ 23.88, SD ¼ 4.47) was significantly less than that for the users(M ¼ 30.50, SD ¼ 7.61), F(3, 27) ¼ 3.218, p ¼ 0.027. The total score for thecommunication methods and content scale provides an indication of agreement on thevarious construct items collectively. It should also be noted that lower scores are alsoindicative of more positive or preferred behavior when considering the role ofcommunicating during an ERP implementation. Therefore, because the average totalmean score on this scale for the consultant group is 23.88 as compared to a total averagemean score of 30.50 for the user group, it can be concluded that the assessments of thecommunication methods and content are different between the two groups, with the userindicating an overall less positive assessment (Table VI).

In addition to a comparison of means for the total score of the scale, a test ofdifferences in means was also conducted for the individual construct items thatcomprised the scale. For all 11 items, ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis tests were performedand it was revealed that significant differences existed for the following:

. the rationale for the new ERP was clearly explained to employees ( p ¼ 0.026);

. the initial communication about the new system should come from seniormanagement ( p ¼ 0.001);

. managers and supervisors were informed and able to answer most employeequestions about the new system ( p ¼ 0.003); and

. employees were provided with information about how the ERP was affectingother parts of the organization ( p ¼ 0.031). (Tables VII and VIII).

Internalmarketing

communication

319

ER

Pta

sk

Fac

eto

face

wit

hsu

per

vis

or

Fac

eto

face

wit

hp

roje

ctte

amm

emb

er

Fac

eto

face

wit

hse

nio

rad

min

Fac

eto

face

wit

hp

roje

ctch

amp

ion

Pro

ject

web

pag

eE

-mai

lE

-new

slet

ter

Mem

oW

ebca

st

ER

Pta

sk–

clari

fica

tion

ofra

tion

ale

for

ER

PM

anage

rs7.

121

.414

.335

.70.

014

.37.

10.

00.

0U

sers

24.4

22.0

7.3

7.3

7.3

24.4

2.4

4.9

0.0

ITst

aff

14.3

0.0

14.3

0.0

0.0

71.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

Con

sult

ants

14.3

14.3

21.4

0.0

21.4

21.4

0.0

7.1

0.0

ER

Pta

sk–

sele

ctio

nof

ER

PM

anag

ers

0.0

21.4

7.1

14.3

14.3

35.7

0.0

7.1

0.0

Use

rs12

.212

.212

.214

.62.

434

.17.

30.

04.

9IT

Sta

ff0.

016

.70.

00.

016

.766

.70.

00.

00.

0C

onsu

ltan

ts0.

014

.314

.314

.321

.421

.47.

17.

10.

0E

RP

Task

–pl

annin

gof

reso

urc

es(h

um

an

and

financi

al)

Man

ager

s15

.423

.115

.415

.47.

715

.47.

70.

00.

0U

sers

19.5

17.1

7.3

7.3

4.9

36.6

2.4

4.9

0.0

ITst

aff

16.7

16.7

16.7

33.3

0.0

16.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

Con

sult

ants

14.3

21.4

7.1

28.6

7.1

14.3

7.1

0.0

0.0

ER

PT

ask

–pr

ojec

tte

am

mem

ber

sele

ctio

nM

anag

ers

15.4

15.4

15.4

7.7

15.4

30.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

Use

rs17

.17.

39.

89.

82.

446

.32.

44.

90.

0IT

staf

f20

.00.

040

.040

.00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

0C

onsu

ltan

ts35

.77.

128

.621

.40.

07.

10.

00.

00.

0E

RP

task

–B

ack

-filli

ng/

plannin

gfo

rst

aff

tobe

place

don

proj

ect

team

Man

ager

s33

.316

.78.

38.

30.

025

.00.

00.

08.

3U

sers

43.2

4.5

6.8

4.5

0.0

34.1

2.3

4.5

0.0

ITst

aff

33.3

16.7

33.3

0.0

16.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Con

sult

ants

78.6

7.1

14.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

(con

tinued

)

Table IV.Percentage of preferredmedia choice for variousERP tasks by stakeholdergroup

BPMJ17,2

320

ER

Pta

sk

Fac

eto

face

wit

hsu

per

vis

or

Fac

eto

face

wit

hp

roje

ctte

amm

emb

er

Fac

eto

face

wit

hse

nio

rad

min

Fac

eto

face

wit

hp

roje

ctch

amp

ion

Pro

ject

web

pag

eE

-mai

lE

-new

slet

ter

Mem

oW

ebca

st

ER

Pta

sk–

analy

sis

and

redes

ign

ofcu

rren

tbu

sines

spr

oces

ses

Man

ager

s15

.438

.57.

