ENTERPRISE SIZE IMPACT ON THE ERP SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION

Bernhard Grtner, Johannes Kepler University, Linz, AUSTRIA

Birgit Feldbauer-Durstmller, Johannes Kepler University, Linz, AUSTRIA
Christine Duller, Johannes Kepler University, Linz, AUSTRIA

ABSTRACT
Enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems belong to the prevalent issues of contemporary business
management. Many enterprises implement ERP systems to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of
business processes. Thus, only a few research works have investigated the effects of the context factor
enterprise size on ERP systems. The present article addresses this research gap and examines the
impact of the context factor enterprise size on the ERP system implementation. The research results
show a positive correlation between the context factor enterprise size and the ERP system
implementation.
Keywords: Enterprise resource planning systems, ERP, management accounting, contingency theory,
size
1.

INTRODUCTION

The speed of developments in the field of information systems (IS) and information technologies (IT) in
recent years is amazing. Enterprises constantly face new challenges which may influence their success
or vitality. Due to substantial amendments of technological and economic requirements, enterprises have
to warrant more of an effective and efficient information supply than ever before (Porter and Millar, 1985;
Boynton and Victor, 1991; Holland and Light, 1999; Granlund, 2001; Williams and Seaman, 2002; Umble,
Haft and Umble, 2003; Devine, Srinivasan and Zaman, 2004). With regard to on-going developments,
enterprises have to be open-minded for diverse solutions, also regarding the IT used. Based on these
findings, the importance and potential of ERP systems has greatly increased (Edwards, 2001; Granlund
and Malmi, 2002; Buonanno et al., 2005; Grabski, Leech and Sangster, 2009; Granlund, 2011). ERP
systems are the most significant developments in the field of information technology in the last few years
(Davenport, 1998; Rikhardsson and Kraemmergaard, 2006; Rom and Rohde, 2006). Thus, ERP systems
offer the possibility to get rid of burdens regarding legacy systems (Holland and Light, 1999).
Furthermore, these new technologies support an ideal business structure and a fast and efficient
satisfaction of customers needs (Granlund and Mouritsen, 2003).
In accordance to constant changes of the competition in the market, developments concerning
information systems and technologies are part of this on-going process. This fast technological change
offers increasingly more possibilities for enterprises to react to any kind of challenges or problems
(Granlund and Mouritsen, 2003). However, these chances or possibilities may simultaneously represent
risks (Davenport, 1998).
Due to their special economic and social position, small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) [1] gain
more attention from the information and communication technologies (ICT) sector (van Everdingen, van
Hillegersberg and Waarts, 2000; Kumar and van Hillegersberg, 2000). Despite the initial dominance of IT
systems (ERP systems) in large-sized enterprises (LEs) due to high investment costs and appropriate
knowledge (Ifinedo, 2007), IT systems are increasingly implemented in SMEs today (Bernroider and
Koch, 2001; Somers and Nelson, 2001; Buonanno et al., 2005; Jacobs and Weston, 2007; Grabski,
Leech and Schmidt, 2011). Cloud-based ERP solutions offer substantial advantages for SMEs such as
fixed prices, up-to-date versions, fast implementation, high availability, and maximum safety. In addition,
SMEs benefit from these software-as-a-service providers due to their knowledge, personal resources
and technical operation (Bauml and Herter, 2011; Repschlger and Zarnekow, 2011; Waniczek and
Marktl, 2011). SMEs challenge ERP providers in several ways. On the one hand they are characterized

by high individuality, flexibility and market orientation, whereas on the other hand they have small IT
budgets (van Everdingen, van Hillegersberg and Waarts, 2000). However, not only do ERP providers
have to satisfy these special needs, but SMEs face problems in terms of an immense number of ERP
providers and a relatively confusing and non-transparent ERP market. Nonetheless, due to constant
changes in enterprises situations and an augmented number of standard software, ERP systems are also
appropriate instruments for SMEs. With regard to the introduction of management accounting modules of
ERP systems, it can be said that an augmented number of LEs and medium-sized enterprises (MEs)
have implemented such modules. Nevertheless, LEs have a greater extent in the implementation of
management accounting modules of ERP systems (Granlund and Lukka, 1998). This may be explained
by the higher importance of management accounting in this size category and also by the better financial
conditions of these enterprises. In light of the former, the following research question is thus formulated
for this article:
Is ERP system implementation in LEs investigated to a greater extent than it is in MEs?
2.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

