THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EFFECTIVE STRATEGY AND ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING (ERP) SYSTEMS BUSINESS PROCESSES: A CRITICAL FACTOR

APPROACH by W. Allen Huckabee Jr. JUDITH L. FORBES, PhD, Faculty Mentor and Chair CHARLOTTE NEUHAUSER, PhD, Committee Member DANIEL C. PARKER, PhD, Committee Member Barbara Butts Williams, PhD, Dean, School of Business

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University March 2013

 W. Allen Huckabee Jr., 2013

Abstract Current research on enterprise resource planning (ERP) system success in creating a competitive advantage reveals a gap in linking ERP business processes to a competitive advantage. Previous research on building capabilities suggested that combining routines and practices, technology, and know-how allows a firm to create a capability of strategic importance. This study seeks to investigate the link between the information effect of business processes implemented in an ERP system and a component of total asset visibility (TAV) to determine whether the information effect could contribute to a strategic objective in maintaining a competitive advantage. Statistically significant correlations exist between the information effect of maintenance management business processes and the strategic capability of visibility of assets in maintenance at both the tactical and operational level of strategy, specifically Army strategy. Correlation and regression analysis were used to investigate a statistical dataset using purposive sampling to examine the relationship between effective strategy and the information effects of maintenance business processes. The statistically significant results of this study indicate that the information effect of ERP business processes provides organizational leaders with the information necessary to evaluate an organizations maintenance capabilities at the operational level, while providing the information to redirect repair parts to equipment that is more essential to the organizations mission than other equipment that is non-essential. This study suggests that if a public sector organization identifies, maps, and implements in an ERP the business processes that contribute to a strategic goal, the organization will perform better than other organizations.

Dedication I dedicate this to my wife, Dianna, and children Billy, Zachary, and Samantha. Without their support and understanding I could have not achieved what I have or pursued my education goals and aspirations, which culminated with this document and a PhD. Thank you all, and I love you all!

iii

Acknowledgments I acknowledge the following people for supporting me throughout the PhD learning process, as each of these individuals contributed assistance to my PhD journey. Mr. Jeffrey Bales, Mr. Howard (Lee) Dixon, Dr. Venkat Bommineni, MAJ Marcus Smoot, Dr. Randy Sherbs, and Ms. Robin Daniels all provided advice and support during the brain storming sessions. Mr. Jeffrey Bales, Mr. Lee Dixon, and MAJ Marcus Smoot were instrumental in providing motivation along this journey and helped to work out issues when I was stuck. Ms. Robin Daniels was instrumental in guiding me through the details of the statistics portion of Chapter 4. I also would like to acknowledge my Mentor, Dr. Judith Forbes, for providing superior support and advice throughout the dissertation process; thank you Dr. Forbes.

iv

Table of Contents Acknowledgments List of Tables List of Figures CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Problem Background of the Study Statement of the Problem Purpose of the Study Rationale Research Questions Significance of the Study Definition of Terms Assumptions and Limitations Conceptual Framework Organization of the Remainder of the Study CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW Total Asset Visibility (TAV) Visibility of Operational Inventories Visibility of Supplies in the Pipeline Visibility of Assets in Maintenance Army Maintenance and Logistics Processes Supporting Logistics Business Processes v iv vii viii 1 5 9 10 12 13 14 15 17 20 23 26 28 29 34 35 35 36 40

Business Information Enterprise Resource Planning Systems Motivations for Using an ERP ERP Success and Failure Enterprise Success The Benefits of Using an ERP ERP Alignment and Fit ERP Effectiveness Integration Process Management Critical Success Factors Resource Based View of the Firm Resources Capabilities Core Capabilities CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY Research Design Population and Sample Instrumentation and Measures Data Collection Data Analysis Validity and Reliability Ethical Considerations vi

49 52 53 56 58 60 63 65 66 68 70 78 82 84 88 92 92 95 100 101 102 103 103

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS Database Demographics Validity and Reliability Normality of Data Homogeneity of Variance Post-hoc Test Linear Regression Research Questions Summary of Results CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS Summary of Research Findings Conceptual Framework Limitations Future Research REFERENCES APPENDIX A. MISSION CRITICAL FUNCTION AND CRITICAL MISSION FUNCTION MATRIX

