The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 63 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Factors affecting ERP system adoption: A comparative analysis between SMEs and large companies
Abstract
Purpose Proposes providing an insight about enterprise resource planning (ERP) adoption, highlighting contact points and significant differences between the way small to medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) and large companies approach such a task. Design/methodology/approach The research is based on a wide literature review, focused on the identification of a taxonomy of business and organizational factors influencing ERP adoption. The deriving research model was incorporated in a questionnaire that was preliminarily tested and finally provided to a sample of 366 companies of any size. Responses were collected through personal interviews made by a dedicated team to a top manager. Findings The analysis of the empirical data shows that business complexity, as a composed factor, is a weak predictor of ERP adoption, whereas just company size turns out to be a very good one. In other words, companies seem to be disregarding ERP systems as an answer to their business complexity. Unexpectedly, SMEs disregard financial constraints as the main cause for ERP system non‐adoption, suggesting structural and organizational reasons as major ones. This pattern is partially different from what was observed in large organizations where the first reason for not adopting an ERP system is organizational. Moreover, the decision process regarding the adoption of ERP systems within SMEs is still more affected by exogenous reasons or “opportunity of the moment” than business‐related factors, contrary to…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The successful implementation of ERP systems is significantly influenced by factors beyond the technology itself, especially user training and management support.”
In the citing paper
“Research shows that top management support and comprehensive user training are critical to improving user satisfaction, which is a key indicator of ERP success [10], [11].”
In the citing paper
“When management is actively involved in the implementation process, provides necessary resources, and fosters a supportive environment, users are more likely to embrace the system and be satisfied with its use [10], [17], [24] -[26].”
In the citing paper
“Research shows that top management support and comprehensive user training are critical to improving user satisfaction, which is a key indicator of ERP success [10], [11].”
In the citing paper
“Research consistently highlights that top management's involvement is essential for providing necessary resources and ensuring alignment with organizational goals.”
In the citing paper
“Management support is indeed a critical factor influencing the success of ERP system implementation.”
In the citing paper
“Research shows that top management support and comprehensive user training are critical to improving user satisfaction, which is a key indicator of ERP success [10], [11].”
Citations
Cites
Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1994) · CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) · Cited by 5,747
How information gives you competitive advantage
Porter, M. E., & Millar, V. A. (1985) · Cited by 4,445
Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system.
Davenport, T. H. (1998) · PubMed · Cited by 3,340
Strategy, structure, and economic performance
Rumelt, R. P. (1974) · Cited by 2,379
Critical factors for successful implementation of enterprise systems
Nah, F. F., Lau, J. L., & Kuang, J. (2001) · Business Process Management Journal · doi:10.1108/14637150110392782 · Cited by 1,393
(2000) · Cited by 1,267
Handbook of Organizational Measurement
Aldrich, B. C., Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1988) · Teaching Sociology · doi:10.2307/1318173 · Cited by 1,117
Enterprise resource planning: A taxonomy of critical factors
Al‐Mashari, M., Al‐Mudimigh, A. S., & Zairi, M. (2002) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(02)00554-4 · Cited by 974
Organizational Size and the Structuralist Perspective: A Review, Critique, and Proposal
Kimberly, J. R. (1976) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2391717 · Cited by 971
Sanders, W. G., & Carpenter, M. A. (1998) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/257100 · Cited by 940
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- European Commission (1996), “Commission recommendation of 3 April 1996 concerning the definition of small and medium‐sized enterprises”, Official Journal, L 107, pp. 0004‐0009.
- Gable, G. (1998), “Large package software: a neglected technology?”, Journal of Global Information Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 3‐4.
- Hicks, D.A. and Stecke, K.E. (1998), “The ERP maze: enterprise resource planning and other production and inventory control software”, IEEE Solutions, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 12‐16.
- Minahan, T. (1998), “Enterprise resource planning: strategies not included”, Purchasing, Vol. 125 No. 1, pp. 112‐27.
- Pearce, J.A., Chapman, B.L. and David, F.R. (1982), “Environmental scanning for small and growing firms”, Journal of Small Business Management, July, pp. 27‐34.
- Rosemann, M. (1999), “ERP software characteristics and consequences”, Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Information Systems, Copenhagen.
- Venkatraman, N. (1994), “IT‐enabled business transformation: from automation to business scope redefinition”, Sloan Management Review, Winter.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fortune favors the prepared: How SMEs approach business model innovations in Industry 4.0
Müller, J. M., Buliga, O., & Voigt, K.-I. (2018) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.12.019 · Cited by 1,262
Mittal, S., Khan, M. A., Romero, D., & Wuest, T. (2018) · Journal of Manufacturing Systems · doi:10.1016/j.jmsy.2018.10.005 · Cited by 1,121
Predicting SMEs' adoption of enterprise systems
Ramdani, B., Kawalek, P., & Lorenzo, O. (2009) · Journal of Enterprise Information Management · doi:10.1108/17410390910922796 · Cited by 582
Stentoft, J., Jensen, K. W., Philipsen, K., & Haug, A. (2020) · Production Planning & Control · doi:10.1080/09537287.2020.1768318 · Cited by 565
Risk management in ERP project introduction: Review of the literature
Aloini, D., Dulmin, R., & Mininno, V. (2007) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2007.05.004 · Cited by 455
Metadata
- Authors
- Buonanno, G., Faverio, P., Pigni, F., Ravarini, A., Sciuto, D., & Tagliavini, M.
- Affiliations
- University Carlo Cattaneo (IT)
- Venue
- Journal of Enterprise Information Management
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2005-08-01
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 384-426
- ISSN
- 1741-0398 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1509316523
- Cited by
- 449
- References
- 66
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 38 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 41
- FWCI
- 26.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Enterprise Information Management (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › ERP Systems Implementation and Impact
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Governance and Management
- Keywords
- enterprise resource planning, ERP adoption, small and medium-sized enterprises, large corporations, business complexity, organizational change, firm size, financial constraints, process integration, data redundancy, information systems adoption
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