2.1 State-of-the-Art
ERP systems are widely accepted by enterprises (Jacobs and Weston, 2007; Mohamed and McLaren,
2009) and therefore information systems research has increasingly directed attention toward this research
field (Kumar and van Hillegersberg, 2000). Nonetheless, Mabert, Soni and Venkataramanan (2003) state
that the ERP system is characterized as a new research field in academic research. Furthermore, Jacobs
and Weston (2007) call for further research. The growing interest regarding ERP systems in international
research can be explained by the increased importance of electronic information systems within the last
50 years (Hayes, Hunton and Reck, 2001; Granlund and Mouritsen, 2003; Carton, Adam and Sammon,
2008). In the 1960s, the first management information systems had already been implemented (Hyvnen,
2003; Jacobs and Weston, 2007) and it was Blumenthal (1969) who presented the first integrated
structure of an enterprise-wide information system in the year 1969. The pure function of decisionpreparation of management information systems was soon out-dated and due to an on-going growth of
enterprises and markets new systems like decision support systems, executive information systems and
(finally) ERP systems were developed. This development process is still running and the use of new IT
systems (ERP systems) constantly influences all corporate functions.
Published articles about ERP systems mainly contain descriptive studies and case studies, whilst
quantitative research papers are few and far between (Rom and Rohde, 2006). Grabski, Leech and
Schmidt (2011) also highlight the plethora of descriptive studies with regard to ERP systems. Most
studies examine the implementation and critical success factors of ERP systems (Ifinedo, 2007), and only
a few research works have investigated the effects of the context factor enterprise size on ERP systems
(Buonanno et al., 2005; Ifinedo, 2007).
2.2 Definition of ERP system
The globalization of markets increasingly requires entirely recorded business activities. Since the 1990s,
coherences in terms of data and function have come to the fore, replacing various uncoordinated and
isolated solutions (Hyvnen, 2003; Mabert, Soni and Venkataramanan, 2003; Rom and Rohde, 2006;
Jacobs and Weston, 2007). Due to this fact, further development of material requirement planning (MRP),
manufacturing resource planning (MRP II), and the new ERP planning have evolved (Al-Mashari and AlMudimigh, 2003; Mabert, Soni and Venkataramanan, 2003; Rodney, 2009; Vakalfotis, Ballantine and
Wall, 2011).
ERP systems are understood as multi-module application systems, which support the operational
processes of an entire enterprise in all key functional areas (Caglio, 2003; Mabert, Soni and
Venkataramanan, 2003; Scapens and Jazayeri, 2003; Spathis and Constantinides, 2004; Yusuf,
Gunasekaran and Abthorpe, 2004; Spathis and Ananiadis, 2005; Sayed, 2006; Rodney, 2009; Grabski,
Leech and Schmidt, 2011; Teittinen, Pellinen and Jrvenp, 2012). As major global ERP system
providers are considered SAP, Oracle, PeopleSoft, Baan, JD Edwards, etc. (e.g. Booth, Matolcsy and
Wieder, 2000; van Everdingen, van Hillegersberg and Waarts, 2000; Poston and Grabski, 2001; Granlund

and Malmi, 2002), whereas SAP is regarded as the world's undisputed market leader (van Everdingen,
van Hillegersberg and Waarts, 2000; Poston and Grabski, 2001; Newman and Westrup, 2005; Sangster,
Leech and Grabski, 2009). The advantage of the modular design can be seen in the flexible adjustment to
the entity's specifics (Granlund, 2011). Due to the continuous advancement of modules (asset
management, procurement, finance and accounting, materials management, personnel management,
production, logistics, sales, etc.), it is possible for any enterprise to expand the base system optionally at
any time (Davenport, 1998; Spathis and Ananiadis, 2005; Rom and Rohde, 2006; Vakalfotis, Ballantine
and Wall, 2011). Further, it can be noted that most of the modules of an ERP system can be divided into
sub-modules (Granlund and Malmi, 2002).
ERP systems help in horizontal organization and standardization of business processes and thus
contribute to an effective planning and monitoring of corporate activities (Jacobs and Weston, 2007). The
integration of essential business processes takes place by means of a central database, which contains
all necessary enterprise data and information (Al-Mashari and Al-Mudimigh, 2003; Quattrone and Hopper,
2005; Rom and Rohde, 2006; Rikhardsson and Kraemmergaard, 2006; Vakalfotis, Ballantine and Wall,
2011; Sanchez-Rodriguez and Spraakman, 2012). The central database is the link between, for example,
the customer master data, warehouse management, orders, accounts receivable and accounts payable
(Yusuf, Gunasekaran and Abthorpe, 2004; Dechow and Mouritsen, 2005; Rikhardsson and
Kraemmergaard, 2006). Real-time information, a custom interface, the business processes automation,
and the central database can be regarded as the key benefits of an ERP system, particularly for
management accounting (Booth, Matolcsy and Wieder, 2000; Granlund and Malmi, 2002; Al-Mashari and
Al-Mudimigh, 2003; Mabert, Soni and Venkataramanan, 2003; Scapens and Jazayeri, 2003; Quattrone
and Hopper, 2005; Spathis and Ananiadis, 2005; Rom and Rohde, 2006; Sayed, 2006; Spathis, 2006;
Vakalfotis, Ballantine and Wall, 2011). Due to central and consistent data and information, operational
and strategic decisions can be made more effectively and efficiently. Therefore, employees certainly need
a profound understanding of business processes and the entire enterprise (Rikhardsson and
Kraemmergaard, 2006).
2.3 Theoretical perspectives
This article uses the contingency theory for investigating the research questions because this approach
warrants both a wide yet focused view on enterprises. Contingency theory emphasizes that the target
variable influences corporate and environmental factors. In this regard, the contingency theory does not
try to develop an organizational structure, which applies to all enterprises, but describes how each
enterprise will act in a specific situation and therefore is influenced by context factors. Accordingly, the
centre of attention is the influence of context factors on business structure (Burns and Stalker, 1961;
Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967; Chenhall, 2007).
The relationship between technical systems and the change in organization structure as well as the
employees behaviour was first detected in the 1950s (Kieser and Walgenbach, 2010). As such, ERP
systems strongly depend on various contingency factors: size, structure, branch, organizational change,
etc. (Buonanno et al., 2005). Other research that has detected a significant positive correlation between
enterprise size and implemented ERP systems came to this conclusion too (Buonanno et al., 2005;
Ifinedo, 2007). According to the literature, no ERP system can be introduced in an enterprise by default
but the implementation process substantially depends on the organization structure (Umble, Haft and
Umble, 2003). Grabski, Leech and Schmidt (2011) also purport that the contingency theory may
contribute to a better understanding regarding the relation between ERP systems and organization
structure. Hong and Kim (2002) therefore state that they categorized the contingency variables of interest
to information system researchers into strategy, structure, size, environment, technology, task and
individual characteristics. Vakalfotis, Ballantine and Wall (2011) identify a need for research on the
context factor "company size" relating to the ERP system implementation. This article thus examines how
the context factors size influences ERP system implementation, management accounting module
implementation and therefore the overall success of the ERP system implementation.

3.

HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT

At the time of implementing an ERP system, the board of management has to investigate all potential
opportunities and risks that such an introduction may have for the organization. In this context, problems
are often due to the fact that implementation projects are based on best practice models but do not
entirely fulfil the enterprises needs (industry, culture, country, strategy, etc.) (Kumar and Hillegersberg,
2000; Rikhardsson and Kraemmergaard, 2006). Thus, there is the risk that an implementation of an ERP
system changes the corporate structures more than desired (Granlund and Malmi, 2002; Hyvnen, 2003;
Chapman, 2005). A complex legacy system for instance will require bigger organizational and
technological amendments than a simpler one (Holland and Light, 1999; Booth, Matolcsy and Wieder,
2000). Furthermore, the challenge of implementation is increased due to the high costs, high number of
resources, and time needed (Hayes, Hunton and Reck, 2001; Poston and Grabski, 2001; Hunton,
McEwen and Wier, 2002; Mabert, Soni and Venkataramanan, 2003; Umble, Haft and Umble, 2003;
Spathis and Ananiadis, 2005; Carton, Adam and Sammon, 2008; Grabski, Leech and Schmidt, 2011).
Holland and Light (1999) postulate that 90% of all ERP system implementations exceed their
implementation costs and time. According to Martin (1998), 90% of all enterprises exceed the estimated
implementation costs and time, and Rao (2000) states that only 3.6% of all ERP system implementations
are successfully finished without breaching the cost and/or time limits. These occasional radical changes
in the organizations structure can also have advantages for introducing enterprises such as: an
automation of business processes, an increased efficiency, a reduction in costs, an augmented decisionmaking support, a global integration, and a rise in turnover and time saving (Spathis and Constantinides,
2004; Dechow and Mouritsen, 2005; Newman and Westrup, 2005; Spathis and Ananiadis, 2005;
Rikhardsson and Kraemmergaard, 2006; Spathis, 2006; Sutton, 2006; Sangster, Leech and Grabski,
2009; Grabski, Leech and Schmidt, 2011; Sanchez-Rodriguez and Spraakman, 2012). An empirical study
by Posten and Grabski (2001) reveals that an ERP system implementation does not lead to a rise in
turnover but after three years of productive use a reduction in costs can be expected. According to
Themistocleous, Irani and OKeefe (2001) the fundamental arguments enterprises make to justify the
introduction of ERP systems are global decision-support (30%), cross-functional features of ERP systems
(18%) and financial aspects such as cost reduction (16%). Moreover, they discovered that almost 92% of
all enterprises examined had implemented a Finance module. Spathis (2006) identified real-time
information and decision support as the main causes of ERP system implementation.
Within the last 20 years, many enterprises have been successful in implementing ERP systems whereas
others have failed (Davenport, 1998; Holland and Light, 1999; Kumar and van Hillegersberg, 2000;
Aladwani, 2001; Al-Mashari and Al-Mudimigh, 2003; Mabert, Soni and Venkataramanan, 2003; Umble,
Haft and Umble, 2003; Yusuf, Gunasekaran and Abthorpe, 2004; Carton, Adam and Sammon, 2008;
Mohamed and McLaren, 2009; Sangster, Leech and Grabski, 2009). Standard software which meets the
requirements of any enterprise and therefore can be productively used immediately is not offered by the
market at present, and is also not very realistic. This fact is also confirmed by previous research results.
The best-performing standard programs in this context can only be adjusted up to 70% to a given
organizational structure (Bingi, Sharma and Godla, 1999). Due to their high standards, the risk exists that
ERP systems are insufficiently adjusted to the organizational processes and requirements. In general,
ERP systems are adjusted to the organizational structure or the organizational structure is adapted to the
ERP system (Holland and Light, 1999; Kumar and van Hillegersberg, 2000; Buonanno et al., 2005;
Rikhardsson and Kraemmergaard, 2006). Light, Holland and Willis (2001) state that the requested and
necessary amendment of standard software comes with additional problems such as an increase in
implementation time, an augmented number of required project staff or problems regarding system
upgrades (Booth, Matolcsy and Wieder, 2000). Summing up, it has to be emphasized that human and
organizational changes have to be expected (Willcocks and Sykes, 2000). Additionally, the process of
ERP system implementation should never be considered as entirely finished (Rikhardsson and
Kraemmergaard, 2006; Teittinen, Pellinen and Jrvenp, 2012).
Mabert, Soni and Venkataramanan (2003) state that the benefits of ERP system implementation differ
according to firm size. Despite the fact that SMEs generally account for the majority of the ERP market
(Kumar and van Hillegersberg, 2000), at first ERP systems were introduced by LEs due to their crossfunctional ability (Booth, Matolcsy and Wieder, 2000; Lam, 2005). Moreover, the substantial demand for

