Decision Support System Framework for

Implementation of Enterprise Resource Planning

(ERP) System
Muhammad Abdul Tawab Khalil, P. D. D. Dominic, Mohd Fadzil Bin Hassan
Computer and Information Sciences Department
Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
Perak, Malaysia
atawab@gmail.com, dhanapal_d@petronas.com.my, mfadzil_hassan@petronas.com.my
AbstractA growing challenge for todays complex decision
making is the successful implementation of ERP (Enterprise
Resource Planning) system. Many problems that arise in
ERP implementation have been discussed and tackled by
researchers in recent times. An emerging threat to the
successful implementation of ERP is the wicked problems.
Wicked problems manifest in somewhat enormous projects
or applications. These wicked problems can lead to a huge
loss of organizational intellectual property and finance. In
order to counter these wicked problems, a preemptive
decision making strategy needs to be adopted to anticipate
these problems in ERP implementation. As such, a research
investigation requires to be carried out to address the
complexity and multiplicity in projects which may lead it to
wicked problems and ultimately turning it into a wicked
project. As of today's expanding globalization, multiple
stakeholders with conflicting standpoints increase; each one
linked with the organization(s) is affected by the different
customs, behaviours, laws and environmental concerns.
Globalization also leads to the wicked problems for the
organization. Methods to help decision makers deal with
wicked problems are greatly needed. In pursuit of that some
elastically open ended, participative, collaborative and
adaptive approaches are needed to anticipate wicked
problems in ERP implementation. This paper focuses on a
decision support system model for implementation of ERP
system. ERP often serves as a happy hunting ground for
wicked problems because of its complex and multi-pronged
nature. Other than that, we are reviewing some techniques
and methodologies that are recommended to assist decision
makers understand the unstructured and poorly defined
complexity in ERP implementation. Comparative analyses
of these techniques will not only assist in better
understanding wicked problems, they are also being used to
provide a framework for a suitable and sustainable decision
support system for implementation.
Index TermsDecision Support System(DSS), Enterprise
Resource Planning (ERP) system, Wicked Problem, Wicked
Project.

I. INTRODUCTION
A current theme in developing projects is the trends,
direction and methodological issues associated with ERP
implementation. According to authors [1] who have
studied and uncovered the trends in project management
arena, they identified the fact that with the increase of
complexity, system thinking has also increased.
Researchers [2] have laid down the hard and soft
978-1-4244-6716-7/10/$26.00 2010 IEEE

dimensions of project management in general, which has

been inherited into ERP implementation. As per [3] main
findings of their study and gave future directions in ERP
project management research by emphasizing the
pervading impact of greater complexity of ERP project
plans and programs. They identified the issues associated
with such a complex project. Their findings include
differing expectations, goals and agendas of multiple
stakeholders. ERP project plan also needs to take care of
multiple theories, practices and discourses, changing
assumptions and constraints within a dynamic and ever
changing environment. They have further stressed the
need for a range of creative research strategies, designs
and decision methods.
This paper argues that in huge and complex projects
like ERP implementation, a problem of its kind is feared
to grow known as a wicked problem that may turn it into
a wicked project [4]. The fact that ERP system
implementation has always been a capital investment for
the organizations and corporations makes it more
important to implement ERP without letting it become a
wicked project. This would ensure smooth running of the
organization and will save a huge amount of finance
involved in ERP implementation.
There are three core objectives of this paper. (1)
Summing up different techniques and methodologies used
in the domain of project management for successful
implementation of ERP system. (2) The critical and
comparative analysis of the techniques has also been
presented. (3) In addition, a new framework has been
proposed to minimize the risk of ERP system
implementation turning into a wicked project. It is hoped
that the proposed framework will improve the current
scenario.
This paper is organized in four further sections.
Wicked problems and wicked projects are defined and
their properties, signs and consequences are elaborated
section II. Section III is comprised of an in-depth analysis
of techniques/models that have been tried to keep ERP
safe from becoming a wicked project. Section IV is the
framework/model suggested for a better DSS for ERP
implementation. Section V concludes the paper.