105 105 107 108 110 111 111 112 115 116 116 118 118 120 123 133

vii

List of Tables Table 1. Logistics Information Systems with Strategic Orientation Table 2. Variables Relevant to this Study Table 3. Business Processes that Support the Four Core Maintenance Processes Table 4. Target Audience by User Role/Participant group Table 5. Study Demographics by User Role Table 6. Research Question, Hypothesis, and Data Element Matrix Table 7. Records Removed Table 8. Sample Demographics Table 9. Tests of Normality Table 10. Test of Homogeneity of Variance Table 11. Non-parametric Tests of Homogeneity of Variance Table 12. Equality of Means Test Table 13. Regression Model Summary Table 14. Model Coefficients Table 15. Correlations for Maintenance Non-supervisory Users Table 16. Correlations for General Leadership and Maintenance Supervisory Users Table A1. Mission Critical Function and Critical Mission Function Matrix 3 36 41 98 99 102 106 107 109 110 111 111 112 112 113 115 133

viii

List of Figures Figure 1. Dataflow for Legacy Information Systems Figure 2. Conceptual Framework Figure 3. Literature Review Map Figure 4. Demographics by Employee Type Figure 5. Demographics by User Role Figure 6. Database Demographics Figure 7. Histogram and Q-Q Plot for the Dependent Variable Figure 8. Histogram and Q-Q plot for the Independent Variable 4 26 29 96 97 105 108 108

ix

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION The Army is transforming its policies and methods of logistics sustainment on the battlefield to take advantage of technological advancements of the 21st Century. The primary reason for this change is the need to reduce costs, reduce the logistics footprint, shorten the logistics pipeline, and lighten the logistics load (Piggee, 2002). The new methods for improved battlefield logistics will need a just-in-time delivery system and innovative methods to monitor the logistics pipeline. To ensure military leaders will have the assets to win on the battlefield when and where needed, military leaders will need visibility of organizational assets in the logistics supply chain. The U.S. Army must build an improved capability to provide military leaders access to timelier and accurate logistics information about the location, movement, status, and identity of personnel, equipment, and supplies (Anderson, 2001, p. 2) in the logistics pipeline. The U.S. Army will need to overcome many challenges in order to build an effective TAV capability. For instance, the U.S. Army is employing over 16 logistics information systems (LIS) used specifically to manage the Armys logistics business processes. These LIS include a range of logistics business processes including, but not limited to, contract management, maintenance management, bulk fuel management, ammunition, repair parts, asset management, order fulfillment, inventory management, and financial processes. Butler and Latsko (1999) identified many of these systems built and implemented across the Army in the late 1980s. Over the years, many enhancements have been made to these systems to improve the Armys logistics business processes. However, one significant limitation remains; these systems are still not integrated. The 1

Government Accounting Office (2007) reiterated this point in an investigations findings and suggested the issues that plague TAV programs are nonintegrated legacy information systems, which contain redundant data (Government Accounting Office, 2007). These legacy LIS are placed in combat, combat support, and combat service support organizations to automate logistics processes, including supply, maintenance, and logistics management business processes. For instance, the Standard Army Maintenance Information System 1 (Enhanced) (SAMS-1E) automates portions of The Army Maintenance Management Systems (TAMMS) business processes. The Standard Army Retail Supply System (SARSS) automates the Armys supply processes below the national level. These systems are employed at various levels of the Armys hierarchy and send, receive, and store logistics and transactional data to aid decision makers in measuring the logistics readiness of Army organizations. Table 1 lists the common LIS found in tactical and operational Army organizations that conduct maintenance and logistics operations with their strategic orientations. These LIS are included in the systems the Army plans to replace with the implementation of GCSS-Army. These legacy LIS are not integrated, as illustrated in Figure 1. Each system sends and receives batch logistics and transaction data files for roll-up to different levels in the hierarchy through manual processes (removable media) or through secure file transport protocol (SFTP) communications. For example, SAMS-1E processes maintenance and maintenance supply related data files and transactions. SARSS processes supply data and transactions to national vendors when repair parts are needed and not stocked in inventories in any tactical supply support activity (SSA). National vendors return supply

Table 1. Logistics Information Systems with Strategic Orientation

Logistics Information Systems Standard Army Maintenance System Enhanced (SAMS-E) Standard Army Maintenance System 1 Enhanced (SAMS-1E)a Standard Army Maintenance System 2 Enhanced (SAMS-2E)a Standard Army Retail Supply Systems (SARSS)b Strategic Orientation Tactical/Operational Tactical/Operational/Strategic Operational/Strategic Tactical/Operational