financial and time resources could only be handled by LEs in the early stages (Buonanno et al., 2005;
Newman and Westrup, 2005; Ifinedo, 2007; Granlund, 2011). Nevertheless, ERP system providers have
reacted in recent years and have focused increasingly on SMEs (Booth, Matolcsy and Wieder, 2000;
Kumar and van Hillegersberg, 2000; Bernroider and Koch, 2001; Teittinen, Pellinen and Jrvenp,
2012). Nowadays, ERP systems substantially contribute to business success in all enterprise sizes
(Sanchez-Rodriguez and Spraakman, 2012), additionally facilitated by their individual adaptability and
modular design (Kumar and van Hillegersberg, 2000; Teittinen, Pellinen and Jrvenp, 2012).
In 1998, a survey was carried out on European enterprises with 50 to 1,000 employees to explore the
current implementation of ERP systems and the preference of ERP system providers. At that point, 27%
of the surveyed enterprises had already implemented an ERP system, and an increase to 50% by the
year 2000 was expected (van Everdingen, van Hillegersberg and Waarts, 2000). In 2005, Newman and
Westrup (2005) found that more than 50% of LEs and only 21% of SMEs had already implemented or
were planning to implement an ERP system (Newman and Westrup, 2005).
Nonetheless, a pervasive use of ERP systems in LEs can be assumed at present. For example, Rom and
Rohde (2006) postulate that 94.8% of Denmarks 500 largest enterprises use an ERP system. As such,
the importance of ERP systems in SMEs cannot longer be neglected (van Everdingen, van Hillegersberg
and Waarts, 2000; Buonanno et al., 2005; Sayed, 2006; Jacobs and Weston, 2007; Grabski, Leech and
Schmidt, 2011). Despite the continuing advancement and the increasing importance of ERP systems for
SMEs, there is still a great need to catch up in this size category (Buonanno et al., 2005; Sammon and
Adam, 2010). Teittinen, Pellinen and Jrvenp (2012) as well as Vakalfotis, Ballantine and Wall (2011)
note a predominant influence of the contingency factor enterprise size concerning ERP systems.
Regarding the lengthy duration of an ERP system implementation, not all enterprises necessarily
implement all modules (Sanchez-Rodriguez and Spraakman, 2012). Indeed, the accounting module can
be interpreted as an essential module of an ERP system. Spathis (2006) found in his study that 100% of
the surveyed enterprises implemented the management accounting module and regarded it as the "heart"
of an ERP system (Spathis and Constantinides, 2004). Taking into account the already established
context factor enterprise size (Hayes, Hunton and Reck, 2001; Hunton, McEwen and Wier, 2002;
Rikhardsson and Kraemmergaard, 2006) the following hypotheses aim to contribute to an empirical
validation of the extensively discussed fields of ERP system implementation and management accounting
module implementation and therefore the overall success of the ERP system implementation.
H1) LEs implement ERP systems to a higher extent than MEs.
H2) LEs implement the module management accounting to a higher extent than MEs.
H3) LEs are more successful at implementing ERP systems than MEs.
4.

RESEARCH METHODS

4.1 Sample selection

In order to ensure construct reliability and validity, emphasis was placed on developing a comprehensive
survey. To test the hypotheses, 5,827 Austrian enterprises with more than 50 employees were surveyed
between June and July 2012. [2] The conducted survey was part of an extensive study on management
control in cooperation with the Institute of Management Control and Consulting, the Institute of Applied
Statistics of the Johannes Kepler University Linz, and the Rudolf Trauner Foundation. All necessary
information in terms of contact details and addresses was made available from the compass database. All
questionnaires, which included both open- and closed-ended questions, were addressed to the CFOs of
the sample enterprises. Each enterprise was contacted by mail and asked to complete a form online.
However, the survey had many controls, and by using a randomly allocated individual access code the
examination of multiple enterprises could be avoided. In addition to the main analysis, careful attention
was paid to the survey design. Therefore, a pilot survey was conducted on selected sample enterprises.
In total, 488 responses were received, of which 296 questionnaires were suitable for analysis. A final
response rate of 5.1% was satisfactory. The complexity of the survey probably contributed to the low

response rate. Finally, 210 of the surveyed enterprises replied to the questions regarding ERP systems
completely. The survey used in this paper also contains several demographic questions.
4.2 Measurement of constructs (variables)
The objective of this article is to verify how the context factor enterprise size influences the
implementation of an ERP system and the implementation of a management accounting module.
Basically, a larger range of content has been gathered as part of this study on management accounting.
The appropriated questionnaire consisted of eight sections; where the specific section of the ERP system
included ten questions. Taking into account the theoretical framework, the following variables were
measured.
In order to answer this articles research question, study participants were surveyed on the number of
their employees in the course of the demographic data gathering. A distinction between LEs and MEs
was made in accordance with the definition of the European Commission; where by enterprises with at
least 250 employees were attributed to the LE category (European Commission, 2003).
In terms of the implemented ERP system, participants were asked which ERP system they implemented
in their organization (multiple responses were possible). Thus, this question could be used to differentiate,
whether the surveyed enterprise used an ERP system, or not. In case of an implemented ERP system,
enterprises were asked whether they implemented a management accounting module. The success of an
ERP system implementation represents the dependent variable, whereby the interpretation of success
can vary widely from one enterprise to another (e.g. the time of implementation, the number of
implemented modules, and deployed employees). At this point the study follows the self-assessment of
the surveyed enterprises, which were questioned using a five-point Likert-scale. The questionnaire asked
respondents to indicate whether, in their opinion, the ERP system had been a success on a scale of 1
(very unsuccessful) to 5 (very successful), with 3 indicating neutral.
The gathered data was used to answer the hypotheses derived: Enterprise size and its influence on the
ERP system implementation, the management accounting module implementation, and the overall
success of the ERP system implementation. A one-sided Fisher test was used to verify the various
hypotheses, while p-values were used to measure whether the previously mentioned difference is
statistically significant (alpha = 0.05).
5.

RESULTS

In this section the various hypotheses that were presented earlier are tested. As seen in Table 1, 94.3%
of surveyed LEs and 72.1% of surveyed MEs had already implemented an ERP system in their
enterprise. As expected, the survey results show that 31.7% of enterprises that implemented an ERP
system rely on the ERP system SAP. The one-sided Fisher test intended to analyze the correlation
between the context factor of enterprise size (measured by number of employees, according to the EU
definition) and the ERP system implementation (p = 0.000) showed a significant result. Hypothesis 1 was
confirmed, and therefore ERP system implementation increases with growth of the enterprise size.