1439

II. WICKED PROBLEMS AND WICKED PROJECTS

The term wicked problems as applied to organizations
is credited to Rittel and Weber who identified a class of
problem in the design of planning that is difficult to
define, has no stopping rules, and no ultimate best
solution [4]. Wicked problems can take a many forms
and can be found in many different organizations and
corporations. There are examples in public administration;
Brown and Brudney states illegal drug use,
neighbourhood deterioration and juvenile delinquency [5];
and in [6] give school reforms, children in poverty and
legal difficulties, as examples of wicked problems with
inter-organizational complexity. The Australian Public
Service Commission identifies diverse policy issues that
include climate change, obesity, indigenous disadvantage,
and land degradation as wicked problems from general
walks of life other than the one we are focusing i.e. ERP
implementation [7]. Perhaps, the more challenging part of
wicked problems is that it is very difficult to fully
appreciate and anticipate the nature of the problem.
Therefore wicked problems are rarely solved; rather the
task is to design a more effective solution that is based
upon how the problem has been defined [8]. Similarly, it
has been observed by [9] that wicked problems are
typically made up of a dense web of interconnecting
factors, making it difficult to understand how one decision
will influence decisions in other area. Also, wicked
problems arise in the dynamic and uncertain environments
like ERP implementation where considerable risk is
feared to evolve.
Therefore, considerable conflict is often associated
with wicked problems, especially where good outcomes
are traded off against bad outcomes within the same
value system. Moreover, according to [10] definition of
wicked projects - projects with wicked problem as (1)
Difficult to define, that defining the nature of the problem
is the main problem, and (2) Containing a large social and
political part.
III. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE PAST EFFORTS
Focusing upon the organization complexity of
projects, a soft, people-based approach is recommended
by [5] as being able to provide structure and a
collaborative response to wicked problems. Reference
[11] proposes that the systems sciences, including soft
systems thinking, should be used to support the different
levels and phases of ERP system implementation.
Similarly, Gustafsson recommends using a holistic open
systems approach to deal with inter-related complexity
and wicked problems [12]. Given the impact of
viewpoints and stakeholders in creating wicked problems,
stakeholder analysis is also recommended. According to
[13] stakeholder analysis is useful in transforming wicked
problems into solvable and structured problems.
Stakeholder analysis to deal with wicked problems is also
suggested by some authors in [14]. Such analysis needs to
address the power, intentions and values of both the
organization and key stakeholders. Finegan [15], Neal
[16] and Green [17] emphasize the potential for using
systems thinking techniques in the early stages of

projects, to help the various stakeholders achieve a

common understanding of the problem situation. More
specifically, some researchers [1] have observed the
influence of ERP systems dynamics, while there are
researchers [18] who commented on the role of grounded
theory as an interpretive and sense making approach to
project management research. Other that this, Williams
suggests that systems dynamics modeling can be used
together with soft systems methodology [19].
Exploring the theme of systems thinking as a broad
framework for ERP system implementation, this paper
now examines selected examples of ERP projects
implementation that have used system dynamics
modeling, action research and action learning, soft
systems methodology and grounded theory.
A. System Dynamics Modelling (SD)
Systems dynamics (SD) developed originally by
Forrester [20], is a methodology for studying and
managing complex social systems, especially those found
in business. The key to systems dynamics is that only the
study of the whole system with special attention to
feedback systems will lead to correct results. There is a
wide range of applications using this methodology,
however most SD models are created in four stages:

Conceptualization - Define the purpose of the

model, define the model boundary and identify
key variables, describe the behaviour or draw the
reference modes of the key variables, and
diagram the basic mechanisms - the feedback
loops - of the system.

Formulation - Convert feedback diagrams to level

and rate equations, and estimate and select
parameter values.

Testing - Simulate the model and test the dynamic

hypothesis, test the models assumptions, and test
model behaviour and sensitivity to perturbations.

Implementation - Test the models response to

different policies, and translate study insights to
an accessible form.

The same SD model has been mapped for ERP system

implementation. Researchers have tried a strong case for
the application of computer modeling using SD in
projects like ERP [21, 22]. In a detailed discussion of the
complexity associated with large construction projects,
Sterman [21] further argues that SD models are useful in
dealing with the dynamic complexity created by the
interdependencies, feedbacks, time delays, and
nonlinearities in large scale projects.
So the case for use of SD modeling is ERP
implementation is that it deals with complexities in the
system. But at the same time, it relies heavily on the
feedback system. If the feedback is not truly represented,
it may not be help in avoiding ERP becoming a wicked
project.

