博碩士論文 89423007 詳細資訊


姓名 岳杜沛(Tu-Pei Yueh)  查詢紙本館藏   畢業系所 資訊管理學系
論文名稱 影響流程再造與ERP導入成功的因素之研究
(A Study on the Factors Affecting the Success of BPR and ERP Implementation)
檔案 [Endnote RIS 格式]    [Bibtex 格式]    [檢視]  [下載]
  1. 本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
  2. 已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的,進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
  3. 請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定,切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送,以免觸法。

摘要(中) 企業資源規劃(ERP)系統已證實為非常不易成功導入的,通常還需要大型的資訊科技投資以及改變企業營運的方式。而伴隨而來的企業流程再造(BPR)對可能影響的單位與人員,更增添壓力。然而,導入ERP與BPR就像是一把雙刃劍,若是能夠妥善的管理可能發生的組織變革,還是會使組織獲得益處。
本研究檢視了會影響由BPR與ERP的導入所引起的組織變革,與ERP導入專案成功之間關係的因素,這些因素包含了調節變數如組織調適與ERP系統調適,以及高階主管承諾、顧問服務品質、與關鍵使用者的能力,與中介變數如組織抗拒。企業流程再造所引起的組織變革的程度是以組織現行流程(as-is)與計畫流程(to-be)之間的差異來衡量,而由ERP的導入所引起的組織變革,則是由所選擇的ERP系統對組織的適用性來進行衡量。
本研究針對天下雜誌的前一千大製造商進行問卷調查,在143份回卷者中,有98份已導入ERP系統的廠商被視為有效樣本,並用來進行假說的檢定。研究資料發現本研究模型的基本關係在統計上為顯著,即現行流程與計畫流程間的差異越大,以及ERP系統的適用性越小,則ERP導入專案的成功程度越低。在組織抗拒獲得控制的情況下,一套高度適用的ERP系統能夠得到較佳的專案績效,而在ERP系統對組織的適用性不足時,對企業流程或是ERP系統的調適越高,都能使得專案的成功程度越高,調適也可以改善流程差異與ERP專案成功之間的關係。高階主管承諾也同樣能改善ERP對組織的適用性與專案成功之間的關係,但是能力較佳的關鍵使用者只有在流程差異單獨存在時有效。
摘要(英) ERP systems have been proven very difficult to implement given the required large technology investments and the fundamental changes in the way the business operates. Moreover, the accompanying business process reengineering (BPR) creates even greater pressure on the affected functional units and users. However, ERP implementation and BPR are like a double-edge sword in that organizational benefits can be realized if these organizational changes can be well managed.
This study examines the factors that affect the relationship between the organizational changes caused by both BPR and ERP implementation, and the ERP project success. These factors include moderators such as the adaptation of the organization and ERP, top management commitment, consultant’s service quality, and key users competency, and mediating factor such as organizational resistance. The extent of organizational change from BPR is measured by the gap between as-is and to-be processes, and that from ERP implementation we measure the organizational fit of the selected ERP.
A mail survey is conducted over the CommonWealth Top 1000 Manufacturers in Taiwan. Out of 143 respondents, 98 firms that have implemented ERP systems are considered valid empirical data for us to test our hypotheses. The research findings show that the primary relationship in our model is statistically significant, that is, the larger the gap between as-is and to-be processes and the less the organizational fit of ERP, the less is the ERP project successful. A highly fit ERP system can produce better ERP project results when organizational resistance can be reduced. But if the ERP doesn’t fit with the organization enough, the more effort spent on adaptation, either changing business process or customizing ERP, the project would be more successful. Adaptation can also help improve the positive relationship between the process gap and the ERP project success. Top management commitment also helps improve the positive relationship between the organizational fit of ERP and the project success. But highly competent key users are helpful only for the predictor of process gap.
