ERP implementation in Omantel:a case study

Stuart MaguireThe Management School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

Udechukwu OjiakoSchool of Management, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK, and

Al SaidThe Management School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

Abstract

Purpose – Enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems if successfully implemented bring aboutcompetitive advantages. On the other hand, project failure could, in an extreme case, cause anorganisation to go out of business. Mapped against existing literature on ERP critical success factors,this paper examines environmental factors that impacted on the adoption of ERP by The OmanTelecommunication Company (Omantel).

Design/methodology/approach – A case study methodology is used to study perceptions of theERP system implementation project in Omantel.

Findings – This paper highlights the particular problems of large organisations that operatedisparate legacy systems.

Research limitations/implications – A single case study is conducted. This providesopportunities for further research in a number of varied settings.

Originality/value – It is very important that experiences of ERP projects are shared acrosscountries and sectors. This is because many ERP implementations are rolled out by multi-nationalcorporations in several countries, often simultaneously. This is one of the few ERP studies that havebeen conducted by an internal member of staff. In these situations, it is not just a case of access, butthat the respondents feel able to give practical answers.

Keywords Manufacturing resource planning, Project management, Competitive advantage

Paper type Case study

1. IntroductionThere are a wide variety of tools and systems that have been developed to enableorganisations to become more competitive, one of these tools is enterprise resourceplanning (ERP).

ERP systems are all about ensuring that operational systems being used by anorganisation are fully integrated. The purpose of using ERP is to improve and simplify theinternal business processes, which typically requires re-engineering of current businessprocesses (Huang et al., 2004). The idea is to combine various systems into a singledatabase (Payne, 2000). This approach will enable the organisation to have a single view ofits business by ensuring that systems that support different functionalities within theorganisation are combined (Kumar and van Hillegersberg, 2000).

There are quite a few advantages of adopting ERP as part of as an organisationalstrategy. For one, ERP systems support an organisation’s desire for systems integrationwhich means that organisations will not have to manage separate systems independently.

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

www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-5577.htm

IMDS110,1

78

Received 12 July 2009Revised 17 August 2009Accepted 22 August 2009

Industrial Management & DataSystemsVol. 110 No. 1, 2010pp. 78-92q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0263-5577DOI 10.1108/02635571011008416

In this case, the organisation optimises its processes which then improves the entiresupply chain process, and integrates functionalities leading to increased transparencyacross the organisation. In most cases to continue to support this optimisation, theorganisation also develops sets of expert common capabilities. The result is that theorganisation is most likely to save on operational costs due to rationalisation and systemsintegration. It is expected that such savings on operational costs will be transferred tolower costs for the customer. At the same time, the integration of systems should lead tothe provision of a more memorable experience for the customer as service provisionbecomes more seamless. ERP systems can also empower employees by providing themwith real-time data (Davenport, 1998). It is also connected with greater job flexibility byproviding a platform that enables the expansion of individual awareness, creativity, andinnovation. Overall, existing statistics suggest that 63 per cent of large ERP customers areof the opinion that they do realise some major business benefits from their ERPimplementations (Gould, 2004). ERP systems are however key strategic resources for themajority of organisations. Their importance is demonstrated by statistics which show thatthey usually comprise the largest segment of an organisation’s applications budget (Aloiniet al., 2007).

2. ERP implementationAlthough this is the case, it is imperative to highlight that many ERP implementationshave been considered as significant failures (Markus et al., 2000). Examples includeAvis Europe Ltd’s abandonment of its ERP implementation project in 2004 (at a cost of$54.5 million) and Ford Motors’ ERP purchasing system which was also abandoned in2004, after the company had spent close to $200 million. Perhaps, the most famous caseof ERP system implementation failure relates to the collapse of the US$5 billion(GBP£2.5 billion) pharmaceutical giant FoxMeyer Drugs partially driven by a failedERP implementation in 1995.

Work examining ERP implementation in the Middle East is not particularlyextensive, although some work has been conducted. For example, Kholeif et al. (2007)discussed ERP customisation failures in the Middle East. On the other hand, Aladwani(2001) examined user resistance to ERP implementation from a Kuwaiti perspectivewhile Ziaee et al. (2006), studying ERP software selection, proposed a two-phaseprocedure of selecting ERP vendors in small manufacturing enterprises in Iran.A review of available research shows that there is a general lack of literature on ERPsystems implementation in Oman.

With developments which have led to the new ERP II, it is now possible for serviceproviders and their customers to share information by integrating their systems into onesingle database (Moller, 2005), leading to more organisations recognisng the huge benefitsfrom successful implementation of ERP systems. Starting in the late 1990s there has beengrowing use of ERPs in many of the larger businesses and organisations. The extensiveuse of ERP reflects the need of businesses and organisations to replace older softwaresystems and achieve integration of different organisational functions and processes.