1440

B. Action Research and Action Learning (AR/AL)

Researchers [3] have undertaken the major study of
future directions for project management identifying the
need for creative research strategies, including action
research and action learning. These closely related
approaches have also been adopted for project
management research by Ala-Risku and Karkkainen [23],
Kenny [24], Ottosson [25], Walker et al. [26], Nogeste
[27], Bourne and Walker [28], Sankaran and Tay [29] and
later by some other authors as well [30]. Further more,
they [30] described Action research is (AR) as a
collaborative inquiry undertaken by people concerned
with a problematic situation. It often uses a cyclical
process to better understand the nature of the problem
before attempting a solution. Consistent with systems
thinking, the research process is emergent and responds to
the situation. AR can use a variety of methods to develop
understanding as the process moves towards acting to
achieve a solution. Similarly, action learning (AL) is
based upon the simple cycle where participants plan, act,
observe and reflect. As with AR, this is often undertaking
as repeated iterations of the cycle. Collaboration is an
important aspect of AL, with small groups working
together on tasks or problems.
Both AR and AL is based upon individuals and groups
who seek to understand problem situations through a
cycle of critical reflection, followed by application of
what is learnt to future action [24]. The combination of
AR and AL is a popular approach and can well be applied
to ERP management in a number of variations. For us, the
point of concern for using AR/AL in order to implement
ERP successfully is, that this approach looks is less
authoritative in nature and being cyclic process, it may be
time consuming as well.
C. Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)
A soft system thinking is an interpretive approach that
is strongly influenced by Vickers description of the
importance of appreciative systems in dealing with
organizational complexity [31]. Initially Checkland and
Scholes [32] and later Checkland [33] have attempted to
transform these ideas from systems theory into a practical
methodology that is called Soft Systems Methodology
(SSM).
SSM concepts are based on practical application and
experience in a wide variety of complex managerial
systems. The methodology is designed to allow the
human element of such systems, which is typically
unstructured and poorly defined, to be incorporated into
ERP system implementation. It may be used to analyze
any problem or situation, but it is most appropriate where
the problem cannot be formulated as a search for an
efficient means of achieving a defined end; a problem in
which ends, goals, purposes are themselves problematic.
[33]. SSM encourages investigators to view organizations
from a cultural perspective. Therefore the component
parts that are human beings determine the essential
characteristics of organizations. These people
components can attribute meaning to their situation and
define their own purpose for the organization. SSM is

particularly suited to sense-making, which suggests its

potential suitability for wicked problems and wicked
projects. The problem that may occur implementing ERP
system based on SSM arises from its hit and trial
mechanism. That can be risky while dealing with
comparatively larger organizations that put in a huge
finance into ERP system implementation.
D. Grounded Theory (GT)
Another popular qualitative research approach that can
well be applied to ERP system implementation is the
project management by grounded theory (GT). Developed
by Glaser and Strauss [34], it can be described as a
methodology to generate or discover theory grounded in
data. This can be particularly useful to build a theoretical
framework in an area where there has been almost no
previous experience which implies to the case of ERP
implementation because it is one shot operation there is
no prior experience. It is also very useful in the analysis of
the organizational context of projects. Later, some authors
[35] described GT as being both iterative and
comparative.
According to [35], GT is strongly recommended for
applications in complex project settings. The case study
that they describe used GT to understand the nature and
processes of knowledge integration that occur during the
implementation of an ERP project. In another information
technology related project, researchers [36] have used GT
to deal with the complexity in understanding the issues in
agile project management.
Responding to scepticism about GT as a research
method, Georgieva and Allen have undertaken a study
that specifically examines the suitability of grounded
theory in huge projects management [37]. This study of
best practices in such huge projects management
provides a comprehensive example of how to use GT to
address a specific but complex ERP model. The
complexity is reflected in the content of the outcomes,
that Motivation, knowledge transfer and managing
awareness are inextricably linked together. They and their
properties constitute elements of project management.
Larson and Wikstrom commented GT as research
strategies based on grounded theory have their strength in
accuracy, but are weak in terms of simplicity [38]. Other
than the simplicity issue identified, GT as it describes is
dependent on availability of true set of data. If the system
does not have that, GT may not avoid an ERP
implementation turning wicked.

1441

IV. SUGGESTED FRAMEWORK

Figure 1. DSS Framework for ERP Implementation

The framework in Fig. 1 has been laid down as a

conceptual model for effective decision making in ERP
implementation. This model is hoped to improve the
current approaches made to resuscitate ERP
implementation from becoming a wicked project. The
model combines the advantages of SD, SSM and tries to
rectify their disadvantages. The model consists of the
following components:
A. Conduct Scenario Analysis
Scenario Analysis is a method for analyzing possible
future events by considering alternative possible scenarios
or outcomes. There are three justifications for using
scenario analysis. (1) It is specially designed to improve
decision making by allowing consideration of alternatives
and their implications. (2) It also allows considering subsets of each alternative or possibility. (3) It permits Stress
testing. This method will provide the system with
different alternatives at first hand upon loading scenarios.
In other words, it helps in formulating options for a better
decision in pursuit of a successful ERP implementation.
B. Articulate Identity
This measure is for taking intra-organizational
capabilities into account. These capabilities include
Values, Competencies and Aspirations and their sub
parameters. Judging those parameters for a specific
alternative generated by scenario analysis will suggest a
go ahead or stop and refine. In other words, articulating
identity refers to intra-organizational analysis and its
subsequent results.
C. Environment Scan
This variable is placed for stakeholders assumptions.
All the stakeholders connected with the organization will
give their feedback on the alternative under consideration.

