Data Management Practices in Australian Universities

							            Managing the Change associated with Implementing
            Administrative Information Systems in Universities.

Marilyn Van Dyke & Dr. Mark Sinclair, Central Queensland University,
Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia 4702

ABSTRACT:   This paper reports the work in progress of an applied study
examining implementations of administrative information systems or Enterprise
Resource Planning (ERP) systems in three Australian universities.
A growing body of literature on success factors in implementing ERPs in
organisations suggests that a number of strategies can translate from the
corporate sector to the university sector.

An aim of this study, therefore, is to identify factors that university staff
perceives as contributing to the effective implementation of an Enterprise
Resource Planning (ERP) system in a university. These factors will be compared
and contrasted with more generic organisational change strategies, in order to
determine which if any of the strategies can be applied to, or adapted for,
implementation in universities. A series of structured interviews with selected
university managers and staff at three Australian universities have been
conducted to collect data bearing on the matters gain a more comprehensive
view of the field. The interviews have focused on specific questions related to
change management strategies, in order to build a comparative case study of
change management in universities. The analysis of data should show
similarities and differences between corporate organisations and universities.

To date it appears that staff in different universities report varying experiences
of the implementation of Enterprise Resource Planning systems. There seems to
be a correlation between the degree of involvement of the staff with the projects
and the degree of satisfaction with the implementations. Characteristics that
appear to contribute to satisfaction are senior staff commitment, a clear project
brief, university management of the projects as opposed to the perception of
external consultants managing the project and involvement of staff in the change
processes.


Introduction
In an increasingly complex global and national higher education environment, it
can be argued that the role of organisational change management in Australian
Universities has become more important. Changes to the higher education
sector such as the Dawkins reforms in 1987 resulted in fundamental changes to
all Australian higher education institutions, especially economic rationalisation
of the industry and substantial growth in the number and diversity of enrolled
students. Additionally, with decreased government funding as a proportion of
operational income and an increasingly competitive global higher education
environment, universities have had to increase efficiency and introduce
competitive work practices. Concurrently, in response to the increasing cost of
higher education to the student, there is an expectation that universities should
provide enhanced levels in the quality of the learning experience for these more
                                       ATEM Conference September 2003                                          1
Marilyn Van Dyke & Dr. Mark Sinclair, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia 4702
demanding and discerning customers.              Many changes in university
organisational structures have followed.           These include downsizing,
restructuring and rationalisation of faculties and administrative areas and more
recently, the implementation of administrative information systems known as
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems.

Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems are designed to be a “single
comprehensive and integrated data-base which collects data from and feeds data
into modular applications supporting virtually all of a company‟s business
activities – across functions, across business units, across the world”
(Davenport, 1998, p.123). ERP software was introduced into US universities
and colleges from 1996 with the aim of improving and integrating the
administrative processes in student registration, Human Resource (HR) systems
and financial processing (Frantz, 2001). ERP systems have since been steadily
introduced into universities with the aim of improving their administrative
systems and efficiency while at the same time providing a focus on customer
service and the embracing of e-commerce strategies. Their implementation has
created organisational change management issues that are new for universities,
because these systems were primarily designed for corporate non-university
organisations. The software companies retailing ERPs originally developed the
systems for global manufacturing organisations and, in the mid 1990‟s
redesigned them initially for US universities and colleges and more recently for
the global education market. At present, there is little research evidence about
how to successfully implement business systems in non-business settings such
as universities.

Australian universities have been implementing ERP systems since 1998 when
the University of New South Wales (UNSW) undertook such a project, closely
followed by Central Queensland University (CQU). Since then most Australian
universities have initiated some form of ERP system. Crucially, these
implementations come at a time when little is known about best practice in
university implementations and much research remains to be undertaken. In the
Australian university context specifically there appears to be little published
research about ERP implementations. However, the larger body of literature
discussing change management strategies developed and employed in other
industries may provide a model for best practice change management in
universities.

ERPs are critical to universities‟ organisational performance (Buchanan,
Claydon et al., 1999), because the introduction of ERP systems in large
organisations such as universities, and the processes of re-engineering they
entail, impact substantially on the organisation and its people (McCredie &
Updegrove, 1999). Continuous improvement in technology and the increasing
complexity of administrative and support systems in tertiary education mean
that universities will have to upgrade their information technology systems on a
regular basis. It is therefore necessary to carefully manage the changes that
accompany these processes.