715

.47.

715

.40.

00.

00.

0U

sers

20.9

11.6

11.6

16.3

4.7

34.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

ITst

aff

16.7

50.0

16.7

0.0

0.0

16.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

Con

sult

ants

21.4

42.9

7.1

14.3

14.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

ER

PT

ask

–tr

ain

ing

ofpr

ojec

tte

am

Man

ager

s0.

035

.714

.328

.60.

021

.40.

00.

00.

0U

sers

9.5

19.0

0.0

35.7

2.4

31.0

0.0

2.4

0.0

ITst

aff

0.0

66.7

0.0

16.7

0.0

0.0

16.7

0.0

0.0

Con

sult

ants

0.0

78.6

0.0

21.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

ER

Pta

sk–

new

syst

emdes

ign

and

configu

rati

onM

anag

ers

0.0

21.4

7.1

28.6

7.1

21.4

7.1

0.0

7.1

Use

rs4.

821

.42.

433

.32.

433

.30.

02.

40.

0IT

staf

f0.

010

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Con

sult

ants

0.0

64.3

0.0

21.4

7.1

7.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

ER

Pta

sk–

use

rtr

ain

ing

Man

ager

s7.

150

.014

.30.

07.

121

.40.

00.

00.

0U

sers

4.8

47.6

21.4

0.0

2.4

23.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

ITst

aff

0.0

66.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

16.7

16.7

0.0

0.0

Con

sult

ants

0.0

78.6

14.3

0.0

0.0

7.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

Note:

Th

ev

alu

esre

pre

sen

tp

erce

nta

ges

ofth

ep

refe

rred

med

iach

oice

sas

sele

cted

acco

rdin

gto

stak

ehol

der

gro

up

Table IV.

Internalmarketing

communication

321

Follow-up post hoc tests were then necessary to determine which groups, in fact,differed from one another. For equal variances, Tukey’s HSD is recommended whenwanting to complete all pairwise comparisons of the means. For unequal variances,Dunnett’s T3 is recommended for pairwise comparisons as well as when sample sizesare small. For the non-parametric variables, multiple comparisons were conductedusing the Mann-Whitney U-statistic. Results of post hoc tests revealed that for theabove four items, the significant differences were between the views of the consultantsand users. The consultants held significantly stronger levels of agreement on each ofthe items indicating that from their perspective, the project team or implementationteam performed much more effectively on these communication aspects than perceivedby the users. Therefore, users did not feel as strongly as the consultants did that they,the users, understood the rationale, were provided with sufficient information and werebeing managed by people with the appropriate level of information on the new system.In addition, for the construct item, initial communication should come from seniormanagement, significant differences were also found to exist between managers andconsultants. Particularly, the managers were less in agreement on this item, indicatingthey did not believe as strongly as the consultants did that senior managers should beproviding much of the initial communication to the organization.

These results suggest potential links between phenomena. Foremostly, internalcommunication during change should consider a stakeholder perspective thatreflects appropriate methods as well as content. Second, a stakeholder perspectivein communication planning can be a potentially effective mechanism to promoteacceptance and understanding of need for change.

95% of confidence interval

(I) Stakeholder group (J) Stakeholder groupMeandifference (I-J) SE Sig. Lower bound Upper bound

Managers Staff 22.433 2.321 0.722 28.522 3.655IT staff 2.317 3.418 0.905 26.648 11.281Consultants 4.192 2.805 0.446 23.168 11.551

Users Managers 2.433 2.321 0.722 23.655 8.522IT staff 4.750 2.990 0.391 23.094 12.594Consultants 6.625 * 2.266 0.023 0.6819 12.568

IT staff Managers 22.317 3.417 0.905 211.281 6.648Users 24.750 2.990 0.391 212.594 3.094Consultants 1.8750 3.380 0.945 26.992 10.742

Consultants Managers 24.192 2.805 0.446 211.551 3.168Users 26.625 * 2.266 0.023 212.568 2 .682IT staff 21.875 3.380 0.945 210.742 6.992

Note: Significant at: *0.05 level of mean difference

Table VI.Multiple comparisons:Tukey HSD output totalscore communicationmethods scale

Total scale score Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.