3. ConsiderationsInformation technology and information systems (IT/IS) serve as a major supportplatform for many organisations to build the competitive success of their enterprise. Theyserve numerous roles including being a key component of knowledge management and

ERPimplementation

in Omantel

79

customer intelligence, as well as enablers and agents of business change andtransformation making them a core aspect for the twenty-first century organisation.

The provision of IT/IS in organisations is always demanding and the case of ERPimplementation in The Oman Telecommunication Company (Omantel) is no differentapart from specific characteristics such as the emphasis on active localisationand Arabisation of digital content (ESCWA, 2003). In addition, the company is oneof the few telecommunications still operating in a monopoly market. Previousstudies on implementation strategies adopted in ERP implementation specific totelecommunications have been conducted, for example, by Berchet and Habchi (2005).

According to Beheshti (2006), the implementation stage is usually a very criticalstep during the introduction of ERP systems. As ERP implementation is usuallycomplex (as in the case of most corporate level IT/IS projects), it is not uncommon thatmany organisations do allocate significant resources to this phase of the project.Unfortunately, current ERP implementation statistics do not look promising with anestimated 70 per cent of all ERP implementations likely to fail (Sivunen, 2005).

Overall, it is important for organisations implementing ERP systems to recognisethat the introduction of ERP will most likely result in key organisational changeswhich, if not managed carefully, can actually result in conflict within the organisationespecially in relation to the question of how to integrate the ERP system, the legacysystem, and the business processes of the organisation.

4. The case studyThe success or failure of a research exercise has been demonstrated to be directly relatedto the research methodology adopted (Easterby-Smith et al., 1993; Yin, 1989). Thisparticular study focused on how an organisation behaved during a major exercise ofsystems interactions. For this reason, it became imperative that this study wasconducted using a research approach that emphasised both subjective and contextualinterpretation of events (van Strien, 1997). For this reason, we adopted a single casestudy approach as the primary mode of research. It is imperative to highlight that theuse of single source-case studies is well represented in research (Eisenhardt, 1989).In this particular case, based on earlier work by Yin (1989), the use of Omantel as a singlecase study is valid as it can be argued that within the Omani context, due to the size of itsoperations, it is representative of the telecommunication industry. Our main reason forchoosing this approach was because our investigation was primarily directed atstudying current phenomena in a real world context (Yin, 1989). This approach has beenused even though it is not generally popular in project management. In particular, wemention the work of Jaafari (2003), who suggests that creative-reflective models aremost appropriate when studying complex projects. Of particular relevance is the factthat this approach is heavily reliant on the competencies of project managementprofessionals.

Omantel is the sole licensed operator in the Sultanate of Oman for fixed linetelephony. The company presently operates as a monopoly in the Public SwitchedTelephone Network and Internet Service Provider markets. The company has a mobilesubsidiary (Omanmobile) which offers mobile services and operates as a duopoly withNawras which is owned by Qatar Telecommunication Company. The government ofOman is the major shareholder of the parent company Omantel. Omantel has beenproviding communication services for nearly four decades and currently, the number

IMDS110,1

80

of people who are employed in Omantel and its subsidiary Oman Mobile is about 2,600.The group achieved a profit of 80 Omani Rial (£108 million) by the end of 2006(Omantel Financial Statements, 2006).

5. Strategic driversOmantel commissioned the ERP project for two major reasons. In the first place, thecompany sought to ensure that it was strategically placed and ready for the anticipatedliberalisation of the Omani telecommunications industry. To achieve this, it has soughtto upgrade its capabilities in terms of network technologies that will support bestpractice controllable work flows (Al Wohaibi, 2006). The second driver was a need bythe organisation to position itself to be able to meet national development requirementsas identified by the United Nations (ESCWA, 2003).

In February 2005, an agreement between Omantel and Oracle, one of the leadingglobal ERP providers (Huang et al., 2004) with about 14.5 per cent of market share(Jakovljevic, 2001) was signed, with the project being initiated immediately. The projectwas planned to be completed in exactly 12 months after initiation. However, theimplementation process overran by about six months, with completion of all ERPpackage transfers from the test environment completed in June 2006. The overrun wasprimarily driven by a limited number of IT/IS staff within Omantel possessingnecessary Oracle integration expertise. This caused major communication problemsbetween Omantel staff and the technical team from Oracle (for example in explainingsystems architecture of existing legacy systems). There was also limited in-houseexpertise within Omantel on Oracle products. This meant that Oracle’s initial contractto focus solely on implementation was soon expanded into a consultancy role.