The three universities studied have implemented ERP systems that involved an
associated re-engineering of related administrative processes. Of the three
                                       ATEM Conference September 2003                                          2
Marilyn Van Dyke & Dr. Mark Sinclair, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia 4702
universities studied (X, Y & Z for the purposes of this research), University X
has, over a period of three and a half years, in conjunction with a corporate
implementation partner, implemented an ERP system. The two other universities
have also implemented ERPs (University Y and University Z) with corporate
implementation partners, but more recently than University X.

The rapidly changing environments in which all three universities in the study
have been operating, particularly over the last five years, produced a situation in
which the existing administrative systems were unable to satisfactorily provide
the required information systems and processes to ensure the efficient
management of these growing and complex organisations. The universities, in
conjunction with corporate implementation partners, implemented ERP systems
that involved re-engineering related processes. The decision to implement ERP
systems was viewed as an important investment of substantial resources
designed to improve operational efficiency and productivity while
advantageously positioning the universities in the global higher education
environment.

Importantly for the university sector, the exponential growth in the number of
organisations and universities implementing ERPs over the last five years does
not appear to be accompanied by concurrent research on their impact and
effectiveness for the organisation (Kennerley & Neely, 2001). Whittaker reports
numerous examples of both public and private organisations experiencing ERP
system failures and major budget overruns (1999). Yet, higher education
institutions are implementing ERPs. From the small amount of research on
implementations in universities, it appears that they are experiencing similar
issues to non-university organisations.

Context of the Introduction of ERPs in Universities
From the Dawkins restructuring in 1986, the quality audits in the early 90‟s, the
Hoare Report in 1995, the Vanstone financial cutbacks of 1996, and the recently
announced federal reforms that target governance and inefficient work practices,
universities continue to be forced to look critically at their management
practices and the need to become more efficient (Coaldrake & Stedman, 1998).
For a university to remain economically viable, it needs to implement efficient
management practices. At the same time universities need to produce a range of
products that sell on the Australian and global markets (Giddens, 1994).
Universities are aiming to become global providers of education with a focus on
customer service and e-commerce strategies (Frantz, 2001). It is for these
reasons that Australian universities, like their US counterparts, have begun to
implement large administrative information systems such as ERPs. ERPs are
viewed as an important component of being able to be competitive and efficient.
Thus, Universities will need to continue to upgrade their administrative
information systems and the use of technology generally.

Successful change management strategies developed and employed in other
industries may provide a model for change management in universities during
the implementation of an ERP. There is a growing body of research literature
providing experience-based guidance on change management in private and
public sector industries implementing administrative systems (Carnevale,
                                       ATEM Conference September 2003                                          3
Marilyn Van Dyke & Dr. Mark Sinclair, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia 4702
  Berestka et al., 1999, Eleey & Oppenheim, 1999, Smith, 2000). Some of the
  literature describes the experience-based guidance gained through the
  management of change projects in the US higher education system (Jaacks &
  Kurtz, 1999, McCredie & Updegrove, 1999, Olsen, 2000, Feemster, 2000).
  There are also a number of higher degree theses on the implementation of ERPs
  in US universities and colleges (Frantz 2001, Vega, 2001, Lee 2001). However,
  in the Australian university context there appears to be only a few research
  papers (Kamp, 2001, McConnachie, 2002, Oliver & Romm 2001) as yet on the
  management of ERP implementations specifically.

  Change Management Strategies
  Given the small but growing research literature on the implementation of ERPs
  undertaken in the tertiary sector, it is useful to examine the literature from
  private and public sector industries implementing ERPs. Though Buchanan,
  Claydon et al. (1999) warn that it may be difficult for managers to translate
  change management strategies from one setting into another, it is valuable to
  examine what is available and determine whether it has applicability to
  universities. For example, from this literature on change management the
  following principles are argued likely to be essential to successful change
  management process in a variety of public and private organisations.

  The change management principles available in the literature re-iterate one
  overarching principle and five subsidiary principles. Change management
  literature on information systems and ERP implementations overwhelmingly
  endorse the importance of having a clear rationale for the implementation,
  endorsement by the senior executive of the organisation and an identified
  sponsor responsible for the project (Cooper 1990, Kotter 1996, Hall 1999,
  Whittaker 1999, Aladwani 2001, Cotteleer 2001, Milford 2000, Davenport,
  1998 & 2000, Skok & Legge 2002, Frantz 2001).