Communication methods Between groups 588.270 3 196.090 3.218 0.027Within groups 4,935.683 81 60.934Total 5,523.953 84

Table V.ANOVA output:comparison of total scalescores across stakeholdergroups

BPMJ17,2

322

Sca

leit

emS

um

ofsq

uar

esd

fM

ean

squ

are

FS

ig.

Th

era

tion

ale

for

the

new

ER

Pw

ascl

earl

yex

pla

ined

toem

plo

yee

sB

etw

een

gro

up

s8.

147

32.

716

3.24

40.0

26

Wit

hin

gro

up

s67

.806

810.

837

Tot

al75

.953

84M

anag

ers

and

sup

erv

isor

sw

ere

info

rmed

and

able

toan

swer

mos

tem

plo

yee

qu

esti

ons

abou

tth

en

ewsy

stem

Bet

wee

ng

rou

ps

16.1

533

5.38

45.

032

0.0

03

Wit

hin

gro

up

s86

.671

811.

070

Tot

al10

2.82

484

Th

eim

ple

men

tati

onte

amso

ug

ht

emp

loy

eein

pu

tre

gar

din

gth

en

ewsy

stem

and

its

effe

cton

my

job

Bet

wee

ng

rou

ps

8.42

23

2.80

72.

585

0.05

9W

ith

ing

rou

ps

87.9

7881

1.08

6T

otal

96.4

0084

Em

plo

yee

sw

ho

wer

en

otp

art

ofth

ep

roje

ctte

amw

ere

mad

eaw

are

ofh

owth

eyw

ould

be

affe

cted

by

the

new

syst

emB

etw

een

gro

up

s7.

813

32.

604

2.53

60.

062

Wit

hin

gro

up

s83

.175

811.

027

Tot

al90

.988

84A

ny

mis

con

cep

tion

sab

out

the

imp

act

ofth

en

ewsy

stem

wer

eq

uic

kly

add

ress

edb

yth

ep

roje

ctte

amB

etw

een

gro

up

s3.

805

31.

268

1.45

50.

233

Wit

hin

gro

up

s70

.595

810.

872

Tot

al74

.400

84A

fter

the

syst

emw

asim

ple

men

ted

,em

plo

yee

sw

ere

info

rmed

ofh

owth

en

ewsy

stem

met

the

org

aniz

atio

n’s

obje

ctiv

esB

etw

een

gro

up

s1.

034

30.

345

0.34

90.

790

Wit

hin

gro

up

s80

.072

810.

989

Tot

al81

.106

84T

her

ew

ere

effe

ctiv

efe

edb

ack

mec

han

ism

sin

pla

cefo

rem

plo

yee

sto

ask

qu

esti

ons

abou

tth

en

ewE

RP

syst

em?

Bet

wee

ng

rou

ps

1.04

13

0.34

70.

371

0.77

4W

ith

ing

rou

ps

75.7

1281

0.93

5T

otal

76.7

5384

Em

plo

yee

sw

ere

pro

vid

edw

ith

info

rmat

ion

abou

th

owth

eE

RP

wou

ldaf

fect

thei

rjo

bB

etw

een

gro

up

s6.

214

32.

071

2.11

40.

105

Wit

hin

Gro

up

s79

.363

810.

980

Tot

al85

.576

84E

mp

loy

ees

wer

ep

rov

ided

wit

hin

form

atio

nab

out

how

the

ER

Pw

asaf

fect

ing

oth

erp

arts

ofth

eor

gan

izat

ion

Bet

wee

ng

rou

ps

9.00

43

3.00

13.

107

0.0

31

Wit

hin

gro

up

s78

.243

810.

966

Tot

al87

.247

84

Table VII.ANOVA output

communication methodsscale items

Internalmarketing

communication

323

7. Findings and discussionFindings of this study supported the primary proposition that:

P1. Stakeholders hold differing views regarding preferred communicationmethods and content during an ERP project.