6. Findings from the case studyThe findings obtained from the case study are discussed and analysed in this section,and combined into themes. These findings (not determined directly from this casestudy) are mapped against earlier discussed critical success factors that impact on ERPsystems implementations (Finney and Corbett, 2007; Nah et al., 2003):

. stakeholder consultation;

. vendor selection;

. project management;

. stakeholder management and communication;

. training;

. risk management; and

. system re-engineering and software customisation.

6.1 Stakeholder consultationOmantel understood that each of its customers were not only a stakeholder, but also animportant collaborators in the ERP implementation. For this reason, the company wascommitted to full consultation and transparency with not only its customers, but alsowith its competitors (predominantly Nawras), and the regulator (TelecommunicationsRegulatory Authority (TRA) of Oman). Omantel’s principle ERP consultationphilosophy was not necessarily to seek unconditional consent from either Nawras or

ERPimplementation

in Omantel

81

the TRA, but rather based on the recognition that such consultation will easecompetitive concerns (especially in relation to Nawras). Success of the project wasbased on bilateral discussions that would hopefully lead to consent. Consultationcovered four specific areas of the implementation (Table I). Each consultation processwas managed independently as part of a specific working group.

Lessons. Omantel’s decision to implement a consultation programme was inrecognition that it shared where possible commercially sensitive information on the scopeof the ERP implementation. By sharing such information, Omantel anticipated thatstakeholder needs were to be fully understood and reflected in the implementation plan.Thorugh this consultation process, the company was able to address the various concernsraised by stakeholders which included creating a greater focus on collaborative testing.

In effect, the consultation programme represented an approach for Omantel to createa more detailed understanding with its suppliers, customers, its mobile subsidiary(Omanmobile), competitors (predominantly Nawras), and the regulator (TRA of Oman)of the project. The consultation was limited to the operational and technical impactsarising from the sequencing and timing associated with Omantel’s implementation plan(thus falling within the remit of the Implementation and Migration Working Group).Three major issues emerged from the consultation process, clarity on:

(1) operational impact of the timing of the implementation, especially in relation tospecific customers;

(2) a specific request for implementation freeze periods from customers due to aspecific event (e.g. billing runs); and

(3) whether the implementation plan will negatively impact or impede Omantel’sability to meet regulatory and contractual obligations, and possible costimplications if the implementation fails.

Omantel’s objectives were to ensure that these three issues were resolved prior tocompletion of the issuing of test cases and schedules. This was regarded as feasible asit was not expected that the implementation plan would remain unchanged and fixedthroughout the duration of the project. Omantel sought to reach solutions acceptable toall parties through its change control process.

6.2 Vendor selectionThe decision to select Oracle as the ERP vendor was based on recommendations byOmantel’s in-house software evaluation team. Selection of Oracle was conducted through

Board Details

External industry focus Focus on external operations of Omantel and how the ERPimplementation will impact on corporate, government andother high-value customers

Product management working group Focus on product management and expected new productintroduction resultant from the ERP implementation

Conformance testing Focus workshops on test execution plans, especially onoperational readiness

Implementation and migration How Omantel will approach implementation (and subsequentmigration to new platforms)?

Table I.Omantel consultationactivity

IMDS110,1

82

an evaluation workshop organised by the vendor evaluation team during which allinterested stakeholders (including representatives from its mobile subsidiary(Omanmobile) and other lines-of-businesses such as its Al-Ufuq Prepaid Card Unit,were invited to review various bids and proposals from potential vendors. One majorparameter which was considered was how such an initiative could impact on existingintegration with legacy systems (especially some stand-alone systems used for billingmobile customers). From interviews with the Omantel ERP Implementation Manager, itemerged that Omantel’s decision to award the project to Oracle was based on Omantel’sperception of Oracle’s ability to demonstrate an understanding of its business.

Lessons. Previous research by Ponis et al. (2007) and Swan et al. (1999) lists vendorselection as one of the critical management issues in ERP implementation. Oracle wasable, according to the Omantel ERP Implementation Manager, to demonstrate thatits solution was the “most practical, suited application, able to address Omantel’sbusiness objectives”. In addition, “Oracle was able to demonstrate that it had theinfrastructure, experience and reputation to support Omantel’s vision” (Al Wohaibi,2006). These are two key parameters discussed by Ponis et al. (2007) and Ziaee et al.(2006), which also influence ERP vendor selection. Overall, again on this point, we notethat the role of reputation (Keil and Tiwana, 2006) and trust (Benders et al., 2006) hasbeen discussed within the context of ERP vendor selection criteria.