關鍵字(中) ★ 調節變數
★ 中介變數
★ 客製化
★ 企業資源規劃
★ 企業流程再造
★ 組織抗拒
★ 問卷調查
關鍵字(英) ★ mediator
★ moderator
★ customization
★ organizational resistance
★ mail survey
★ Business Process Engineering
★ Enterprise Resource Planning
論文目次 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 RESEARCH MOTIVATION 1
1.2 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY 1
1.3 OVERVIEW OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS 2
1.4 THESIS STRUCTURE 3
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 4
2.1 OVERVIEW OF ERP SYSTEMS 4
2.1.1 History of ERP 4
2.1.2 Critical Success Factors 4
2.2 BPR VERSUS ERP IMPLEMENTATION 5
2.2.1 Misfits 5
2.2.2 Customizing ERP 6
2.2.3 Business Process Reengineering 8
2.3 ERP SUCCESS EVALUATION 8
2.3.1 IS success model 9
2.3.2 ERP Project success 9
CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHOD 10
3.1. RESEARCH MODEL 10
3.1.1 ERP Success 10
3.1.2 Organizational resistance 11
3.1.3 Business process gap 11
3.1.4 Organizational fit of ERP 11
3.1.5 Process adaptation and ERP adaptation 12
3.1.6 Key persons 12
3.2. RESEARCH HYPOTHESES 13
3.2.1 Misfits and ERP success 13
3.2.2 Mediating effect of organizational resistance 13
3.2.3 Interactions of ERP adaptation with misfits 14
3.2.4 Interactions of process adaptation with misfits 14
3.2.5 Interactions of top management commitment with misfits 15
3.2.6 Iinteractions of consultant service quality with misfits 15
3.2.7 Interactions of key user competencies with misfits 16
3.3 RESEARCH VARIABLES 16
3.3.1 Business process gap 16
3.3.2 Organizational fit of ERP 17
3.3.3 Organizational resistance 17
3.3.4 ERP and business adaptation 17
3.3.5 Key persons 18
3.3.6 ERP success 18
3.4 DATA COLLECTION 19
3.5 STABILITY TEST 20
CHAPTER 4. DATA ANALYSIS 21
4.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESPONDENTS 21
4.2 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY ANALYSIS 23
4.2.1 Validity 23
4.2.2 Reliability 30
4.3 RESULTS OF HYPOTHESIS TESTING 30
4.3.1 Basic relationship 30
4.3.2 Testing the moderator variables 32
4.3.2.1 Business process gap as the predictor 33
4.3.2.2 Organizational fit of ERP as the predictor 34
4.3.3 Testing the mediator variable 35
4.3.4 Multiple predictor variables 38
4.3.4.1 Interacting with business process gap 38
4.3.4.2 Interacting with organizational fit of ERP 40
4.4 SUMMARY 43
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION 45
5.1 SUMMARY OF RESULTS 45
5.2 LIMITATIONS OF RESEARCH FINDINGS 46
5.3 DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE STUDIES 47
CHAPTER 6. REFERENCE 48
APPENDIX. QUESTIONNAIRE 50
參考文獻 1. Anderegg, T. (2000), ERP: A-Z implementer’s guide for success, Ver. 1.0, Eau Claire, WI, Resource Publishing.
2. Baron, R. M. and Kenny, D. A., (1986), “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), pp.1173-1182.
3. Bingi, P., Sharma, M. K., and Godla, J. (1999), “Critical issues affecting an ERP implementation,” Information Systems Management, 16(3), pp.7-14.
4. Brehm, L., Heinzl, A. and Markus, M. L. (2001), “Tailoring ERP Systems: a spectrum of choices and their implications,” Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii.
5. Davenport, T. H. (1998), “Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system,” Havard Business Review, 76(4), pp.121-131.
6. DeLone, W. H. and McLean, E. R. (1992), “Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable,” Information Systems Research, 3(1), pp.60-95.
7. Freeman, K. D. and Dart, J. (1993), “Measuring the perceived quality of professional business services,” Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 9(1), pp.27-47.
8. Goodstein, L. D., and Burke, W. (1991), “Creating successful organizational change,” Organizational Dynamics, 19(4), pp.5-17.