Particularly, preliminary interviews indicated that users and IT staff wanted morecommunication through different media. In the wider quantitative survey, the overallmean score of the users on the communication scale further supported the samesentiments. Users expressed the highest levels of disagreement for almost everymeasure item. managers were the next group most likely to be in disagreement and,therefore, dissatisfied with how communication occurred. Consultants reported thehighest levels of agreement. As well, there were significant differences between usersand consultants and users and managers on the four communication items noted above.One noted difference was that managers were in significantly less agreement on thepoint of whether initial communication should come from senior management. This is aninteresting observation. Perhaps, the managers did not believe the initial communicationshould come from them because they were suspect of the opinions of end-users. OneManager, during the exploratory interview, inferred that employees would probably nottrust communication from senior managers. It is impossible to be certain of the reasoningbehind this view; however, it certainly presents a problem. In the exploratory interviews,the consultants mentioned implementation of a very detailed communication plan thatoutlined when communication should occur, with whom and by whom. If the managersdid not feel that communication was their responsibility or that they were not the bestperson to do it, as the survey results indicate, they may have not carried through withtheir assigned communication roles, as instructed by the consultants. These are justinferences, however, and all significant differences noted above would need to be furtherexamined through follow-up inquiry. While this difference highlighted varying views inpreferred delivery agent, other aspects of communication considered the media choice.

The quantitative survey also explored communication methods by gathering data onthe preferred media choice for various types of communication during the ERPimplementation process. Looking at this information from a tactical standpoint, it can bedetermined that face to face communication is the preferred method of communication forall stakeholder groups, in the majority of circumstances. For some ERP tasks,stakeholder groups agreed on which communication medium was most preferred. Forinstance, communication relating to User training was considered best expressed by faceto face contact with the project team. Similarly, the selection of the package could becommunicated effectively through e-mail methods. Conversely, there were situationswhere stakeholder groups differed. Table IX summarizes the results accordingto whether the stakeholder group most preferred personal or non-personal methods,

The initial communication about thenew system should come from senior

management

Employees were periodicallyinformed of the progress of the

PeopleSoft project

x 2 16.352 1.477df 3 3Asymptotic significance 0.001 0.688

Table VIII.Kruskal-Wallis outputcommunication methodsscale items

BPMJ17,2

324

as indicated by percentage values. For three items, clarification of rationale,selection of ERP and project team selection, there is certainly more divisive opinionson how the communication should occur. What this information reveals, however, is thatstakeholders do prefer to receive certain communication by certain methods. As a result,project teams need to incorporate this information into communication plans byidentifying proper tactical approaches. These results support the view that it is importantto select appropriate media and match communication strategies to employee profiles.

A closer examination of the literature reveals limited, but similar findings. Forexample, Goodman and Truss (2004) have made the same observation regarding theneed to match media with receiver. Their research presents a model of effective internalcommunication during management of change. The current findings are somewhatsimilar except they focus particularly on an ERP implementation as one kind of changemanagement project and they more extensively consider varying stakeholder groups.This same discrepancy in stakeholder attitudes regarding effective communication

ERP taskPersonal media choices(%)

Non-personal media choices(%)

Clarification of rationale for ERP Managers (78.5) IT staff (71.4)Users (61) Consultants (50)Consultants (50)

Selection of ERP Users (51.2) Managers (57.1)IT Staff (83.4)Consultants (57)

Planning of resources (human and financial) Managers (69.3)Users (51.2)IT staff (83.4)Consultants (71.4)

Project team member selection Managers (53.9) Users (56)IT staff (100)Consultants (92.8)

Back-filling/planning for staff to be placed onproject team

Managers (66.6)Users (59)IT staff (83.3)Consultants (100)

Analysis and redesign of current businessprocesses

Managers (77)Users (60.4)IT staff (83.4)Consultants (85.7)

Training of project team Managers (78.6)Users (64.2)IT staff (83.4)Consultants (100)

New system design and configuration Managers (57.1)Users (61.9)IT staff (100)Consultants (85.7)

User training Managers (71.4)Users (73.8)IT staff (66.7)Consultants (92.9)

Table IX.Media choice preference

by stakeholder group

Internalmarketing

communication

325

mechanisms was also supported by Amoako-Gyampah (2004). He found differing viewsbetween managers and end-users on the effectiveness of communication focused onexplaining the technological benefits, and the use of roadshows and newsletters. Whilethese channels may not be comparable to those assessed in the current research project,the conclusions are the same: stakeholder groups have differing views on messagecontent, media and sender, and there needs to be a match between sender, receiver andmedium.