ERP system
IMPLEMENTED
NOT IMPLEMENTED
SUM

Number of Employees
50-249
>= 250
88
72.1 %
83
94.3 %
34
27.9 %
5
5.7 %
122
100 %
88
100 %

TABLE 1: ERP SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION BY ENTERPRISE SIZE

Upon evaluation, the procedure of Hypothesis 2 was analogous to Hypothesis 1. The analysis of
enterprise size (measured by number of employees, according to the EU definition) and implementation
of management accounting modules showed a significant correlation on the basis of the one-sided Fisher
test (p = 0.046). In detail (Cf. Table 2) the results show that 64.8% of LEs and 51.5% of MEs had

implemented management accounting modules. Therefore, it can be confirmed that the implementation of
management accounting modules increases with the growth of the enterprise size, verifying Hypothesis 2.

Management Accounting Module

IMPLEMENTED
NOT IMPLEMENTED
SUM

Number of Employees
50-249
>= 250
51
51.5 %
57
64.8 %
48
48.5 %
31
35.2 %
99
100 %
88
100 %

TABLE 2: MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING MODULE IMPLEMENTATION BY ENTERPRISE SIZE

As illustrated in Table 3, 77.5% of surveyed LEs and 76.2% of MEs successfully implemented ERP
systems. The one-sided Fisher test (p = 0.495) showed no significant correlation between the size of the
enterprise (in terms of number of employees, according to the EU definition) and a successful ERP
system implementation. Therefore, we could not confirm that LEs are more successful in ERP system
implementation than MEs and Hypothesis 3 has to be rejected.

ERP system Implementation

SUCCESSFUL
NOT SUCESSFUL
SUM

Number of Employees
50-249
>= 250
64
76.2 %
62
77.5 %
20
23.8 %
18
22.5 %
84
100 %
80
100 %

TABLE 3: SUCCESSFUL ERP SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION BY ENTERPRISE SIZE

6.

DISCUSSION

An interesting finding from this study relates to the usage rate of ERP systems in different enterprise
sizes. With respect to LEs, the result was not really surprising. However, the results of the MEs
contrasted with the existing literature, since they received a very high and unexpected level of 72.1%. A
possible reason for this could be the high importance of SMEs in Austria.
The survey results show that 31.7% of the surveyed enterprises use the ERP system SAP. In light of
contemporary literature and business practice, this finding was expected. Rather, the results confirm that
even the Austrian ERP market follows the international trend (van Everdingen, van Hillegersberg and
Waarts, 2000; Poston and Grabski, 2001; Newman and Westrup, 2005; Ifinedo, 2007; Sangster, Leech
and Grabski, 2009). The study contributes to the validation of SAP's market leadership in Austria and also
confirms the previous findings unambiguously.
The data analysis supports the expected result, that there exists a strong positive correlation between
enterprise size, ERP system implementation, and the use of the management accounting module.
Hypotheses 1 and 2 could be confirmed, which corresponds with the results of Buonanno et al. (2005)
and Ifinedo (2007). Accordingly, the study reinforces the prevailing literature review, with increased
enterprise sizes leading to a higher complexity of business organization and to a higher need for
management information systems (Merchant, 1981).
Of interest is that a significant difference in the success of ERP system implementation between
enterprise sizes could not be observed, resulting in the need to reject Hypothesis 3. This fact may be
explained by the high success rate of ERP system implementation in both MEs and LEs, which suggests
that the lack of resources of MEs in the implementation of an ERP system can be well compensated.
Further, other ERP system providers including in-house developments with 28.4% still play a significant
role in the Austrian ERP market. The additional survey of MEs shows a continuing presence of different
ERP system providers and in-house developments, which also can be attributed to the different sector
focus. MEs respectively niche players frequently demand specific ERP system providers for their activities

(Ifinedo, 2007). In many times radical changes in organizational structure in course of ERP system
implementations means that ERP systems are exchanged only in rare cases. At the same time the
exchange of ERP system providers is additionally limited by long-term maintenance contracts.
7.

CONCLUSION, FURTHER RESEARCH, IMPLICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS

7.1 Conclusion
Initially the conducted survey demonstrates that ERP systems are widely used in Austria. The trend of
SAPs market leadership, which is quoted in literature and entrepreneurial practice, is confirmed by the
results. As the conducted survey shows, surprisingly some enterprises still have not implemented an ERP
system. This finding contradicts the contemporary literature review, which purports that almost all
contemporary LEs and MEs have implemented an ERP system (Rom and Rohde, 2006).
Further in enterprises still many isolated solutions are in use. Isolated solutions can be realized relatively
quickly, whereby disadvantages can be seen in IT infrastructure, standardized database, etc. Even a
simple extension of an isolated solution as the introduction of an additional software product can cause
incorrect or missing links and results. Especially management accounting is increasingly facing major
challenges, as problems in data production continue in information transmission and finally are reflected
in decision support (Scapens and Jazayeri, 2003). These problems can be taken into account by means
of ERP systems.
In summary, the research question of this study Is ERP system implementation in LEs investigated to a
greater extent than it is in MEs? can be confirmed. The results show that the context factor enterprise
size has a significant impact on the implementation of an ERP system. This being the case, it can be
concluded that enterprises may respond to their complex organizational structures with ERP systems.
7.2 Further research
Those articles published within the field of ERP system research mainly concentrate on descriptive
studies or case studies (Rom and Rohde, 2006). Consequently, further research has to focus more on
quantitative research methods for testing upcoming hypotheses successively. This thesis aims to take a
step in this direction. Initial quantitative findings in terms of critical contingency factors (i.e. enterprise
size) have been investigated but are due for further examination (i.e. employee involvement, structure,
etc.) and validation. Moreover, an empirical analysis regarding the interaction between ERP systems and
corporate structures could be of academic interest.
However, Austrias economically important SMEs still are largely neglected by the current ERP system
research. The results of this study show that both LEs and MEs recognize the importance of ERP
systems, but the prevalence is higher in LEs. This implies that beyond MEs increased attention from
academic research should be devoted to small enterprises. The growing importance of SMEs not only
brings a new range of duty for the entrepreneurial practice (ERP system providers), but also has to be
perceived by the research community.
Furthermore, cultural aspects of ERP system implementations should be further researched. Of particular
relevance is the behaviour of employees and top management during and after ERP system
implementation as an independent variable, because their participation crucially contributes to the
success of the process. In addition, an update of the market required skills of management accountants in
the ERP system implementation appears to be particularly interesting. This need for research is also
quoted by Rikhardsson and Kraemmergaard (2006), who expect that a change in the role of management
accountants will be a consequence of ERP systems and therefore a change in required skills and abilities
of management accountants. Currently there is a dearth of empirical results that shed light on
resistances, particularly the training of employees and their impact on ERP system implementation.
A research gap still exists in both academic research in general and also in sub-fields like ERP system
AND management accounting (Grtner and Feldbauer-Durstmller, 2012). Nonetheless, there are
research papers which investigate the implementation processes of ERP systems, although those which