6.3 Project managementThe major concern about the overall project management approach related toknowledge sharing and transfer. The Omantel staff expressed concerns that the Oracleconsultants seemed to have no time, or were unwilling, to share knowledge with theOmantel technical project staff. This perception was especially prevalent duringthe first stages of project implementation.

Overall, the scope of work of the project involved:. validation of scope and quality of service;. definition of service architecture and interfaces;. development of a test mechanism;. development of procedures to ensure that no loss of service would occur during

systems implementation; and. establishment of success criteria.

A phased implementation approach was adopted, with key milestones (Table II) anddistinct objectives being identified for each project phase (Table III). Monitoring andcontrol of the overall project plan was through a formal change control process whichsought to:

. Track and manage requests for changes to sequencing and timing of any aspectof the plan (through stakeholder consultation).

. Modify the plan over the course of project duration (initially 12 months). Theplan was updated and published monthly under change control and madeavailable to all stakeholders.

If possible, reduce this very large gap (obviously check that it does not as a result splittables up too much).

ERPimplementation

in Omantel

83

Lessons. The implementation was managed by utilising a strong matrix project structure.Omantel assigned project management responsibility to its in-house project managementoffice, leaving Omantel team leaders in each domain with full responsibility while overallmanagement responsibility resided with the Omantel project manager. Support wasprovided by Oracle which provided an independent integration team (in order to facilitatedevelopment, support and knowledge transfer). However, in reality this approach did notwork as what appeared to be a parallel implementation team emerged. To resolve thedeveloping conflict, the project team was reorganised into one team. Overall,responsibility was assigned to an Omantel project manager, while technical leadershipand consultancy was provided by Oracle. Other subtle efforts were made to supportintegration. For example, to break down the possibility of poor project level focus(Kuprenas, 2003), improve communication (Zomorrodian, 1986) and facilitate a greatersense of a shared project agenda (Lamproulis, 2007), the project team was moved fromindividual offices into a single open plan office.

6.4 Stakeholder management and communicationThe implementation of new IT/IS systems is usually accompanied by changes inoperations and ways of working. If not adequately addressed, new systemsintroduction can be met by resistance from stakeholders (Brown et al., 2002). Often thisresistance can manifest in different forms such as system non-use (Maguire and Ojiako,2007), or withdrawal (Allen and Wilson, 2005). One of the approaches adopted byOmantel to overcome stakeholder resistance was to choose a robust approach tostakeholder anaylsis. Table IV provides details on the stakeholders, dividing them intokey groups. Details on a desired response in each case are also provided.

Milestone Definition

Definition of project dashboard Success criteria are defined to facilitateimplementation performance to be assessed

Baseline procedural establishment Focuses on the establishment of baselineprocesses for various aspects of the projectincluding communications and back-out. Theseprocedures will also need to be tested successfully

Customer premises equipment compatibility Assist stakeholders in designing test plans forcustomer premises equipment in order to establishcompatibility with new implemented platforms

Stakeholder awareness Commencement of programme of generalawareness of migration to all stakeholders

Migration cases and schedule issued Undertaking to verify that (where necessary) allmigration cases (especially in relation to legacyplatforms) have been issued, reviewed and agreedby all stakeholders

Test cases and schedule issued Undertaking to verify that all test cases have beenissued, reviewed and agreed by all stakeholders

Network and product compatibility testingcomplete

Undertaking to verify completion of compatibilitytesting of all products on the network

Post-implementation review All lessons from completed phases of the projectsuccessfully collated

All customers migrated All customers migratedLive Systems go live

Table II.Omantel ERP milestones

IMDS110,1

84

The stakeholder management and communication approach facilitated the developmentof a framework for stakeholder segmentation that identified not only importantstakeholder groups, but also identified desired responses from them based around:

. What Omantel wants stakeholders to know about the implementation?

. How Omantel want stakeholders to feel about the implementation?

. What Omantel want the stakeholders to do about the implementation?

Lessons. Stakeholder management and communications is a key success factor for ERPprojects and its role has been discussed by various researchers such as Al-Mashari andZairi (2000). For example, it is known that communication influences the acceptance oftechnology (Amoako-Gyampah and Salam, 2004), and enhances the two-way flow ofinformation between the vendor and customers, thus enabling feedback. Omantelsought to communicate and engage with all stakeholders and to provide advice on thelikely impact of the proposed implementation. By engaging in this process, Omantelsought to reassure stakeholders on service continuity. Omante’s consultationphilosophy was based on an acceptance that the level of engagement was not to bebased on a “one size fits all” approach, but that instead, stakeholder management wasto be tailored to the individual needs of each stakeholder.