The second proposition presented by this research supports the notion that:

P2. A stakeholder perspective in communication planning can be a potentiallyeffective mechanism to promote acceptance and understanding of need forchange.

Users represent the largest segment affected by an ERP, and in this case study, theyexpressed the highest levels of disagreement. In addition to the high levels ofdisagreement on the measure items, users differed significantly on the following: therationale for the new ERP was clearly explained to employees (M ¼ 2.65), managers andsupervisors were informed and able to answer employee questions (M ¼ 3.50),employees were provided with information about how the ERP would affect their job(M ¼ 3.07) and employees were provided with information about how the ERP wasaffecting other parts of the organization (M ¼ 3.35). These mean scores are worrisomebecause they indicate that Users lacked information. Particularly, they paint a picture ofusers who do not feel they can get questions answered and have some uncertainty aboutthe effects of the new system. Uncertainty ultimately creates resistance to change.Wagner and Newell (2006, p. 54) note that in order to address any potential controversy,effort should be placed on recognizing the needs of other stakeholders. Further, theypropose that handling of such controversies can be critical to the system’s success: theyare not to be “dismissed or ignored”. Finally, it is important to draw attention to the workby Armenakis and Harris (2002), which sheds light on the importance of stakeholders inthe face of change and the need to ensure that employees understand and believe theneed for change. Knowledge of the rationale behind the system is critically importance tofacilitate acceptance of change and that was not achieved in this case study because ofinadequate communication.

This knowledge of differing views, and in some instances, starkly differentagreement levels of issues surrounding communication cannot be ignored. In this casestudy, communication has failed to meet the needs of some stakeholders. Particularly,lack of information has negatively affected agreement levels for some very importantissues, all of which impact acceptance levels for change and possible project failure.In other research, Al-Mashari and Al-Mudimigh (2003) contrasted a failed ERP projectwith several best practices companies and an inadequate communication plan wasdetermined to be a contributing factor to the failed project. Likewise, Martin and Huq(2007, p. 138) conclude from their case study research that “effective communication candispel confusion and employee resistance as employees become more educated about theERP project”. Based on our initial proposition, we have discovered that communicationmust take a more market-oriented approach (i.e. different message, different media, fordifferent groups) This means being more aware of individual stakeholder groups’ needssurrounding method and content in order to facilitate acceptance of change. One possibletactic might be the careful choice of delivery agent for a message. The suggestion to use

BPMJ17,2

326

internal supporters as tools for internal marketing, was similarly noted by Martin andHuq (2007, p. 136) in their statement, “successful ERP implementation depended on topmanagement effectively orchestrating and coordinating the efforts of multiple changeleaders throughout the organization”. Suggestions to use communication andparticipation to build user buy-in were also echoed by Grant et al. (2006). In manyinstances, communication has been already been recognized as a necessary componentof any change management plan, but the current research goes one step further byproviding support for the need to also incorporate a stakeholder perspective.

8. ConclusionThe findings of this study have provided a significant contribution to the body ofknowledge surrounding the ERP phenomenon and stakeholder preferredcommunication strategies. What has been uncovered for the first time is thatstakeholders differ, significantly in some respects, in how each group believes certainaspects of the project should be handled, from a tactical communication standpoint. Thisresearch has revealed that the management of ERP projects is not as simple as a“one-size-fits-all” plan. Communication strategy, particularly, is one area that requires atailored approach to meet stakeholder needs. In fact, aside from only a couple of studies(Bradley and Lee, 2004, Infinedo and Nahar, 2007) that considered differences betweenIT managers and business managers regarding differing views on benefits anddrawbacks of ERP projects and levels of training, there has been nothing thatspecifically considered wider stakeholder views regarding understanding of changemanagement and communication. The need for research with this focus particularly hasbeen supported in the literature (Amoako-Gyampah, 2004, Kossek, 1989) because it isrecognized that better understanding of stakeholder perspective will assistimplementers in developing appropriate intervention methods and techniques.