explicitly exploration ERP system implementation together with management accounting are rare.
Moreover, only a few studies examine the post-implementation effects of IT (ERP system) on
management accounting. Teittinen, Pellinen and Jrvenp (2012) also confirm these findings.
ERP system implementations are seldom finished without problems. Nonetheless, cross-functional ERP
systems may improve the matching between diverse corporate resources and therefore make a
contribution to a competitive advantage according to the resource-based view (Teittinen, Pellinen and
Jrvenp, 2012). However, before a competitive advantage can be gained, ERP systems have to reduce
costs as well as increase effectiveness and efficiency (James and Wolf, 2000). Evidence of how and on
which basis a sustained competitive advantage is built up requires further research. Finally, it can be
emphasized that future and more intensive validation is unquestionably requested (Granlund, 2011).
7.3 Implications
With regard to the study of Mabert, Soni and Venkataramanan (2003), this study also suggests that MEs
tend to procure mid-market ERP systems whereas LEs mainly adopt top brand ERP systems. This
information might be useful for business practice because it does not mean that only top brand ERP
systems will yield higher level of success.
Based on this study of business practice, it can be inferred that advanced successful ERP system
implementations a result of the increasing experience in this area can lead to a reduction of
implementation time and costs. As a result, resistances toward ERP system implementations are
increasingly broken down. More than 75% of successful ERP system implementations in LEs and MEs
vitally contribute to raising awareness and convincing employees and top management. In addition,
preliminary results of the effects of the context factor enterprise size on a successful ERP system
implementation are also relevant for management accounting departments in entrepreneurial practice.
7.4 Limitations
As with any other study, this research is subjected to limitations through its underlying research methods.
For instance, it should be stated that all variables were measured at a given time, and the independent
variable enterprise size was defined exclusively by the number of employees, which constitutes an
additional limitation. Moreover, questionnaire-based investigations often involve the risk that participants
may be biased in their responses. Using standardized statistical tests was an attempt to counteract the
problem of distortion.
As a critical issue of this study, the questionnaire response rate has to be mentioned. Nowadays many
enterprises are faced with a wealth of research contributions, and a response rate of only 5.1% is
considered to be very low. Nevertheless, all of the non-response tests revealed a satisfactory result,
attributed to what is considered a high absolute response of 296 questionnaires.
Notes
[1] This study examines the difference between LEs and MEs. In the literature the term SMEs is more
common and therefore we often use SMEs to explain MEs.
[2] The survey data used in this study have already been used for other publications with different
research focuses (Grtner, B., Feldbauer-Durstmller, B. and Duller C., Changes in the Role of
Management Accountants Following the Introduction of ERP Systems, Working Paper, 2013).

References
Aladwani, A. M., Change management strategies for successful ERP implementation, Business Process
Management Journal, Volume 7, Number 3, Pages 266275, 2001.
Al-Mashari, M. and Al-Mudimigh, A., ERP implementation: lessons from a case study, Information
Technology & People, Volume 16, Number 1, Pages 2133, 2003.