  In addition, corporate sector literature supports the importance of the senior
  manager‟s demonstrated sponsorship and involvement in the front end planning
  of an implementation, especially the role that senior management plays in
  technology implementations (Livingstone 2002, Somers 2001, Whittaker 1999,
  Butler 2000, Hall 1999, Skok 2002, Cotteleer 2001). More specifically, Frankel
  suggests that managers are responsible for the choice, timing, scale, rate of
  introduction and the utilisation of the new technology (1990, p11). Top
  management support and involvement is thus a critical success factor in the
  outcomes of information systems implementations (Somers 2001, Whittaker
  1999, Butler 2000, Hall 1999, Skok 2002, Cotteleer 2001, Milford 2000,
  Davenport, 1998 & 2000, Cooper 1990).

  Demonstrated senior management support and sponsorship impacts on a number
  of other principles associated with the effectiveness of the implementations of
  technological changes. The other principles commonly cited depend upon the
  first principle being in place. The other five principles include:

1.     A detailed planning process underpinning the effective management and
       control of the project (Hall 1999, Kotter 1996, Aladwani 2001, Skok &
       Legge 2002, Davenport 2000, Frantz 2001). Effectiveness of corporate
                                         ATEM Conference September 2003                                          4
  Marilyn Van Dyke & Dr. Mark Sinclair, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia 4702
     information systems projects involves achieving planned outcomes in
     particular time frames and within specific budgets. The responsibility for
     initial planning and development of the scope of a system implementation
     usually rests with senior management initially, and then is delegated to
     project managers. Consequently, according to Jiang et al (2001), the skills
     and abilities of these project managers, including their technological and
     people skills, impact heavily on project outcomes such as keeping to
     prescribed timelines, budgets and deliverables. Davenport (1998) and Frantz
     (2001) warn that senior managers must retain control of the implementation
     rather than delegating it to technologists because management may find
     itself controlled by the technology system rather than vice-versa. An ERP,
     unlike an information system implementation, requires planning to be
     undertaken for the whole organisation as “an ERP will effect the whole
     organisation” (Milford 2000, p.952).

2. Clear management of the role of consultants in organisational change
   situations (Davenport 1998, Frantz 2001). Value for money and skills
   transfer to the organisation are also important when employing consultants
   (McCredie & Updegrove 1999, Smith 2000).

3. Development of effective communication strategies adapted to the particular
   culture of the organisation tied to training in the new processes and skills
   (Hall 1999, Kotter 1996, Aladwani 2001, Skok & Legge 2002). Providing
   effective employee training on using the system is an important change
   management strategy. Jaacks & Kurtz (1999) and McCredie & Updegrove
   (1999) stress the importance of timely and comprehensive training for all
   levels of the organisation. They also stress the importance of regular
   communication about the changes, in language that is understood by those at
   all levels of the organisation, so that all staff understand what is happening.

4. Staff commitment for the change and paying attention to the people culture
   factor of the organisation (Hall 1999, Kotter 1996, Aladwani 2001, Skok &
   Legge 2002). Lack of effective user involvement in the development of the
   implementation of administrative system projects can lead to poor
   engagement with the outcomes of the implementation and poor morale
   (Jaacks 1999, McCredie 1999, Smith 2000). Poor morale can be
   symptomatic of a number of wider issues relating to the implementation
   processes and practices and affect the outcomes of the implementation.
   Participative change strategies involving consultation and communication
   with staff are strongly endorsed by Buchanan, Claydon et al (1999) and
   Butler (2000), who maintain that the reality for most organisations is that
   human factors and particularly communications, tend to be managed poorly.
   Communicating the purpose of the associated re–engineering of processes in
   addition to the benefits of the ERP implementation in the organisation is
   critical for ensuring that staff across the organisation accepts the change.

5. A project review to learn from the experience of the current project for
   future change projects (Kotter, 1996, Hall 1999, Feemster, 2000, Seddon,
   2002). This aspect of university implementations is mostly ignored but

                                       ATEM Conference September 2003                                          5
Marilyn Van Dyke & Dr. Mark Sinclair, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia 4702
      important learning dimension for future projects or inevitable upgrades of
      the systems.