The most significant methodological value came from the emphasis on the ERPproject from an organizational, human-centered point of view. For years, researchers inthe IS field (Orlikowski and Barley, 2001; Benbasat et al., 1987; Orlikowski and Baroudi,1991; Gable, 1994; Kaplan and Duchon, 1988) have argued for research that istechno-social in nature (Skok and Legge, 2002; Walsham, 1995; Willcocks and Lester,1999). The rationale: it better captures the complexity of the situation, and in the case ofERP, the situation is complex. It is further argued that particularly in the ERP realm,organization focused studies are underrepresented as are case studies addressingpractical challenges (Dery et al., 2006). This research fills that gap quite nicely.

9. Limitations and directions for future researchOne interesting finding of this research was the discrepancy regarding the mostappropriate sender of initial communication regarding the rationale for the ERP.Follow-up research should explore why Managers believed they were not the mostappropriate medium when consultants did. Like the managers, the users were also of theopinion that initial communication should not come from managers. To date, there hasbeen nothing mentioned in the literature that has addressed stakeholder differencesregarding such communication aspects. If it were known why the various stakeholdergroups hold these perceptions, it may be possible to determine if they are, in fact, properlyinformed. Any differences in opinion between consultants and other stakeholder groupsdeserve further attention given that it is the consultants who are, in most instances,

Internalmarketing

communication

327

primarily in charge of the implementation process, including communication planning.This kind of research could potentially uncover some of the possible weaknesses and/orconflicts in communication, which occur during the initial stages of the project. As thedata have revealed, communication at this stage needs to be handled delicately as peopleare learning about the ERP and its proposed process changes for the first time. If the rightperson, does not deliver the message in the proper manner, it could induce unnecessaryresistance.

Another more general line of questioning of this research uncovered data concerningthe most appropriate communication media: personal or non-personal. There were manydifferences across stakeholder groups. If stakeholders differ with respect to “whom”or “how” the message is delivered, presumably, they may possibly differ as well on otherissues of context or content. As an example, a possibility for future research would focuson the timing of communication, as well as the level of communication detail. This kindof information combined with the knowledge of stakeholder preferred medium wouldadd much to the communication planning element of ERP projects.

References

Abdinnour-Helm, S., Lengnick-Hall, M.L. and Lengnick-Hall, C.A. (2003), “Pre-implementationattitudes and organizational readiness for implementing an enterprise resource planningsystem”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 146, pp. 258-73.

Akkermans, H. and van Helden, K. (2002), “Vicious and virtuous cycles in ERP implementation:a case study of interrelations between critical success factors”, European Journal ofInformation Systems, Vol. 11, p. 35.

Aladwani, A.M. (2001), “Change management strategies for successful ERP implementation”,Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 7, p. 266.

Al-Mashari, M. and Al-Mudimigh, A. (2003), “ERP implementation: lessons from a case study”,Information Technology & People, Vol. 16, p. 21.

Al-Mashari, M., Al-Mudimigh, A. and Zairi, M. (2003), “Enterprise resource planning:a taxonomy of critical factors”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 146,pp. 352-64.

Amoako-Gyampah, K. (2004), “ERP implementation factors a comparison of managerial andend-user perspectives”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 10, p. 171.

Armenakis, A.A. and Harris, S.G. (2002), “Crafting a change message to create transformationalreadiness”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 15, pp. 169-83.

Bajwa, D.S., Garcia, J.E. and Mooney, T. (2004), “An integrative framework for the assimilation ofenterprise resource planning systems: phases, antecedents, and outcomes”, Journal ofComputer Information Systems, Vol. 44, pp. 81-90.

Bancroft, N., Seip, H. and Sprengel, A. (1998), Implementing SAP R/3, Manning Publications,Greenwich, CT.

Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D.K. and Mead, M. (1987), “The case research strategy in studies ofinformation systems”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 11, p. 369.

Bingi, P., Sharma, M.K. and Godla, J. (1999), “Critical issues affecting an ERP implementation”,Information Systems Management, Vol. 16, p. 7.

Bradley, J. and Lee, C.C. (2004), “ERP training and user satisfaction”, paper presented at the10th Americas Conference on Information Systems, New York, NY.

Burns, A.C. and Bush, R.F. (2006), Marketing Research, Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

BPMJ17,2

328

Causon, J. (2004), “The internal brand: successful cultural change and employee empowerment”,Journal of Change Management, Vol. 4, pp. 297-307.