Bauml, U. and Herter, W., Software as a Service aus dem Blickwinkel des Controllings, Controlling
Zeitschrift fr erfolgsorientierte Unternehmenssteuerung, Volume 23, Number 4/5, Pages 255
257, 2011.
Bernroider, E. and Koch, S., ERP selection process in midsize and large organizations, Business
Process Management Journal, Volume 7, Number 3, Pages 251257, 2001.
Bingi, P., Sharma, M. K. and Godla, J. K., Critical issues affecting an ERP implementation, Information
Systems Management, Volume 16, Number 3, Pages 714, 1999.
Blumenthal, S. C., Management Information Systems: A Framework for Planning and Development, New
York, 1969.
Booth, P., Matolcsy, Z. and Wieder, B., The Impacts of Enterprise Resource Planning Systems on
Accounting Practice - The Australian Experience, Australian Accounting Review, Volume 10,
Number 3, Pages 418, 2000.
Boynton, A. C. and Victor, B., Beyond Flexibility: Building and Managing the Dynamically Stable
Organization, California Management Review, Number Fall, Pages 5366, 1991.
Buonanno, G., Faverio, P., Pigni, F., Ravarini, A., Sciuto, D. and Tagliavini, M., Factors affecting ERP
system adoption. A comparative analysis between SMEs and large companies, Journal of
Enterprise Information Management, Volume 18, Number 4, Pages 384426, 2005.
Burns, T. and Stalker, G. M., The Management of Innovation, London: Tavistock, 1961.
Caglio, A., Enterprise Resource Planning systems and accountants: towards hybridization?, European
Accounting Review, Volume 12, Number 1, Pages 123153, 2003.
Carton, F., Adam, F. and Sammon, D., Project management: a case study of a successful ERP
implementation, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Volume 1, Number 1,
Pages 106124, 2008.
Chapman, C. S., Not because they are new: Developing the contribution of enterprise resource planning
systems to management control research, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Volume 30,
Number 7-8, Pages 685689, 2005.
Chenhall, Robert H., Theorizing Contingencies in Management Control Systems Research, in:
Chapman, C.S., Hopwood, A.G. and Shields, M.S. (Eds.), Handbook of Management Accounting
Research, London: Elsevier, Pages 163-205, 2007.
Davenport, T. H., Putting the Enterprise into the Enterprise System, Harvard Business Review, Volume
76, Number 4, Pages 121133, 1998.
Dechow, N. and Mouritsen, J., Enterprise resource planning systems, management control and the quest
for integration, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Volume 30, Number 7-8, Pages 691733,
2005.
Devine, P. W., Srinivasan, C. A. and Zaman, M. S., Importance of Data in Decision-Making, in:
Anandarajan, M., Anandarajan, A. and Srinivasan, C. (Eds.), Business intelligence techniques. A
perspective from accounting and finance, Berlin: Springer, Pages 2139, 2004.
Edwards, J. B., ERP, Balanced Scorecard, and IT: How Do They Fit Together?, The Journal of
Corporate Accounting & Finance, Volume 12, Number 5, Pages 312, 2001.
European Commission, "Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro,
small and medium-sized enterprises", Official Journal of the European Union, Volume 46,
Number L124, Pages 3641, 2003.
Grtner, B. and Feldbauer-Durstmller, B., ERP-Systems and Management Accounting: A Literature
Review and Future Research, in: 6th International Conference (Eds.): An Enterprise Odyssey:
Corporate governance and public policy - path to sustainable future, Pages 638652, 2012.
Grabski, S. V., Leech, S. A. and Sangster, A., Management accounting in enterprise resource planning
systems, Oxford: Elsevier, 2009.
Grabski, S. V., Leech, S. A. and Schmidt, P. J., A Review of ERP Research: A Future Agenda for
Accounting Information Systems, Journal of Information Systems, Volume 25, Number 1, Pages
3778, 2011.
Granlund, M., Towards explaining stability in and around management accounting systems,
Management Accounting Research, Volume 12, Number 2, Pages 141166, 2001.
Granlund, M., Extending AIS research to management accounting and control issues: A research note,
International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Volume 12, Number 1, Pages 319,
2011.

Granlund, M. and Lukka, K., It's a Small World of Management Accounting Practices, Management
Accounting Research, Volume 10, Pages 153179, 1998.
Granlund, M. and Malmi, T., Moderate impact of ERPS on management accounting: a lag or permanent
outcome?, Management Accounting Research, Volume 13, Number 3, Pages 299321, 2002.
Granlund, M. and Mouritsen, J., Special section on management control and new information
technologies. Introduction: problematizing the relationship between management control and
information technology, European Accounting Review, Volume 12, Number 1, Pages 7783,
2003.
Hayes, D. C., Hunton, J. E. and Reck, J. L., Market Reactions to ERP Implementation Announcements,
Journal of Information Systems, Volume 15, Number 1, Pages 318, 2001.
Holland, P. and Light, B., A Critical Success Factors Model for ERP Implementation, IEEE Software,
Volume 16, Number 3, Pages 3036, 1999.
Hong, K.-K. and Kim, Y.-G., The critical success factors for ERP implementation: an organizational fit
perspective, Information & Management, Volume 40, Number 1, Pages 2540, 2002.
Hunton, J. E., McEwen, R. A. and Wier, B., The Reaction of financial Analysts to Enterprise Resource
Planning (ERP) Implementation Plans, Journal of Information Systems, Volume 16, Number 1,
Pages 3140, 2002.
Hyvnen, T., Management accounting and information systems: ERP versus BoB, European
Accounting Review, Volume 12, Number 1, Pages 155173, 2003.
Ifinedo, P., Interactions between organizational size, culture, and structure and some IT factors in the
context of ERP success assessment: an exploratory investigation, Journal of Computer
Information Systems, Number Summer, Pages 2844, 2007.
Jacobs, R. F. and Weston, T. F. C., Enterprise resource planning (ERP) A brief history, Journal of
Operations Management, Volume 25, Number 2, Pages 357363, 2007.
James, D. and Wolf, M. L., A second wind for ERP, The McKinsey Quarterly, Volume 43, Number 2,
Pages 100106, 2000.
Kieser, A. and Walgenbach, P., Organisation, Stuttgart: Schffer-Poeschel, 2010.
Kumar, K. and van Hillegersberg, J., ERP experiences and evolution, Communications of the ACM,
Volume 43, Number 4, Pages 2326, 2000.
Lam, W., Investigating success factors in enterprise application integration: a case-driven analysis,
European Journal of Information Systems, Volume 14, Number 2, Pages 175187, 2005.
Lawrence, P. R. and Lorsch, J. W., Organization and environment. Managing differentiation and
integration, Boston: Harvard Business Press, 1967.
Light, B., Holland, C. P. and Wills, K., ERP and best of breed: a comparative analysis, Business
Process Management Journal, Volume 7, Number 3, Pages 216224, 2001.
Mabert, V. A., Soni, A. and Venkataramanan, M., Enterprise resource planning: Managing the
implementation process, European Journal of Operational Research, Volume 146, Number 2,
Pages 302314, 2003.
Martin, M. H., An Electronics Firm Will Save Big Money By Replacing Six People With One And Lose All
This Paperwork, Using Enterprise Resource Planning Software. But Not Every Company Has
Been So Lucky, Fortune, Number February 2, Pages 9597, 1998.
Merchant, K. A., The Design of the Corporate Budgeting System: Influences on Managerial Behavior and
Performance, Accounting Review, Volume 56, Number 4, Pages 813829, 1981.
Mohamed, S. and McLaren, T., Probing the Gaps between ERP Education and ERP Implementation
Success Factors, AIS Transactions on Enterprise Systems, Volume 1, Number 1, Pages 814,
2009.
Newman, M. and Westrup, C., Making ERPs work: accountants and the introduction of ERP systems,
European Journal of Information Systems, Volume 14, Number 3, Pages 258272, 2005.
Porter, M. E. and Millar, V. E., How information gives you competitive advantage, Harvard Business
Review, Volume 63, Number July-August, Pages 149160, 1985.
Poston, R. and Grabski, S. V., Financial impacts of enterprise resource planning implementations,
International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Volume 2, Number 4, Pages 271294,
2001.
Quattrone, P. and Hopper, T., A timespace odyssey: management control systems in two multinational
organizations, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Volume 30, Number 7-8, Pages 735764,
2005.