Even though processes were put in place to support effective stakeholdercommunication (for example, a special implementation webpage was created and

Work stream Details

Customerexperience

The customer experience work stream focused on identification, contact andmanagement of each line of business impacted by user acceptance testing. In generalthis work stream was responsible for putting together a test strategy plan, developingtest scenarios and managing the interface with other lines of business impacted by theimplementation

Technology The technology work stream was responsible for ensuring that required technologywas in place to support ERP implementation. Key activities in this work stream includesetting up of required user acceptance test environments, development of requireddesign and test documents, and resourcing of testing and technical support to theproject team and customers, when required

Systemsdevelopment

It was expected that in most cases, the implementation will impact on a majority ofexisting customer interfacing systems. A full compatibility audit of all systems wasconducted prior to systems development

Networksandsystems

The network and systems readiness work stream was responsible for ensuring that allexisting (and legacy) networks and systems were migrated (as required). This team wasalso responsible for ensuring that new designs and necessary changes required for thesuccessful implementation were successfully completed. The team was specificallyresponsible for activities such as production of solution designs, end to end testing ofsolution design, and the implementation of the network and systems changes

Customermigrationandassurance

Omantel’s priority was to ensure that the transfer of customers onto the new platformwas conducted with minimal impact on customers. One crucial aspect of this migrationwas to utilise robust and detailed advance notifications (covering service disruptionsand data freezes). At the same time, it is crucial to recognise that customer migrationplans also included a back-out plan which articulated a clear process (if required),whereby customers could be migrated back to legacy systems (without substantial lossof service)

Table III.Omantel ERP project

work streams

ERPimplementation

in Omantel

85

heavily promoted), there were general concerns with stakeholder informationespecially in relation to how quickly responses were provided to stakeholderinformation requests (especially those requests put forward formally). To address thisproblem (and improve information flow), an information database was developed anddelivered.

Perhaps, most worrying is that only a handful of employees (mainly senior managers)was aware of the project before its inception. Most surprising is that even afterimplementation, a small number (admittedly only a handful) was not even aware thatany new systems had been deployed! Studies on systems introduction (Maguire andOjiako, 2007; Ojiako and Greenwood, 2007) have highlighted that poor employeeengagement will often lead to a lack of understanding of the system.

Group Categorisation Desired response

Major customers Know The project objectives, detailed information onemerging solutions and capabilities

Feel Enthusiastic and confident that Omantel is their bestpartner and will continue to deliver desired value

Do Identify needs and work with Omantel to exploit theimplemented platform and purchase solutions

Low-value customers Know That they are not affected by the ERPimplementation

Feel That they are reassured about the future and theservice they receive and expect to receive in thefuture

Do Continue to remain with OmantelEmployees Know The company’s vision, overall strategy, constituent

projects and potential impacts on company’scompetitive position if failure occurs. At base level,understand broad impacts of the project

Feel Confident, trusted, valued and part of the company’svision and future

Do Possess a shared vision and outlook. Are willing tocreate lasting customer relationships, while at thesame time seek opportunities to enhance thecustomers’ experience

Investors Know The broad outline plan. Understand value associatedwith current project

Feel Confident that the new implementation will enhanceOmantel’s competitiveness

Do Continue to maintain (and in some cases increase)their investment in Omantel, while at the same timeencouraging others to do so

Regulatory (TRA) Know The outline plan and its compliance with regulatoryand contractual agreements and requirements

Feel Confident that the plans adhere to regulatoryrequirements

Do n/aOracle and other suppliers Know The detailed plan and how they fit in

Feel Involved in the implementationDo Proactively get involved in all aspects of the project

Table IV.Omantel ERPmanagement analysis

IMDS110,1

86

6.5 TrainingThe general perception of the employees was that training was not adequate.It appeared that the majority of staff involved in the project were first trained on thenew system well after the “go-live” date. This obviously meant that at the time ofcommissioning, close to one in three employees was not trained on the use of thesystem. Perhaps, more worrying is that overall, about 15 per cent of staff involved inthe project did not receive any training at all, while those who did, such as on databaselanguages such as structured query language, only ended up using their newlyacquired skills nearly seven months after training, meaning that knowledge gainedfrom the original training was forgotten due to lack of practice. This meant thatrefresher courses had to be arranged at additional cost to the company.

Lessons. Even though recognised as a crucial means of addressing possibleresistance to organisational change (Maguire and Redman, 2007), and of crucialimportance in ERP implementation (Yu, 2006), the study appears to indicate thatinadequate staff training was a major concern within the project team. It is importantto highlight that an issue with the employee’s perception of training was fullyacknowledged by the project manager. Various reasons have been attributed to thissituation. For example, he pointed out that there was a general problem working with alimited number of expert users and trainers. In addition, the talent pool available toOmantel was generally restricted.