Davison, R. (2002), “Cultural complications of ERP, association for computing machinery”,Communications of the ACM, Vol. 45, p. 109.

Dery, K., Grant, D., Harley, B. and Wright, C. (2006), “Work, organisation and enterprise resourceplanning systems: an alternative research agenda”, New Technology, Work &Employment, Vol. 21, pp. 199-214.

Finney, S. and Corbett, M. (2007), “ERP implementation: a compilation and analysis of criticalsuccess factors”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 13, pp. 329-47.

Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pittman, Boston, MA.

Gable, G.G. (1994), “Integrating case study and survey research methods: an example ininformation systems”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 3, p. 112.

Goodman, J. and Truss, C. (2004), “The medium and the message: communicating effectivelyduring a major change initiative”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 4, pp. 217-28.

Grant, D., Hall, R., Wailes, N. and Wright, C. (2006), “The false promise of technologicaldeterminism: the case of enterprise resource planning systems”, New Technology, Work &Employment, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 2-15.

Grant, G.G. (2003), “Strategic alignment and enterprise systems implementation: the case ofMetalco”, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 18, p. 159.

Harkness, J. (2000), “Measuring the effectiveness of change – the role of internal communicationin change management”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 1, pp. 66-73.

Holland, C. and Light, B. (1999), “A critical success factors model for ERP implementation”,IEEE Software, Vol. 16, p. 30.

Hong, K.-K. and Kim, Y.-G. (2002), “The critical success factors for ERP implementation:an organizational fit perspective”, Information & Management, Vol. 40, p. 25.

Infinedo, P. and Nahar, N. (2007), “ERP systems success: an empirical analysis of how twoorganizational stakeholder groups prioritize and evaluate relevant measures”, EnterpriseInformation Systems, Vol. 1, pp. 24-48.

Kaplan, B.D. and Duchon, D. (1988), “Combining qualitative and quantitative methods ininformation systems research: a case study”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 12, pp. 571-86.

Klein, S.M. (1996), “A management communication strategy for change”, Journal ofOrganizational Change Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, p. 32.

Kossek, E.E. (1989), “The acceptance of human resource innovation by multiple constituencies”,Personnel Psychology, Vol. 42, pp. 263-81.

Kumar, V., Maheshwari, B. and Kumar, U. (2002), “ERP systems implementation: best practicesin Canadian government organizations”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 19,pp. 147-72.

Legris, P. and Collerette, P. (2006), “A roadmap for IT project implementation: integratingstakeholders and change management issues”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 37,pp. 64-75.

Lewin, K. (1951), Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers, Harper, New York, NY.

Mabert, V.A., Soni, A. and Venkataramanan, M.A. (2003), “Enterprise resource planning:managing the implementation process”, European Journal of Operational Research,Vol. 146, p. 302.

Mandal, P. and Gunasekaran, A. (2003), “Issues in implementing ERP: a case study”,European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 146, pp. 274-83.

Internalmarketing

communication

329

Markus, M.L. and Tanis, C. (2000) in Zmud, R.W. (Ed.), Zmud Framing the Domains of ITResearch: Glimpsing the Future through the Past, Pinnaflex Educational Resources,Cincinnati, OH.

Martin, T.N. and Huq, Z. (2007), “Realigning top management’s strategic change actions for ERPimplementation: how specializing on just cultural and environmental contextual factorscould improve success”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 7, pp. 121-42.

Moran, J.W. and Brightman, B.K. (2001), “Leading organizational change”, Career DevelopmentInternational, Vol. 6, pp. 111-18.

Motwani, J., Mirchandani, D., Madan, M. and Gunasekaran, A. (2002), “Successfulimplementation of ERP projects: evidence from two case studies”, International Journalof Production Economics, Vol. 75, p. 83.

Nah, F.F.-H., Lau, J.L.-S. and Kuang, J. (2001), “Critical factors for successful implementation ofenterprise systems”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 7, p. 285.

Orlikowski, W.J. and Barley, S.R. (2001), “Technology and institutions: what can researchon information technology and research on organizations learn from each other?”,MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25, p. 145.