9. Guimaraes, T. (1995), “Outcome assessment of business process reengineering,” Technology Management, 2(6), pp.247-261.
10. Holland, C. P. and Light, B. (1999), “A critical success factors model for ERP implementation,” IEEE Software, 16(3), pp.30-36
11. Hong, K.-K. and Kim, Y.-G. (2002), “The critical success factors for ERP implementation: an organizational fit perspective,” Information and Management, 40, pp.25-40.
12. Jarrar, Y., Al-Mudimigh, A., and Zairi, M. (2000), “ERP implementation critical success factors- the role and impact of business process management,” ICMIT 2000, pp.122-127.
13. Kerlinger, F. N. (1986), Foundations of Behavioral Research, 3rd ed., Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
14. Krovi, R. (1993), “Identifying the causes of resistance to IS implementation: a change theory perspective,” Information & Management, 25, pp.327-335.
15. Laughlin, S. P. (1999), “An ERP game plan,” Journal of Business Strategy, 20(1), pp.32-37
16. Leonard-Barton, D. (1988), “Implementation as mutual adaptation of technology and organization,” Research Policy, 1, pp.251-267.
17. Light, B. (2001), “The maintenance implications of the customisation of ERP software,” the Journal of Software Maintenance: Research and Practice
18. Light, B., Holland, C., Kelly, S. and Wills, K. (2000), “Best of Breed IT Strategy: an alternative to enterprise resource planning systems,” Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Information Systems, Vienna, Austria, 1, pp.652-659.
19. Markus, M. L., and Tanis, C. (2000), “The enterprise systems experience- from adoption to success,” in R. W. Zmud, ed., Framing the Domains of IT Research: Glimpsing the Future Through the Past, Cincinnati, OH: Pinnaflex Educational Resources, Inc., pp.173-207.
20. Markus, M. L., Axline, S., Petrie, D. and Tanis, C. (2000), “Learning from adopters' experiences with ERP: problems encountered and success achieved,” Journal of Information Technology, 15, pp.245-265.
21. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., and Berry, L. (1985), “A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research,” Journal of Marketing, 49, Fall, pp.41-50.
22. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., and Berry, L. (1988), “SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality,” Journal of Retailing, 64(1), pp.12-40.
23. Parr, A. N., and Shanks, G. (2000), “A taxonomy of ERP implementation approaches,” in the Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, Hawaii.
24. Rolland, C. and Prakash, N. (2000), “Bridging the gap between organization needs and ERP functionality,” Requirements Engineering, 5, pp.180-193.
25. Saarinen, T. (1996), “An Expanded Instrument for Evaluating Information System Success,” Information & Management, 31(2), pp.103-118
26. Sharma, S., Durrand, R. M., and Gur-Arie, O. (1981), “Identification and analysis of moderator variables,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18, pp.291-300.
27. Shin, H., and Lee, J. (1996), “A process model of application software package acquisition and implementation,” Journal of Systems and Software, 32(1), pp.57-64.
28. Soh, C., Kien, S. S. and Tay-Yap, J. (2000), “Cultural fits and misfits: is ERP a universal solution?” Communications of the ACM, 43(4), pp.47-51.
29. Somers, T. M. and Nelson, K. (2001), “The impact of critical success factors across the stages of enterprise resource planning implementations,” Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii.
30. Songini, M. L. (2001), “To customize or not?” Computerworld, Sep 03.
31. Sumner, M. (2000), “Risk factors in Enterprise-wide/ERP projects,” Journal of Information Technology, 15(4), pp.317-327.
32. Teltumbde, A. (2000), “A framework for evaluating ERP projects,” International Journal of Production Research, 38(17), pp.4507-4520.
指導教授 何靖遠(Chin-Yuan Ho) 審核日期 2003-7-11
推文 facebook   plurk   twitter   funp   google   live   udn   HD   myshare   reddit   netvibes   friend   youpush   delicious   baidu   

若有論文相關問題,請聯絡國立中央大學圖書館推廣服務組 TEL:(03)422-7151轉57407,或E-mail聯絡