Note. Tactical orientation means that the system is used in an organization to perform and manage maintenance operations that deploy with combat forces. Operational orientation means that the system is used by field operating units that deploy with combat forces that support tactical level organizations. Strategic orientation means that the system is used mostly at the strategic level of operations, which means that these systems are operated by organizations that provide support to operational forces in both peace time and during times of war and can deploy. Additionally, operational and strategic oriented organizations provide back-up maintenance support to both tactical and operational organizations in peace time, and rarely deploy. It is also possible to see a system used in a deploying organization that has a strategic orientation, such as at the theater sustainment command, brigade, or division headquarters; these organizations help to cross level maintenance activities to sustain combat power in a theater of combat operations. a. In some organizations, SAMS-1 and SAMS-2 have been combined into a single system SAMS-1E and SAMS-2E, respectively. These systems will be found in organizations until they are completely subsumed. b. Denotes systems that are not part of the study because they were not part of the IOT&E event, but are provided here for awareness.

status to SARSS in batch transactions, which are then sent to SAMS-1E in batch to update these systems. National vendors route these same data to the Army Material Commands Logistics Support Activity (LOGSA). LOGSA then reconfigures the data and uploads and stores the data in a series of databases for retrieval by military users (Butler & Latsko, 1999), which connects the operational Army to the National logistics pipeline. Military logisticians then retrieve visibility information from LOGSAs database to view the logistics pipeline, but this information is often outdated and error laden. Also, because these systems lack integration, no system exists on the battlefield that provides military leaders with asset visibility information in near-real time that is accurate and reliable. 3

Figure 1. Dataflow for legacy information systems. To overcome these challenges, the Army is collapsing over 16 legacy LIS into an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, the Global Combat Support System Army (GCSS-Army). This ERP is perhaps the largest ERP implementation in a public organization serving over 160,000 logistics personnel and military leaders on a global footprint with a $3 billion budget. Implementing an ERP will be the first real attempt at integrating the Armys tactical and operational logistics business processes into a single system. Once completed, the ERP has the potential to create a promising TAV capability

and serving as a springboard for future improvements in its logistics capability (AlMashari, Al-Mudimigh, & Zari, 2003).

Introduction to the Problem For over 20 years the US Army, and its parent, the Department of Defense (DoD) have been trying build an effective TAV Capability. For its part, the Army has developed several information systems and databases to improve the TAV capability. So far, the issues that plague TAV programs are the LIS used to manage the Armys logistics business processes. Anderson (2001) described many of the information systems the Army has developed, which must interface with, and provide asset data to, various databases to provide this capability, among them is GCSS-Army (p. 9). Further, Anderson suggested that this will be challenging because improving the TAV capability will require the Army to make significant changes to its information technology (IT) infrastructure to create an improved TAV capability. One significant change currently underway is the implementation of an ERP to integrate its logistics processes. The Government Accounting Office (GAO) (2007) reported that even though the Army is well on its way to implementing an ERP to integrate its disparate legacy LIS and create a TAV capability, the Army still lacks an integrative method for performing TAV of its assets, which exceed $140 billion. In fact, the GAO reported that by continuing the use of ineffective automated logistics information systems with antiquated business processes, the Army will fail to improve its TAV capability and gain control over its assets. GAO also reported that if the Army continues to use ineffective information 5

systems and business processes, the agency is in danger of creating a system that (a) will not provide the desired level of capability (b) does not interoperate with other agencies efficiently (c) is stovepiped in its functionality and (d) will not contain efficient and effective business processes. The GAO addressed many challenges in its 2007 Report, such as those listed above. However, this study addresses two of the issues identified in the Report, ineffective business processes and capabilities with regard to creating a TAV capability. The use of effective business processes in creating a sustained advantage has been an ongoing discussion in academic literature for some time (Day 1994; Hammer and Champy, 2001; Sullivan, Kelly, & Olson, 1999). Lockamy and Smith (1997) described effective business process as those processes that are tied to an organizations strategy. For example, Lockamy and Smith suggest that processes must support the achievement of a competitive advantage (p. 149), increase value for the customer, and result in superior business performance. Hammer (1996) suggested that for an organization to improve its efficiency and quality, leaders must focus on customer needs and the business processes that create value for them (p. 191). This is because the overall performance of a firm in its environment depends on the net effect of the firms business processes (Ray, Barney, & Muhanna, 2007, p. 24). Nah, Lau, and Kuang (2001) stipulated that when implementing an ERP, molding legacy business process to fit the system (p. 293) is critical to the success of an ERP, so that when implemented, the organizations routines and practices are aligned with the systems functionality, thus creating an advantage over competitors. This analysis suggests that business processes may be one of the keys to developing a viable TAV strategy for the Army. 6