D. Apply Pareto Analysis

Pareto Analysis is a formally defined as
statistical technique in decision making that is used for
selection of a limited number of tasks that produces
significant overall effect. It uses the Pareto principle i.e.
the idea that by doing 20% of work you can generate 80%
of the advantage of doing the entire job. Or in terms of
quality improvement, a large majority of problems (80%)
are produced by a few key causes (20%) [39]. This
method is used to evaluate options or alternatives
generated by scenario analysis and testified by the
articulating identity and scanning environment. Pareto
Analysis will identify the better workable alternative or
course of action for ERP implementation which will have
lesser chances of turning it into a wicked project. Pareto
Analysis will identify frequency and threats (on the left of
the graph) and alternatives (on the right of the graph).
Further more, as per the Pareto principal, the chart laid
down will provide us with an estimation upto 80% for
successful implementation of ERP based on 20% of work
on alternatives.
The middle part is used for documentation and
recording purpose.
V. CONCLUSION
Under the umbrella of a Decision Support System, a
better decision always depends upon a true set of
alternatives. In cases like ERP system implementation,
there are no alternatives at the start and there are no
second tries. It all depends upon a better model which can
generate better and alternatives to help a decision maker.
Similarly, there can be choice as how to implement an
ERP. So a key message of this paper is all about picking
up the better choice right at the step one. However, there
is no the best or flawless approach while attempting to
save ERP from becoming a wicked project. However,
some approaches are better suited to particular types of
problems. For example: action research and action
learning are indicated where deep reflection is important;
and soft systems methodology where sensing-making and
problem structuring are challenges. A useful theme in
form of a framework has been shown in this paper that is
definitely not limited to using one research design
approach for a successful ERP implementation. This
framework should serve as a fundamental model for
developing DSS for ERP implementation. The effort to
bring together the advantages of some popular techniques
and rectify their disadvantages suggests many
opportunities for further research using combinations of
two or more methodologies, particularly when applied to
ERP implementation. System dynamics modeling,
Scenario analysis and Pareto analysis together with softer
techniques for problem structuring, and a greater use of
actor network theory, are examples of options that
promise interesting outcomes.

1442

REFERENCES
[1]. Crawford, L.H., Pollack, J.B. and England, D. Uncovering
the trends in project management: Journal emphases over
the last 10 years. International Journal of Project
Management, 24, 174-184, 2006.
[2]. Crawford, L.H. and Pollack, J. Hard and Soft Projects: A
Framework for Analysis,International Journal of Project
Management, 22 (8), 645-653, 2004.
[3]. Winter, M., Smith, C., Morris, P.W.G. and Cicmil, S.
Directions for future research in project management: the
main findings of a UK government-funded research
network, International Journal of Project Management, 24
(8), 638-649, 2006.
[4]. Rittel, H. and Webber, M. Dilemmas in a general theory of
planning, Policy Sciences. 4, 155-169, 1973.
[5]. Brown, M.M. and Brudney, J.L.. Learning Organizations in
the Public Sector? A study of police agencies employing
information and technology to advance knowledge. Public
Administration Review, 63 (1), 30-43, 2003.
[6]. Waddock, S.A. and Walsh, M. Paradigm shift: towards a
community-university community of practice. The
International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 7 (3), 244264, 1999.
[7]. Australian Public Service Commission. Tackling Wicked
Problems: A Public Policy Perspective. Commonwealth of
Australia, Canberra, 2007.
[8]. Pacanowsky, M. Team tools for wicked problems.
Organizational Dynamics, 23(3), 36-52, 1995.
[9]. Becker, F. Organisational dilemmas and workplace
solutions. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 4 (2), 129-149,
2002.
[10]. Shurville, S. and Williams, J. Managing In-House
Development of a Campus-Wide Information System.
Campus-Wide Information Systems, 22 (1), 15-27, 2005.
[11]. Gao, F., Li, M. & Nakamori, Y. Systems thinking on
knowledge and its management: systems methodology for
knowledge management, Journal of Knowledge
Management, 6 (1), 7-17, 2002.
[12]. Gustafsson, C. From concept to norm - an explorative study
of office design management from an organizational
perspective, Facilities, 20 (13), 423-431, 2002.
[13]. Bryson, J.M., Cunningham, G.L. & Lokkesmoe, K.J. What
to do when stakeholders matter: The case of problem
formulation for the African American men project of
Hennepin County, Minnesota. Public Administration
Review, 62 (5), 568-584, 2002.
[14]. Savage, G.T., Nix, T.W., Whitehead, C.J. and Blair, J.D.
Strategies for assessing and managing organizational
stakeholders. Academy of Management Executive, 5 (2),
61-75, 1999.
[15]. Finegan, A. Soft Systems Methodology: An Alternative
Approach to Knowledge Elicitation in Complex and Poorly
Defined Systems, Complexity International, 1, 9 pages,
1994.
[16]. Neal, R.A. Project definition: the soft-systems approach.
International Journal of Project Management, 13 (1), 5-9,
1995.
[17]. Green, S.D. A participative research strategy for
propagating soft methodologies in value management
practice. Construction Management and Economics. 17 (3),
329-340, 1999.
[18]. Smyth, H. J. and Morris, P. W. G. An epistemological
evaluation of research into projects and their management:
methodological issues, International Journal of Project
Management, 25 (4), 423-436, 2007.
[19]. Williams, T.M. The need for new paradigms for complex
projects, International Journal of Project Management, 17
(5), 269-273, 1999.