6.6 Risk managementDespite numerous consultations, the potential impact of the implementation onservices provided by some stakeholders remained unclear primarily because Omanteldid not have the appropriate knowledge to carry out these tests, leading to anover-reliance on Oracle to resolve technical queries. At the same time, precise details ofthe improved “experience” new systems that users were to be exposed to at thecompletion of the project were not clearly articulated. In certain instances, Omantelwas unable to provide exact details on time lags associated with anticipated“breaks-in-service” which were expected to impact on customers’ systems. This had anadverse effect on the detailed dialogue conducted with some customers.

In terms of risk associated with the test programme, it was felt that the timeallocated for customer managed inter-operability and equipment testing (one month)was considerably limited as no time appeared to have been allowed for anycontingencies, late deliveries or significant failures in testing. Overall, the informationprovided to support testing was also initially regarded as extremely high level.

Lessons. Successful ERP implementation is dependent on numerous factors andparameters. One of these parameters is poor information management (Biehl, 2007).

6.7 System testing and software customisationFailure to test in a robust way can often lead to significant problems when a systemgoes live (Maguire, 2004; Ojiako and Greenwood, 2007). Omantel had quite a fewproducts that had to be reconfigured as part of the introduction of the new ERPsystems. Under the joint system testing and software customisation process run byOmantel and Oracle, most products were reviewed by specialists to determine whatimpact the newly introduced system would have on Omantel’s products and services.In the majority of cases, confirmation was received that there was unlikely to be any

ERPimplementation

in Omantel

87

impact (subject to more aggressive testing). It was, however, noted that due to the shortcontingency period between testing and “go live” date, if the tests failed, product andservice customisation would need to be managed expertly in order to ensure that thelimited resources of the organisation were used effectively and also to ensure thatdisruption was minimised.

Details of test scenarios were produced, and scripts for the testing of products andservices that had to be completed prior to migration were also prepared. However,citing the general lack of technical knowledge within the organisations, a review ofthese test scenarios appeared to be insufficient, as each generally lacked the necessarydepth to give assurance of its robustness. The result (which was one of the majorcontributors to the project being delivered late) was that product and service offeringsrequired changes either because the requirement for change had been identified beforetesting began and had not been sufficiently addressed, or where changes had to takeplace following a problem identified during testing.

Lessons. As the literature suggests that ERP clients should avoid systemmodification (Markus et al., 2000), an agreement was reached between Omantel andOracle that no part of the ERP system would be customised to meet the systemcompatibility requirements for any of Omantel’s products and services. Any systemcustomisation implemented by Omantel without full sign-off by Oracle wouldinvalidate the system warranty and support.

7. DiscussionsThe introduction of the new ERP system is the most significant change within Omantelsince the drive to liberalise the Omani telecommunications industry commenced. Thesenew systems have the potential to deliver significant benefits to the organisation. Theyare also expected to fundamentally transform the way Omantel delivers services to allof its customers. Ultimately, it is the first major step the organisation has taken inreadiness for the full liberalisation of the telecommunications industry in Oman.

Unlike the more chaotic strategic alignment approach adopted by NITEL (Ojiakoand Maguire, 2006) which led to poor customer perception (Onwumechili andOkereke-Arungwa, 2003), the findings indicate that the impact of the ERP system onOmantel is considered in a more positive light. For example, a majority of thecompany’s employees were of the opinion that the newly introduced systems had madea considerable difference to their jobs.

It is however important to highlight that overall evaluation of the performance ofthe system still raises concern. We show that just over half of employees sampled feltthat the new system was easy to use. This point reinforces the need to addressemployee training as a matter of urgency. At the same time, it reiterates that the effectsof earlier failure of management to engage with employees during system design is stilllingering.

8. ConclusionsERP is no longer a western European or North American issue. By its very nature itsimplementation is complex and far-reaching. There are plenty of opportunities forthings to go wrong. Its multinational nature means that further research should beundertaken in a range of countries to identify the political, cultural, and behaviouralrepercussions of implementation. The scope and complexity of ERP means that any

IMDS110,1

88

opportunity to gain insights from this system development process should be graspedwith both hands. We do not have all the answers with regard to this process and so anyway the process can be facilitated should be made available to a wider audience.

This research has examined the key environmental factors that have impacted on theadoption of ERP by a large organisation in Oman. It highlighted the implementation ofstrategic systems that would transform the capabilities of the company at a time ofmajor change within the sector. There has been a dearth of research with regard to ERPimplementation with Oman. There has been some research in the Middle East in the areaof ERP but the fact that an internal member of staff undertook the interviews meant thatfur [. . .] study? Their insight into internal strategies and documentation was madeavailable and this added to the richness of the research. This research has also shownhow important it is to view ERP implementation as a strategic operation for theorganisation at every stage. Adopting a stakeholder involvement philosophy at an earlystage of development paid dividends for Omantel. This openness seems to havefacilitated an effective system development process that, in turn, led to a successfulimplementation.