Capabilities have been a point of discussion among researchers since the early 1980s. Researchers such as Wernerfelt (1984) discussed using the firms resources in creating capabilities that can establish enduring strategic advantages over competitors. A firm must look internally to assess the strengths and weaknesses that the firm may have, which forces the firm to look at resources as a way to compete and to build competitive advantages. Nelson and Winter (1997) suggested that skills, organization, and technology among other resources are often organized in a manner as to create a capability that cannot be emulated, thereby creating a competitive advantage. They suggested that using resources in a competitive environment creates a recipe of productive capability (p. 89), because competitors cannot easily break down a capability into its components and replicate them. It is generally accepted that capabilities are built using tangible and intangible resources and that resources in a firm can be defined as anything described as a firms strength of weakness (Wernerfelt, 1984, p. 172) and can include both tangible and intangible resources (p. 172). Further, he identified intangible resources as in-house knowledge of technology and brand-names and tangible resources as human capital, trade contracts, machinery, and capital (p. 172). Resources can also include the use of technology (IT systems, communications networks, etc.), technical and functional expertise, regulatory guidance, and other resources. Day (1994) proposed a link between business processes and capabilities. For example, to create an effective capability, Day advocated that an organization can combine routines and practices, technology, and know-how, etc. in such a way as to create a sustaining advantage. Day recommended that to determine the effectiveness of a 7

capability driven strategy, the firm must look at the output of a business process to judge the success of a capability. Because of Days proposed link, this study recognizes that organizational capabilities are dependent on effective business processes combined with other organizational resources. Total asset visibility is a capability that provides leaders with timely and accurate information on the status, location, movement, identity of units, personnel, equipment, and supplies and having the ability to act on that information (GAO, 2007, p. 2). The DoD defines TAV differently. In defining TAV, the DoD excludes unit and personnel identity because such information cannot be contained in an unclassified information system. Therefore, the DoD (2003) defined TAV as a capability to provide visibility of all assets in process, that is, assets being acquired, in maintenance, in storage, or in transit (p. 18). This definition focuses on equipment (trucks, weapon systems, sets kits, and outfits, etc.) assigned to an organization or is in use by the owning organization. This definition also includes equipment in a maintenance status, or stored in inventory. However, the Army includes force structure and authorizations in this definition, which includes units and personnel (Department of the Army, 2007a). Finally, inventory includes the stocks of equipment and repair parts stored in inventory by all three components of the U.S. Army as well as those stocks the Army stores in prepositioned stocks around the world. The evidence above suggests several variations of the definition of TAV. This study defines TAV as capability to provide visibility of all assets in process, that is, assets being acquired, in maintenance, in storage, or in transit (Department of Defense, 2003, p. 18). A TAV capability is built using Army resources that are tangible and 8

intangible in nature, such as logistics and maintenance expertise, established logistics policies and procedures, the use of technology, human capital, communications networks, and refined business processes embedded in an enterprise resource planning system. This study seeks to use the Army as an example of the same issues seen in other industries in creating a strategic capability.

Background of the Study To improve its logistics capabilities, the Army is implementing three enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems; GCSS-Army, the Logistics Modernization Program (LMP), and the General Fund Enterprise Business System (GFEBS). These systems focus on different parts of the Armys logistics pipeline, but together, they significantly transform the way the Army conducts logistics sustainment operations, which the Government Accounting Office (2007) called the factory to foxhole (p. 9) logistics chain of the Army. For instance, the focus of LMP is on the wholesale portion of the Armys logistics chain. It connects the Army to the National Economy and its manufacturing capacity. GCSS-Army is the retail, or tactical portion, of the Armys logistics system. The tactical system is much like a retail store, like Wal-Mart or Advance Auto Parts, because logisticians can go direct to these organizations to receive equipment and repair parts as a source of supply. Retail supply organizations are found around the world in the many sustainment organizations that provide organic logistics capabilities to the warfighter; the number of retail supply support activities (SSAs) approaches 300. The services an SSA provide combat organizations are supply, resupply, and retrograde logistics (the removal of unserviceable assets from the battlefield). The final component 9

is GFEBS, which provides the financial visibility (Government Accounting Office, 2007, p. 9) of the Armys $140 billion in assets. After its one year investigation, the GAO (2007) suggested that even with implementing these ERPs, the Army is only achieving incremental improvements (p. 21) in its TAV capabilities. According to the Agency, this is because the Army is not taking full advantage of, and adopting, enterprise processes. Further, the Agency reported the processes implemented in the ERPs are a copy of those found in many of the 16 stovepiped legacy systems (p. 11) and are cumbersome and ineffective (p. 6). Finally, the Agency advocated the Army will diminish its ability to achieve TAV and improve accountability over its assets (p. 22). The Program Manager (PM) implementing the ERP disagrees. In the overview of the program, the PMs website stipulates that GCSSArmy will provide the Army with improved visibility (PM GCSS-Army, 2013).