Other research findings that may have particular relevance for university
implementations include the following:
 Livingstone et al (2002) report that attitudes towards change and the
adoption of new technology became more positive following a delay in time
frames in a large university implementation. This finding stands in contrast to
the literature from the corporate sector that values keeping to specified time
frames.
 Feemster (2000) reports that in ERP implementations in US universities it
appears that institutions where the software was minimally customized from the
original software (known as staying „vanilla‟) more successful outcomes follow.
 In US universities and colleges it appears that workloads for staff are greatly
    underestimated by senior and project managers and it is left to operational
    managers to deal with the increased workloads and resultant workplace
    issues (McCredie & Updegrove, 1999, Smith 2000). Similarly, in Australia
    anecdotal evidence from the present study appears to confirm this resultant
    underestimation of workloads for administrative staff across universities.

Research Method
This research involves a case study of one university implementing an ERP,
with two further case studies undertaken to allow a cross case analysis. The
purpose of the studies is to explore the generalisability or otherwise of change
management factors across a number of Australian Universities implementing
ERPs.

The first phase of the study involved a pilot study consisting of the analysis of a
series of focus group interviews conducted at one regional university. The focus
groups identify key issues relating to implementations of an ERP in that
Australian university. The second phase of the research has focused on
collecting data about key propositions derived from these focus groups and the
relevant literature. Data has been collected via semi-structured survey
interviews with selected university managers and staff at both the original case
study university and the two other Australian universities. Questions relate to
the use of change management strategies and processes, and differences in the
satisfaction of staff with the conduct of the implementation and the management
of change within these environments. A preliminary cross-case analysis has
been undertaken to investigate the relationships between the findings at the
different universities and to further develop the case studies.

Preliminary Results
To date, the focus groups conducted at one university have been analysed in
detail with only preliminary results from the interviews available at this stage.
An analysis of data from focus group interviews with staff revealed that the
institution appeared to have difficulties in coping with the implementation and
ensuing changes. In particular, the new ERP system would seem to have
impacted negatively on the morale of administrative staff. Further areas of
concern relate to the learning experiences of the organisation in its
                                       ATEM Conference September 2003                                          6
Marilyn Van Dyke & Dr. Mark Sinclair, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia 4702
implementation of major change. For example, a major issue cited by staff is
increased workloads in the first stage of the implementation. Increased
workloads relate to a significant learning curve around the new ERP system
processes, in part due to the increased growth in the organisation and in part
due to a need to further change and improve financial processes.

Focus group participants specifically identified the following as impediments to
the successful implementation of the ERP at their university:
      Overwhelmingly the unforeseen increase in staff workloads as a result
        of the implementation of the new ERP system was identified as the
        major impediment for many staff. This increase in workloads for staff
        is cited by a number of the papers describing the management of
        change projects in the US higher education system.
      The increase in workloads appeared to be related to the less than
        effective planning in the organisation. There was a widely held view
        expressed by participants that a lack of clarity existed in the
        University‟s direction and planning processes and this was cited as a
        major impediment to the success of the ERP implementation.
      The participants saw deficiencies in management and co-ordination of
        the project by senior University staff as a major impediment. It was
        perceived that senior management had not sanctioned the ERP project
        unequivocally and neither did they fully understand the magnitude of
        the consequent change.
      Some participants expressed concern that senior executive assumed a
        subordinate position in relation to corporate partners and further
        expressed the view that the ERP project preferably should have been
        managed by senior University staff.
      Participants‟ comments suggested that cultural differences between the
        University as a whole and the implementation partners impacted on the
        relationship between the two.
      Lack of involvement of staff in user group processes and committees
        responsible for the project. Participants also expressed the perception
        that their suggestions were not valued in the re-engineering of
        University processes that was undertaken by the organisation during the
        implementation.
      Lack of effective communication mechanisms about the
        implementation was cited by staff.

Moreover, senior management was perceived as having a lack of understanding
of the scope of the project and the capacity to manage the „potential‟ and „real‟
risk factors impeding the progress of the implementation. Crucially, the lack of
a clear „champion‟ of the project was evidenced by the number of changes to
the structures of committees and staff responsible for the project. Feedback
from the focus group participants indicated that there was a genuine concern
that there would be losses of existing jobs as a result of the purchase and
implementation of the new ERP system. Such a response was understandable
in the light of the following view, expressed by a senior executive staff member
of the University, just prior to initial ERP implementation, and cited by
participants in the majority of focus groups:
                                       ATEM Conference September 2003                                          7
Marilyn Van Dyke & Dr. Mark Sinclair, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia 4702
“The system as presented to the University has the potential to make great cost
savings for the University. The University will probably save 200 jobs and have
a 48% return on investment.”
Participants interpreted cost savings as future job losses and this subsequently
lowered morale. Paradoxically, implementation of the new ERP system
required increased staff levels.