[20]. Forrester, J. Industrial Dynamics, Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press, 1961.
[21]. Sterman, J.D. System Dynamics Modeling for Project
Management, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 1992.
[22]. Pauley, G. and Ormerod, R. The evolution of a
performance measurement project at RTZ, Interfaces, 28
(4), 94118, 1998.
[23]. Ala-Risku, T. and Krkkinen, M. Material delivery
problems in construction projects: a possible solution,
International Journal of Production Economics, 1 (2006),
1929, 2006.
[24]. Kenny, JDJ. A research based model for managing strategic
educational change and innovation projects, Proceedings of
HERDSA Conference, Christchurch, New Zealand, 333342, July 2003.
[25]. Ottosson, S. Participation action research a key to
improved knowledge of management, Technovation, 23,
87-94, 2003.
[26]. Walker, D.H.T., Anbari, F.T., Bredillet, C., Sderlund, J.,
Cicmil,
S.
and
Thomas,
J.
Collaborative
academic/practitioner research in project management:
examples and applications, International Journal of
Managing Projects in Business, 1 (2), 1-21, 2008.
[27]. Nogeste, K. Dual cycle action research: a professional
doctorate case study, International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business, 1 (4), 566585, 2008.
[28]. Bourne, L. and Walker, D.H.T. Using a visualising tool to
study stakeholder influence two Australian examples,
Journal of Project Management, 37 (1), 5-21, 2006.
[29]. Sankaran, S. & Tay, B.H. Are interpretive and critical
research methods useful for research in project
management?, AIPM 2007: Setting the Standard:
Proceedings of the AIPM National Conference 2007, ed Dr.
G. Earl, Dr. V. Tam, Dr. S. Milner, Dr. K. Remington, Mr.
A. Tupicoff, Mr. R. Tucker., AIPM, Sydney, Australia, pp.
1-13, 2007.
[30]. Sankaran, S., Tay, B.H. and Orr, M. Managing
organizational change by using soft systems thinking in
action research projects, International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business, 2 (2), 179 197, 2009.
[31]. Vickers, G. Value Systems and Social Process. London,
Penguin Books, 1968.
[32]. Checkland, P.B. and Scholes, J. Soft Systems Methodology
in Action. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1990.
[33]. Checkland, P.B. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice.
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1999.
[34]. Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. The Discovery of Grounded
Theory, Chicago: Aidine, 1967.
[35]. Huang, J., Newell, S., Pan, S.L. and Galliers, R.D.
Knowledge Integration Processes within the Context of
Enterprise
Resource
Planning
(ERP)
Systems
Implementation at ECIS 2001: The 9th European
Conference on Information Systems - Global Co-operation
in the New Millennium, Bled, Slovenia, 2001.
[36]. Hoda, A., Noble, J. and Marshall, S. Agile Project
Management. The New Zealand Computer Science
Research Student Conference, Christchurch, New Zealand,
April 14, 2008.
[37]. Georgieva, S. and Allan, G. Best Practices in Project
Management Through a Grounded Theory Lens, EJBRM, 6
(1), 43-52, 2008.
[38]. Larson, M. and Wikstrm, E. Relational interaction
processes in project networks: the consent and negotiation
perspectives, Scandinavian Journal of Management, 23,
327-352, 2007.
[39]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

1443