Statement of the Problem Total Asset Visibility has received much attention in recent years by many defense organizations. For example, the United States Armed Forces and Canadian Armed Forces are researching TAV capabilities as a way to improve logistics responsiveness and reduce logistics costs (Miksa & Carlson, 2007). The United States Armed Forces are transforming their logistics capabilities because of fiscal constraints and the need to rapidly deploy forces to hot spots around the world. To enable rapid deployment, a Military organization must have the ability to sustain its forces with a reduced logistics footprint. For rapid deployments to be successful, commanders must have timely and accurate information of the supply chain so that timely and accurate 10

deployment decisions can be made. Accurate and timely logistics information increases leaderships confidence that the logistics chain will provide the necessary assets to enable victory on the battlefield when and where needed. The PM suggests the GCSS-Army ERP will provide universal asset visibility, although the GAO report would suggest otherwise. Because of the multiple components associated with TAV, this study examined the effectiveness of logistics and maintenance business processes in delivering a component of TAV, that is, visibility over the organizations maintenance processes and the assets affected by them. To examine this phenomenon, this study investigated the relationship between the information effect of effective maintenance management business processes and the capability of visibility of assets in maintenance. In this study, business processes, defined in the view of the user population, are effective when a user completes a logistics or maintenance management business process and the output is correct allowing the user to perform his or her job, which in this study is considered to be the information effect of the maintenance business processes. To investigate this phenomenon, this study used a database generated from computer-assisted self-reporting task performance and survey data taken by the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) to measure the suitability, effectiveness, and sustainability of GCSS-Army in an operational environment. The data were captured during an initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) event from September 1, 2011 to October 20, 2012. To assist ATEC in gathering data during the IOT&E, the Army provided an independent third party data collection agency, the Operational Test Command (OTC), which employed data collection observer/controllers to assist users in 11

completing task performance forms that recorded tasks performed during the IOT&E event (Army Test and Evaluation Command, 2011).

Purpose of the Study How does the resource based view of the firm explain the relationship between visibility of assets in maintenance (dependent variable) and the information effective of maintenance business processes (independent variables)? The statistical model used to test the hypothesis is correlation and regression analysis using a purposefully selected sample of ERP logistics users taken from a statistical database. Specifically, this quantitative study analyzed the relationship of the information effect of specific mission critical functions (MCFs), critical mission functions (CMFs), and the Armys strategic objective of TAV to investigate the GAOs claim that the Armys TAV capabilities have been diminished with the implementation of GCSS-Army. This study utilized a statistical database of survey and task performance data taken from an operational test event conducted by the United States Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) from one of two GCSS-Army ERP implementations. The first implementation was completed in September 2010 and the second implementation was completed in October 2011. The goal of this study is to determine whether effective business processes developed within the ERP have diminished the Armys visibility over its assets in the maintenance process by using a critical factor matrix, Mission Critical Function (MCF)/Critical Mission Function (CMF) Matrix, developed by the researcher and used by ATEC in the evaluation of GCSS-Army during the operational test event.

12

In this study, a MCF is generally defined as a high-level logistics capability an Army organization needs to be successful on the battlefield. The capability reflects a process that is system agnostic, meaning the processes can be performed manually or by information systems (IS) developed with no specific vendor in mind. A CMF is generally defined as a high-level business process, such as work order management, configuration management, issuing supplies, or conducting an inspection or inventory. Each CMF is supported by one or many subprocesses, or more generally, the process steps required in completing a business process. Information effect is generally defined as the information produced by the subprocesses within each CMF, such as an output used as input to new processes or the output used to produce maintenance reports.

Rationale The rationale for selecting these concepts came from a literature search on ERP success and critical success factors (CSF), which are used to determine the success of ERP systems in meeting the goals and objectives of the implementing organization. This researcher developed a critical factor MCF and CMF methodology to help ATEC quantify the success of the enterprise logistics system in mission based test and evaluation (MBT&E) activities. This methodology is significant because GCSS-Army is the first ERP to undergo MBT&E using a critical factor approach and the first to receive a positive review from the Secretary of Defenses Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). The MCF and CMF methodology used for this study makes a significant contribution to ERP literature because the IOT&E event was the first successful operational evaluation of an ERP in the Army. Accordingly, it is postulated 13

the MCF and CMF methodology would provide a link between business processes and strategic capabilities as defined by an organizations strategic objectives. Overall, the model contains 5 MCFs with 20 CMFs (see Appendix A for the complete model) with 194 subprocesses identified to measure the systems success at meeting the operational needs (capabilities) for logistics management in the Army. This research project used a statistical database containing survey and task performance data collected by ATEC to investigate whether a specific capability, such as TAV, has been diminished.