Rao, S. S., Enterprise resource planning: business needs and technologies, Industrial Management &
Data Systems, Volume 100, Number 2, Pages 8188, 2000.
Repschlger, J. and Zarnekow, R., Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Systeme im Spannungsfeld
zwischen klassischem IT-Betrieb und Cloud Computing, Controlling Zeitschrift fr
erfolgsorientierte Unternehmenssteuerung, Volume 23, Number 6, Pages 290297, 2011.
Rikhardsson, P. and Kraemmergaard, P., Identifying the impacts of enterprise system implementation
and use: Examples from Denmark, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems,
Volume 7, Number 1, Pages 3649, 2006.
Rodney, J.-B., Can accountants bring a positive contribution to ERP implementation?, International
Management Review, Volume 5, Number 2, Pages 8291, 2009.
Rom, A. and Rohde, C., Enterprise resource planning systems, strategic enterprise management
systems and management accounting: A Danish study, Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, Volume 19, Number 1, Pages 5066, 2006.
Sammon, D. and Adam, F., Project preparedness and the emergence of implementation problems in
ERP projects, Information & Management, Volume 47, Number 1, Pages 18, 2010.
Sanchez-Rodriguez, C. and Spraakman, G., ERP systems and management accounting: A multiple case
study, Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Volume 9, Number 4, Pages 398
414, 2012.
Sangster, A., Leech, S. A. and Grabski, S. V., ERP Implementations and their Impact Upon Management
Accountants, Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management, Volume 6, Number
2, Pages 125142, 2009.
Sayed, H. E., ERPs and accountants' expertise: the construction of relevance, Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, Volume 19, Number 1, Pages 8396, 2006.
Scapens, R. W. and Jazayeri, M., ERP systems and management accounting change: opportunities or
impacts? A research note, European Accounting Review, Volume 12, Number 1, Pages 201
233, 2003.
Somers, T. M. and Nelson, K., The Impact of Critical Success Factors across the Stages of Enterprise
Resource Planning Implementation, Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences, S. 110, 2001.
Spathis, C., Enterprise systems implementation and accounting benefits, Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, Volume 19, Number 1, Pages 6782, 2006.
Spathis, C. and Ananiadis, J., Assessing the benefits of using an enterprise system in accounting
information and management, The Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Volume 18,
Number 2, Pages 195210, 2005.
Spathis, C. and Constantinides, S., Enterprise resource planning systems' impact on management
processes, Business Process Management Journal, Volume 10, Number 2, Pages 234247,
2004.
Sutton, S. G., Enterprise systems and the re-shaping of accounting systems: A call for research,
International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Volume 7, Pages 16, 2006.
Teittinen, H., Pellinen, J. and Jrvenp, M., ERP in action - Challenges and benefits for management
control in SME context, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Volume 13,
2012.
Themistocleous, M., Irani, Z. and OKeefe, R. M., ERP and application integration: Exploratory survey,
Business Process Management Journal, Volume 7, Number 3, Pages 195204, 2001.
Umble, E. J., Haft, R. R. and Umble, M. M., Enterprise resource planning: Implementation procedures
and critical success factors, European Journal of Operational Research, Volume 146, Number 2,
Pages 241257, 2003.
Vakalfotis, N., Ballantine, J. and Wall, A., A Literature Review on the Impact of Enterprise Systems on
Management Accounting, 8th International Conference on Enterprise Systems, Accounting and
Logistics, Pages 79105, 2011.
Van Everdingen, Y., van Hillegersberg, J. and Waarts, E., ERP adoption by European midsize
companies, Communications of the ACM, Volume 43, Number 4, Pages 2731, 2000.
Waniczek, M. and Marktl, B., Ausgewhlte Business Intelligence-Lsungen. Mobile BI, In-Memory, SaaS
und Open Source BI als Trends, Zeitschrift fr Finance & Controlling, Number 4, Pages 145
148, 2011.

Willcocks, L. P. and Sykes, R., Enterprise resource planning: the role of the CIO and it function in ERP,
Communications of the ACM, Volume 43, Number 4, Pages 3238, 2000.
Williams, J. J. and Seaman, A. E., Management accounting systems change and departmental
performance: The influence of managerial information and task uncertainty, Management
Accounting Research, Volume 13, Pages 419445, 2002.
Yusuf, Y., Gunasekaran, A. and Abthorpe, M. S., Enterprise information systems project implementation:
A case study of ERP in Rolls-Royce, International Journal of Production Economics, Volume 87,
Number 3, Pages 251266, 2004.
AUTHOR PROFILES
Bernhard Grtner is Ph.D. student at the Institute for Management Control & Consulting at the Johannes
Kepler University (JKU) of Linz.
Dr. Birgit Feldbauer-Durstmller earned her Ph.D. at the Johannes Kepler University (JKU) of Linz,
Austria, in 1991. Currently she holds the Chair of the Institute for Management Control & Consulting at the
JKU Linz.
Dr. Christine Duller earned her Ph.D. at the Johannes Kepler University (JKU) of Linz, Austria, in 1999.
Currently she is Assistant Professor of Applied Statistics at the JKU Linz.