This particular investigation has highlighted the benefits that can accrue from acommitment to full consultation and transparency throughout the various stages ofERP implementation. During any large system development there is a temptation forthe various stakeholder groups to be secretive about the scope of the project and theirroles within it. However, this can often have serious consequences in relation to areassuch as system testing. This crucial area can only be wholly addressed if rigoroustesting takes place – and this will only occur if there is a united effort to provide therequisite test data for the various processes and elements of the system.

Many organisations underestimate the organisational impact of ERPimplementations. Even the timing of the implementation can have adverse effects onvarious parts of the organisation or strategic partners, i.e. customers and clients.

Viewing the consultation process as important also allowed Omantel to collectstrategic intelligence that would help with the risk management that should alwaysunderpin any ERP implementation. The critical aspect of vendor selection was basedon Oracle’s commitment to make great efforts to understand Omantel’s core business.However, probably more important in the longer term was Oracle’s ability todemonstrate that it had the infrastructure, experience and reputation to align withOmantel’s vision and business objectives.

What Omantel has gone some way to achieving is to view an organisational ERPimplementation as external and strategic rather than internal and operational. This veryimportant distinction increased the chances of the ERP implementation being a success.This does not mean that there were no glitches in the overall process, i.e. some Omantelstaff expressed concerns that Oracle’s consultants were unwilling to share informationand knowledge with them. This is of particular concern as knowledge transfer should bea key part of any ERP implementation, especially where it is normally taken as a giventhat the vendor’s consultants will disappear soon after implementation.

It would be especially constructive if the stakeholder management andcommunication approach could be tested in other countries and sectors, and withdifferent sizes of organisations.

Even though single case study research, especially if undertaken by internalmanagers, can provide researchers with a significant amount of rich data, it is often

ERPimplementation

in Omantel

89

very difficult to determine firm conclusions. This is why further research in a numberof varied settings and environments is needed to consolidate any of the conclusionsrevealed by this particular research.

References

Aladwani, A.M. (2001), “Change management strategies for successful ERP implementation”,Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 266-75.

Allen, D. and Wilson, T. (2005), “Action, interaction and the role of ambiguity in theintroduction of mobile information systems in a UK police force”, IFIP InternationalFederation for Information Processing, Vol. 158, pp. 15-36.

Al-Mashari, M. and Zairi, M. (2000), “Information and business process equality: the case of SAPR/3 implementation”, Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries,Vol. 2, available at: www.unimas.my/fit/roger/EJISDC/EJISDC.htm (accessed 3 April2001).

Aloini, D., Dulmin, R. and Mininnoa, V. (2007), “Risk management in ERP project introduction:review of the literature”, Information & Management, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 547-67.

Al Wohaibi, M. (2006), Omantel – Management Discussion & Analysis Report – Year Ended31/12/06, available at: http://mrmewr.gov.om/Financials%20for%20website/2006/Year%20End%20English/Management%20Discussion%20And%20Analysis_2006_Final.pdf(accessed 17 January 2008).

Amoako-Gyampah, K. and Salam, A. (2004), “An extension of the technology acceptance modelin an ERP implementation environment”, Information & Management, Vol. 41 No. 6,pp. 731-45.

Beheshti, H. (2006), “What managers should know about ERP/ERP II”, Management ResearchNews, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 184-93.

Benders, J., Batenburg, R. and van der Blonk, H. (2006), “Sticking to standards; technical andother isomorphic pressures in deploying ERP-systems”, Information & Management,Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 194-203.

Berchet, C. and Habchi, G. (2005), “The implementation and deployment of an ERP system:an industrial case study”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 56 No. 6, pp. 588-605.

Biehl, M. (2007), “Success factors for implementing global information systems”,Communications of the ACM, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 53-8.

Brown, S.A., Massey, A.P., Montoya-Weiss, M.M. and Burkman, J.R. (2002), “Do I really have to?User acceptance of mandated technology”, European Journal of Information Systems,Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 283-95.

Davenport, T.H. (1998), “Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system”, Harvard BusinessReview, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 121-31.

Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Lowe, A. (1993), Management Research: An Introduction,Sage, London.

Eisenhardt, K. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, The Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50.

ESCWA (2003), “The United Nations economic and social commission for Western Asia. Profileof the information society in the sultanate of Oman”, E/ESCWA/ICTD/2003/11/Add No. 13,available at: www.escwa.un.org/wsis/reports/docs/Oman-E.pdf (accessed 11 January2008).