Research Questions Focusing on the information effect of the maintenance management business processes developed in the ERP at the tactical and operational level of strategy, this research study seeks to determine whether GCSS-Army will diminish the Armys capability to achieve TAV and improve accountability over its assets (GAO, 2007, p. 22). This leads to the following research questions: Research question #1: Is there a correlation between the information effect of maintenance management business processes and the visibility of assets in maintenance at the tactical level? Research question #2: Is there a correlation between the information effect of maintenance management business processes and the visibility of assets in maintenance at the operational level? H1o: An increase in the effectiveness of a TAV capability (dependent variable) at the tactical level is not related to the information effect (independent variable) of

14

correctly developed maintenance management critical mission functions (CMFs) (independent variable) developed in the solution. H1a: An increase in the effectiveness of a TAV capability (dependent variable) at the tactical level is related to the information effect (independent variable) of correctly developed maintenance management critical mission functions (CMFs) (independent variable) developed in the solution. H2o: An increase in the effectiveness of a TAV capability (dependent variable) at the operational level is not related to the information effect (independent variable) of correctly developed maintenance management critical mission functions (CMFs) developed in the solution. H2a: an increase in the effectiveness of a TAV capability (dependent variable) at the operational level is related to the information effect (independent variable) of correctly developed maintenance management critical mission functions (CMFs) developed in the solution.

Significance of the Study Finney and Corbett (2007) conducted a study on critical success factors (CSFs) of ERPs and revealed 23 CSFs that could potentially increase the success of an ERP implementation, however, the study focused on the stakeholders perspective. One significant finding from this study was that most research on CSFs used secondary sources (p. 340), such as literature reviews. Al-Mashari (2003) identified this as a problem too when he suggested that more empirical studies are needed on ERP implementations and that the gap in this area of research is huge (p. 22). Further, he 15

investigated the literature gap and developed a taxonomy identifying 24 areas where research on ERP is lacking. He suggested that a critical factor approach to investigating ERP implementation would be interesting (p. 22). This study closes this gap by using a critical factor approach to investigate the strategic implications of using an ERP in a public sector organization, which are three areas in Al-Masharis taxonomy. Esteves (2007) reviewed over 600 ERP journal articles and conference proceedings. Esteves developed an extensive bibliography of articles related to eight categories of enterprise systems topic areas, such as general, ERP adoption, ERP acquisition, ERP implementation (p. 390). Further, Finney and Corbett (2007) suggested critical success factor research has concentrated on a specific aspect of an ERP implementation or a particular critical success factor. The researchers also suggest that this research in this area has failed to encompass all significant critical success factor considerations. One finding is that none of the articles took the approach of measuring ERP success from a critical mission function perspective or using the resource based view (RBV) using a capabilities perspective. Johansson and Helstrom (2007) also add that academic research on asset visibility is scarce (p 801). This research study adds to this academic knowledge base by using a statistical database containing primary data taken from an ERP implementation to study the relationship between the effectiveness of the Armys strategic capability of asset visibility and business processes using a critical factor approach.

16

Definition of Terms SAP security audit log is a log that lists the transactions that a user completed in the ERP. Each transaction completed in the system is identified by a unique user identification code, the SAP transaction code, time and date the transaction was completed, and whether the transaction was successful. Business process is a mixture of resources that a firm combines in an efforts to accomplish its business objectives (Ray, Barney, & Muhanna, 2004). Capability is the capacity of an organization to execute its activities in a predictive, efficient, and a repetitive manner (Smith, 2008). Critical Mission Function (CMF) is a high-level business process that must be completed successfully for an organization to create an effective business capability. Dependent (outcome) variable is a variable that depends on the independent variables manipulation to provide the outcome or results of the study (Creswell, 2009). Doctrine defines how the Army operates; it facilitates communication among all personnel by providing a common language and understanding of how the Army conducts operations. Enterprise resource planning (ERP) is a system that is multi-dimensional in nature and is based on predefined business models as designed by the manufacturer. These systems assist firms in planning, control, and resource optimization (Jarrar, AlMudimigh, & Zairi, 2002). Field Manuals are manuals that instruct Soldiers on all aspects of Army life (Whitehouse.gov, n.d, para. 1).