On a more positive note, the interviews from this university showed that the
experience gained from the first stage of the implementation improved the
implementation of the next stage of the ERP. These improvements included
enhanced change management strategies, improved training processes, and the
use of implementation coordinators throughout the University. Further, the
identification of an alternate senior executive staff member as the champion of
the ERP project resulted in improved University control and co-ordination of the
project. Senior staff and supervisors across the University were more positive
about the proposed value of the next stage of the project. Staff morale improved
during the second stage of the implementation.

However, the interviews conducted with selected staff at three different
universities show a varying picture at the different universities. Staff were
selected for interview based on their role and position in the organisation in
relation to the implementation of the ERP. Thus, staff from all levels of the
organisation were invited to participate in the interviews including:
     senior management
     administrative staff who are end users of the system
     academic staff
     technical staff
     staff employed in implementation projects.

Conclusions
In summary, while different staff in different universities report varying
experiences of the implementation of Enterprise Resource Planning systems,
there appears to be a correlation between the degree of involvement of the staff
with the implementation projects and the degree of satisfaction with the
implementations appears to be greater. Characteristics that contributed to this
were perceived senior staff commitment, a clear project brief, university
management of the projects as opposed to the perception of external consultants
managing the project, re-engineering of university processes prior to the
implementation of the system and involvement of staff in the change processes.
There appears to be a correlation between involvement of project mangers from
within the organization, chosen for their people management skills rather than
technical expertise, leading to the greater satisfaction of staff with the university
implementations. The universities where the implementation delayed their “go-
live” time-frames and where the software was not greatly customized also
correlated with enhanced staff satisfaction with the implementations.


These preliminary findings are starting to provide an outline for the
development of a set of principles for the management of organisational change

                                       ATEM Conference September 2003                                          8
Marilyn Van Dyke & Dr. Mark Sinclair, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia 4702
during implementations of ERPs in Australian universities. Further analysis of
the data should allow this research to refine these principles.


REFERENCES

Aladwani, A.M., (2001). “Change management strategies for successful
ERP implementation.” Business Process Management Journal, 7, Issue 3;
266-275.
Bradford, M. (2001). The Implementation of Enterprise Resource Planning: An
 Innovation Diffusion Approach. Knoxville, The University of Tennessee: 94.

Buchanan, D., Claydon, T. & Doyle, M. (1999). "Organisation development
 and change: The legacy of the nineties." Human Resource Management
 Journal 9(2): 20-37.

Carnevale, M., Berestka, S. & Morrissey, D. (1999). "Mount Holyoke College
 Reshapes Reengineering." CAUSE/EFFECT 22(4): 1-6.

Coaldrake, P. and L. Stedman (1998). On the Brink Australia's Universities
 Confronting their Future. Brisbane, University of Queensland Press.

Cooper, Randolph B. and Zmud, Robert W., 'Information Technology
 Implementation Research: Technological Diffusion Approach.' (1990)
 36(2) Management Science 123.

Cotteleer, Mark J., Operational Performance Following ERP Implementation
 PhD Thesis, Harvard University, (2001).

Davenport, T. H., Mission Critical: Realizing the Promise of Enterprise
 Systems Harvard University (2000).

Davenport, T. H., 'Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system' (1998)
 76(4) Harvard Business Review 121

Eleey, M. & Oppenheim, L. (1999). "Retaining IT staff through Effective
  Institutional Planning and Management." CAUSE/EFFECT 22(4).

Feemster, R., 'Taming the software monster' (2000) 62 University Business
 25.

Frantz, P.S., Perceptions of selected administrators regarding Enterprise
  Planning software implementation best practices, and the relationship
  between these perceptions and selected variables. PhD thesis, The
  University of Southern Mississippi, 2001.

Giddens, A., Beyond Left and Right, (1994), Polity Press, Cambridge.

Hall, J., 'Six principles for successful business change management' (1999)
 43(4) Management Services 16.
                                       ATEM Conference September 2003                                          9
Marilyn Van Dyke & Dr. Mark Sinclair, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia 4702
Jaacks, G.E. and Kurtz, M., 'Lessons Learned in Process Reengineering at a
  Community College' (1999) 22(4) CAUSE/EFFECT 1.

Jiang, J.J., Klein, G., & Chen, H., 'The relative influence of IS project
  implementation policies and project leadership on eventual outcomes'
  (2001) 32(3) Project Management Journal 49.

Kamp, S. (2001). Enterprise System Integration: Exploring influencing factors
 in Indonesian and Australian organisations. Industrial Engineering and
 Management. Enschede, University of Twente: 107.

Kennerley, M., & Neely, A., 'Enterprise resource planning: analysing the
 impact' 2001 12/2 Integrated Manufacturing Systems 103

Kotter, J.P., (1996), Leading Change. Harvard Business School Press,
 Boston.

Lee, J. (2001). A Grounded Theory: Integration and Internalization in ERP
 adoption and use. Graduate College, University of Nebraska: 165.

Livingstone, L.P., 'Changes in attitudes towards an information systems
  innovation: reactions to implementation delays' (2002) 20(2) American
  Business Review 80.

Marginson, S. University Organisation in an Age of Perpetual Motion.
 Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, Vol. 8, No.2, 1996.

McConnachie, J. (2002). Organisational Cultures and ERP implementation.
 DBA Thesis School of Business. Lismore, Southern Cross University.

McCredie, J. & Updegrove, D., 'Enterprise System Implementations; Lessons
 from the Trenches' (1999) 22(4) CAUSE/EFFECT 1.

Milford, M. & Stewart, G., 'Are ERP Implementations Qualitatively Different
 from Other Large Systems Implementations?' (Paper presented at the 6th
 Americas Conference on Information Systems, Long Beach, California,
 2000).

Oliver, D. and Romm, C. (2001). Integrated Systems: Management Approaches
 to Acquiring Them in Australian Universities. Managing and Using
 Information Systems: A Strategic Approach. K. Pearson, Wiley.

Olsen, F. (2000). "As PeopleSoft problems persist, Cleveland State looks for a
 new project manager." The Chronicle of Higher Education 46(22): 49-50.

Orlikowski, W.J. "Integrated Information Environment or Matrix of Control?
 The Contradictory Implications of Information Technology", Accounting,
 Management and Information Technologies, (1:1), 1991, pp. 9-42.

                                       ATEM Conference September 2003                                          10
Marilyn Van Dyke & Dr. Mark Sinclair, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia 4702
Prasad, P. "Systems of meaning: ethnography as a methodology for the study of
  information technologies," in Information Systems and Qualitative Research,
  A.S. Lee, J. Liebenau & J.I. DeGross (eds.), Chapman and Hall, London,
  1997, pp. 101-118.

Reid, I. (1996). Higher Education or Education for Hire? Queensland:
 Central Queensland University Press.

Robbins, S., & Mukerji, D. (1994). Managing Organisations, Second edition.
 Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Schatszman, L., & Strauss, A. L. (1973). Field Research. Englewood Cliffs,
 N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Skok, W., & Legge, M., 'Evaluating Enterprise resource Planning (ERP)
 Systems using an Interpretive Approach' (2002) 9(2) Knowledge and
 Process Management 72.

Seddon, P. B., V. Graeser, et al. (2002). "Measuring Organizational IS
 Effectiveness: An Overview and Update of Senior Management Perspectives."
 The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems 33(2): 11-28.

Smith, J.M., 'Avoiding Problems in Implementing Administrative Systems'
 (2000) (1) Educause Quarterly 50.

Somers, T.M. and Nelson, K., 'The Impact of Critical Success Factors across
 the Stages of Enterprise Resource Planning Implementations' (Paper
 presented at the 34th International Conference on Systems Sciences,
 Hawaii, 2001).

Vega, R. R. (2001). The Impact of Enterprise Resource Planning Systems on
Forecasting, Texas A&M University: 175.

Whittaker, B., 'What went wrong? Unsuccessful information technology
 projects' (1999) 7(1) Information Management and Security 23.




                                       ATEM Conference September 2003                                          11
Marilyn Van Dyke & Dr. Mark Sinclair, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia 4702