Finney, S. and Corbett, M. (2007), “ERP implementation: a compilation and analysis of criticalsuccess factors”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 329-47.

IMDS110,1

90

Gould, J. (2004), ERP ROI Myth & Reality: A Peerstone Research Report, available at: http://216.197.101.108/pdfs/ERP_ROI_Table_of_Contents_and_Summary.pdf (accessed 14 January2008).

Huang, S., Chang, I., Li, S. and Lin, M. (2004), “Assessing risk in ERP projects: identify andprioritize the factors”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 104 No. 8, pp. 681-8.

Jaafari, A. (2003), “Project management in the age of complexity and change”, ProjectManagement Journal, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 47-57.

Jakovljevic, P. (2001), “The ERP market 2001 and beyond”, available at: www.technologyevaluation.com

Keil, M. and Tiwana, A. (2006), “Relative importance of evaluation criteria for enterprise systems:a conjoint study”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 237-62.

Kholeif, A., Abdel-Kader, M. and Sherer, M. (2007), “ERP customization failure institutionalizedaccounting practices, power relations and market forces”, Journal of Accounting& Organizational Change, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 250-69.

Kumar, K. and van Hillegersberg, J. (2000), “ERP experiences and evolution”, Communications ofthe ACM, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 23-6.

Kuprenas, J. (2003), “Implementation and performance of a matrix organization structure”,International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 51-62.

Lamproulis, D. (2007), “Cultural space and technology enhance the knowledge process”,Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 30-44.

Maguire, S. (2004), “Reconciling the system requirements process in changing businessenvironments”, Information Management & Computer Security, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 362-72.

Maguire, S. and Ojiako, G.U. (2007), “Interventions for information systems introduction in theNHS”, Health Informatics Journal, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 283-302.

Maguire, S. and Redman, T. (2007), “The role of human resource management in informationsystems development”, Management Decision, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 252-64.

Markus, M.L., Tanis, C. and van Fenema, P.C. (2000), “Multisite ERP implementations”,Communications of the ACM, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 42-6.

Moller, C. (2005), “ERP II: a conceptual framework for next-generation enterprise systems”,Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 483-97.

Nah, F., Zuckweiler, K. and Lau, J. (2003), “ERP implementation: chief information officers’perceptions of critical success factors”, International Journal of Human-ComputerInteraction, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 5-22.

Ojiako, G.U. and Greenwood, D. (2007), “Information systems and technology serviceintroduction success criteria”, paper presented at PICMET 2007 Conference, PortlandInternational Centre for Management of Engineering and Technology, Management ofConverging Technologies, Portland State University, August 5-9.

Ojiako, G.U. and Maguire, S. (2006), “Divestiture as a strategic option for change in NITEL:lessons from the BT and AT&T experience”, INFO: The Journal of Policy, Regulation andStrategy, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 79-94.

Omantel Financial Statements (2006), Report on the Management and Organization of OmanTelecommunications Company, available at: www.omantel.net.om/Financials%20for%20website/2006/. . ./Corp%20Governance_Final2006.pdf (accessed 12 April 2007).

Onwumechili, C. and Okereke-Arungwa, J. (2003), “The morning of competition: Nigeria’s NITELdrags its feet with poor customer service”, INFO: The Journal of Policy, Regulation andStrategy, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 65-71.

ERPimplementation

in Omantel

91

Payne, W. (2000), “The time for ERP”, Work Study at MCP UP Limited, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 91-3.

Ponis, S., Tatsiopoulos, I., Tsitsiriggos, K. and Christou, I. (2007), “Integrating enterprise resourceplanning vendor evaluation into a proposed ERP selection methodology”, InternationalJournal of Integrated Supply Management, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 364-84.

Sivunen, P. (2005), Organizational Cultural Impact in ERP Implementation in China, SwedishSchool of Business, Hanken.

Swan, J., Newell, S. and Robertson, M. (1999), “The illusion of ‘best practice’ in informationsystems for operations management”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 8,pp. 284-93.

van Strien, P. (1997), “Towards a methodology of psychological practice, the regulative cycle”,Theory & Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 683-700.

Yin, R. (1989), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Yu, C. (2006), “Causes influencing the effectiveness of the post-implementation ERP system”,Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 105 No. 1, pp. 115-32.

Ziaee, M., Fathian, M. and Sadjadi, S. (2006), “A modular approach to ERP system selection:a case study”, Information Management & Computer Security, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 485-95.

Zomorrodian, A. (1986), “Experience with matrix management in a developing country”,International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 168-76.

Corresponding authorUdechukwu Ojiako can be contacted at: udechukwu.ojiako@soton.ac.uk

IMDS110,1

92

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