17

GCSS-Army is an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) built on a SAP platform to automate logistics business processes to enable an organization to perform logistics. Implementation is defined as a mixture of project management, business process reengineering, organizational change management, information systems (IS) development, and user training tasks that enable an ERP to be used within an organization (Esteves, Pastor, & Casanovas, 2002). Independent (predictor) variable is a variable that could cause, influence, or affect (Creswell, 2009, p. 50) the outcome of a study. Information effect is the ability of an enterprise resource planning system to store and process data from the output of one or more business processes and organize and disseminate information from a business process to organizational users for decision making (Karim, Somers, & Bhattacherjee, 2007). Information systems (IS) are business and IT systems that encapsulate the existing business processes, organizational structures, culture, and information technology (Allen, Kern, & Havenhand, 2002, p. 3065). Initial operational test & evaluation (IOT&E) is a test Department of Defense organizations conduct to measure the effectiveness of weapon systems in an operational environment using scenarios that are as realistic as possible. The goal of the operational test is to identify operational deficiencies and operations and support costs related to the lifecycle of the system being tested. This activity also helps the Army to refine the systems logistics support requirements and training, tactics, techniques, and doctrinal needs for increasing a systems effectiveness on the battlefield (Claxton, Cavoli, & Johnson, 2005). 18

Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) is the specialty that a member of the military holds. This translates to a specific combat or business function, such as a supply clerk or warehouse clerk. For example, a 92A is an Automated Logistical Specialist, who operates a maintenance information system. This MOS performs maintenance management related tasks in a maintenance activity or maintenance section within an organization. The civilian counterpart would be a parts or service representative in an auto dealership. Mission based test and evaluation (MBT&E) is a test method that focuses test and evaluation (T&E) activities on the capabilities developed and provided to the warfighter. It provides a framework and procedures to link the materiel system attributes to the operational capabilities of the system implemented to mission based scenarios and requirements (Department of the Army, 2010). Mission Critical Function is a business capability that an organization must accomplish successfully to perform its business strategy. A combination of mission critical functions can be used to create a specific capability. Operational strategy is a level of strategy designed and employed at the brigade and below. Operational strategy provides brigade sized elements and below with direction, and the command and control necessary to conduct combat operations and win on the battlefield in a regional area. Reliability is the degree to which a measure is consistent with what it is supposed to measure (Swanson & Holton, 2005).

19

SAP is an enterprise resource planning solution that provides a means to automate and improve existing business processes such as logistics execution and finance and accounting, among others. SAP is the ERP solution the Army chose as a tool to transform its logistics and financial business processes (SAP, n.d.). Support Level Maintenance (sustainment maintenance) is a level of maintenance in which an organization conducts maintenance on a customers equipment. The equipment being maintained by this organization is not maintained in the SAMS-1E equipment table (PM LIS, 2005). Systems Integrator is the contractor developing the ERP solution for the customer, the U.S. Army. Unit Level Maintenance (field maintenance) is a level of maintenance in which a unit owns organic equipment. This equipment is maintained in the SAMS-1E equipment table in the owning organization (PM LIS, 2005). Visibility of Assets in Maintenance is the use of information generated from the enterprise resource planning systems, which increases the effectiveness of decision making with regard to resource utilization, waste reduction and responsiveness to customer demands, and improved quality.

Assumptions and Limitations Assumptions The Army selected SAP R/3 as the enterprise resource planning (ERP) platform as its baseline for reengineering its logistics capabilities. The ERP platform represents an effective fit between the Armys organizational structure, culture, and business processes. 20

Seddon, Calvert, and Yang (2010) defined fit as the match between the organizations needs and the internal configuration of the enterprise system. They suggested the greater the fit the more effective and efficient the organizations processes will be (p. 312). Morton and Hu (2008) suggested in order to implement an ERP, a firm will have to reengineer its business processes to fit the internal processes of the enterprise system, which required requires the organization to move from a functional based organization structure to a process-oriented structure (p. 391). According to these researchers, the fit between the organization and the design of the system is critical to the success of an information system. This fit is important because commercial off the shelf software products are not typically aligned to the firms structures or processes, which will require significant organizational changes to adapt to an ERP. Also, since ERPs have different configurations and are known by different names, such as MRP, and supply chain management (SCM) (Tsai, Chen, Hwang, & Hsu, 2010, p. 26) this study focuses on the configuration and implementation rather than the name of the ERP solution. The business processes developed in the ERP are effective. The Army conducted a test to measure the effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of the ERP in an operational (tactical) environment. Twenty critical mission functions (business processes) were evaluated during this event with approximately 300 participants, who completed task performance forms containing quantitative and qualitative data to measure the effectiveness of each business process. The outcome of the test event suggested that all 20 business processes were effective. Since this study used a database containing statistical data taken from a unique operational test event, the assumption is that this database is valid and accurate. This 21