Orlikowski, W.J. and Baroudi, J.J. (1991), “Studying information technology in organizations:research approaches and assumptions”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 2, pp. 1-28.

Parr, A. and Shanks, G. (2000), “A model of ERP project implementation”, Journal of InformationTechnology, Vol. 15, pp. 289-303.

Pearson, B. and Thomas, N. (1997), The Shorter MBA, HarperCollins, London.

Piercy, N.F. (1990), “Marketing concepts and actions: implementing marketing-led strategicchange”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 24-42.

Piercy, N.F. (1995), “Market-led strategic change”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 29, p. 18.

Piercy, N.F. (2002), “Market-led strategic change: new marketing for new realities”, MarketingReview, Vol. 2, p. 1.

Piercy, N.F. and Morgan, N. (1991), “Internal marketing – the missing half of the marketingprogramme”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 82-93.

Pitt, L., Murgolog-Poore, M. and Dix, S. (2001), “Changing change management: the intranet ascatalyst”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 2, p. 106.

Rafiq, M. and Ahmed, P.K. (1993), “The scope of internal marketing: defining the boundarybetween marketing and human resource management”, Journal of MarketingManagement, Vol. 9, pp. 219-32.

Ribbers, P.M.A. and Schoo, K.-C. (2002), “Program management and complexity of ERPimplementations”, Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 14, p. 45.

Ross, J.W. (1998), Centre for Information Systems Research, Sloan School of Management,Cambridge, MA.

Ross, J.W. and Vitale, M.R. (2000), “The ERP revolution: surviving vs. thriving”, InformationSystems Frontiers, Vol. 2, p. 233.

Schein, E.H. (1992), The Role of the CEO in the Management of Change: The Case of InformationTechnology, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Scott, J.E. and Vessey, I. (2000), “Implementing enterprise resource planning systems: the role oflearning from failure”, Information Systems Frontiers, Vol. 2, p. 213.

Siriginidi, S.R. (2000a), “Enterprise resource planning: business needs and technologies”,Industrial Management þ Data Systems, Vol. 100, p. 81.

BPMJ17,2

330

Siriginidi, S.R. (2000b), “Enterprise resource planning in reengineering business”, BusinessProcess Management Journal, Vol. 6, p. 376.

Skok, W. and Legge, M. (2002), “Evaluating enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems using aninterpretive approach”, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 9, p. 72.

Tarafdar, M. and Roy, R.K. (2003), “Analyzing the adoption of enterprise resource planningsystems in Indian organizations: a process framework”, Journal of Global InformationTechnology Management, Vol. 6, p. 31.

Varey, R.J. (1995), “Internal marketing: a review and some interdisciplinary research challenges”,International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 6, p. 40.

Wagner, E.L. and Newell, S. (2006), “Repairing ERP: producing social order to create a workinginformation system”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 40-57.

Walsham, G. (1995), “The emergence of intrepretism in IS research”, Information SystemsResearch, Vol. 6, p. 376.

Ward, J. and Peppard, J. (1999), “Mind the gap: diagnosing the relationship between the ITorganization and the rest of business”, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 8,pp. 29-60.

Willcocks, L. and Lester, S. (1999), Beyond the IT Productivity Paradox, Wiley, Chichester.

Yusuf, Y., Gunasekaran, A. and Abthorpe, M.S. (2004), “Enterprise information systems projectimplementation: a case study of ERP in Rolls-Royce”, International Journal of ProductionEconomics, Vol. 87, pp. 251-66.

Further reading

Finney, S. (2008), “Stakeholder perspective of ERP critical success factors”, PhD thesis,University of Warwick, Coventry.

E-Merge (2003), FAQs, available at: www.gov.ns.ca/econ/emerge/faqs.asp (accessed April, 2003).

About the authorSherry Finney is an Associate Professor in the Department of Organizational Management atCape Breton University (CBU), Canada. She received a Bachelor of Business Administration fromCBU, a Master of Business Administration from Saint Mary’s University, Canada and a PhDfrom the University of Warwick, UK. Her research interests include IM for change management,new technology implementation, social/sustainable marketing and case teaching pedagogy.Her research has been published in Business Process Management Journal, Journal of MarketingCommunications and Journal of Education for Business. Sherry Finney can be contacted at:sherry_finney@cbu.ca

Internalmarketing

communication

331

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints