Revisiting the role of communication quality in ERP project success

Abstract

Purpose -Communication quality is repeatedly listed among the top success factors to consider when implementing an ERP system. Analysis shows its role is more complex. It helps some aspect of success but has no influence on others. The aim of this paper is to conduct a case study to determine the role of communication quality in the success of an ERP project implementation. Design/methodology/approach -A case study was conducted to determine the role of communication quality in the success of an ERP project implementation. Findings -Results suggest that different aspects of communication quality impact different dimensions of project success. Some dimensions of project success did not seem influenced by communication quality. Results also show that, for the dimensions of project success that are influenced by communication quality, the form might be as important as the content of communication.Research limitations/implications -The literature may be repeating an "accepted truth" without actually testing it. The evaluation of the regularity of the patterns observed will require additional observations. Also, the reasons behind the association between the communication quality attributes and the different components of success will need to be further investigated. Practical implications -For managers, the findings highlight that communication is not a silver bullet when conducting ERP projects. Managers should also be aware that the form of the communication efforts will likely have as much impact as the content of the communication process. The results specially emphasized the importance of openness in communication.Originality/value -The study considers nine dimensions of communication quality. By examining the separate effects of the communication content and form on the components of ERP project success, the paper provides a deeper understanding of the role of communication in the implementation of ERP systems.

Evaluating virtuality in teams: a conceptual model

“…Formality balance Aubert, Hooper, and Schnepel (2013); Mohr and Sohi (1996) The attributes captured in Table 4 are the constructs deployed in this study to assess the decrease of the quality of communications as recommended in seminal studies such as Kahn, Strong, and Wang (2002) and Mohr and Sohi (1996) and reconfirmed recently by Aubert, Hooper, and Schnepel (2013 …”

“…In response to this need, the authoritative study by Mohr and Sohi (1996) developed a model based on major aspects of communications to assess the overall quality of communications. Recently, Aubert, Hooper, and Schnepel (2013) acknowledged the consensus in the literature on the effectiveness of the model introduced by Mohr and Sohi (1996). Building on the above-mentioned model alongside the integration of the most popular metrics for assessing the quality of communications, Aubert, Hooper, and Schnepel (2013) presented the metrics for assessing the quality of communications.…”

“…(1) Accuracy Aubert, Hooper, and Schnepel (2013); Kahn, Strong, and Wang (2002); Mohr and Sohi (1996) Bi-directionality Aubert, Hooper, and Schnepel (2013); Mohr and Sohi (1996) …”

“…Table 4. Attributes for evaluating the quality of communications (see (Aubert, Hooper, and Schnepel 2013;Mohr and Sohi 1996) for definitions of the items).…”

A Primary Human Critical Success Factors Model for the ERP System Implementation

“…Over 60 research articles addressing solely human critical success factors (HCSFs) were therefore carefully examined to get a deeper insight. The addressed HCSFs were: Competence (Charland et al, 2015;Massini and Wassenhove, 2009;Santos Rodriguez and Dorrego, 2008), Knowledge transfer (Goyette et al, 2014;Lech, 2011, Xu and Ma, 2008, Tacit knowledge sharing (Irick, 2007;Sun, 2007;Vandaie, 2008;Scorta, 2008), Knowledge management and education (O'Leary, 2002;Mohamed and McLaren, 2009), Communication (Aubert et al, 2013;Wang and Chen, 2006), Motivation (Walsh and Schneider, 2002;Yatsuzuka et al, 2009), Team composition and transformation (Yeh and Chou, 2005;Hamani et al, 2012;Lui and Chan, 2008), Organizational and team learning cycle (Akkermans and Helden, 2002;Bologa and Lupu, 2014;Akgun et al, 2014 ), Team resilience (Amaral et al, 2015), Problem solving competence (Lin et al, 2015, Li et al, 2010, Conflict resolution (Wang and Chen, 2006;Chou and Yeh, 2007), Relationship bonding (Hung et al, 2012), Spiral continuous improvement (McGinnis and Huang, 2007;Scorta, 2008), Cognitive learning (Cronan et al, 2012), Collective intelligence (Yuan et al, 2007), Knowledge withholding intentions and social cognition (Tsay et al, 2014), Group cohesiveness and normative conformity (Tsay et al, 2014), and Personal interest in Agency theo...…”