assumption is supported by the fact that a Data Authentication Group (DAG) employed by ATEC authenticated each data element as valid before the data elements were entered into the database. Further, it was assumed that the database had not been sufficiently analyzed to answer the research questions proposed in this study, because the database was used in the IOT&E to access the systems effectiveness, survivability, and sustainability in performing logistics on the battlefield. A secondary analysis of the dataset is necessary, performed at the level of the business process, to determine if business processes can contribute to a firms strategic capabilities, such as TAV. Finally, Hakim (1983) suggested that this methodology would be a good fit for the analysis of administrative data by applying a somewhat different perspective (p. 503) to the topic at hand, which is to achieve a different outcome. Limitations This study was designed to use a database of existing primary observational data taken from an operational test event. Using this database may impose a limitation due to the age of the database. However, since the business processes under investigation are sufficiently complex and no changes or enhancements have been introduced to the business processes since the test event, it is assumed that the age of the database would not affect the findings or the studys outcome. Also, system logs could be used to evaluate inflated process counts identified in the database, which could be considered by some to be subjective and introduce bias, and this fact is identified as a limitation in this study. However, Hakim (1983) recognized this possibility and suggests that having knowledge of this bias does not invalidate the data (p. 509). Having this knowledge provides justification for a somewhat different interpretation of the findings (p. 509). 22

This study also used the original instruments used in the operational test event to serve as a point of departure to identify the data elements contained in the database to be included in the study. The original instruments contained in the database includes a Task Performance Form used to record MCF and CMF transactions completed by the users and verified by data collection/observers from the Operational Test Command (OTC). This documentation also includes an End of Record Test Survey instrument that was developed by ATEC with some participation from this researcher and a committee of logistics management specialists. These instruments were administered to the participants by OTC and ATEC without participation from this researcher. The validity and reliability of the instruments used by ATEC and OTC to collect data during the IOT&E event cannot be determined, and therefore constitute a limitation of this study. A final limitation is whether the data recorded in the database were designed by ATEC to fit some research methodology. It could be assumed that since the data collection was based on the mission critical function and critical mission function methodology, some form of methodology was associated with the data collection, and recording activities and would not impose any limitations to this studys outcome. Hakim (1983) suggested that the connection of a post hoc (p. 505) methodology still allows the researcher to draw conclusions from the dataset under analysis.

Conceptual Framework This study employed an extract of a conceptual framework designed by the researcher to guide ATEC in quantifying the operational effectiveness, operational suitability, and operational survivability of the ERP during the operational event (see 23

Appendix A for the complete framework). The conceptual framework developed for the test event links business processes within an information system (IS) being developed to specific capabilities within an organizations enterprise architecture (EA) that defines a high-level strategic objective. In this case, the Army is trying to improve a high-level strategic capability to provide operational level commanders and decision makers with visibility of assets owned by an organization in the logistics pipeline. To achieve this capability, the ERP being developed must include business processes that contribute successfully to a business capability. The conceptual framework presented in this study identifies the business process areas as critical mission functions (CMFs). These are the business processes that must be successfully executed for the Army to achieve minimum effectiveness in five specific business areas, which are maintenance, retail supply, finance, logistics management, and property book and unit supply. Each business capability must be executed successfully for the Army to achieve its strategy of logistics management. These five business capabilities are identified in the complete conceptual framework (see Appendix A for the complete framework) as mission critical functions (MCF). In this study, TAV is concerned with the visibility of assets in maintenance, which is in line with the DoDs definition of TAV. One mission critical function (capability) that contributes to the effectiveness of visibility of assets in maintenance is maintenance management. The mission critical function of maintenance management contains six critical mission functions (business processes), which are (a) update equipment record (b) manage platform configuration (c) manage work orders (d) manage

24

scheduled maintenance (e) manage configuration and maintenance and (f) manage maintenance supply transactions. For visibility of assets in maintenance to be effective and contribute to the Armys strategic objective of TAV, each critical mission function must work as designed and provide the information required for organizational users to make informed decisions about maintenance capacity and equipment readiness. This is the information effect of the business processes, which means that each of the process steps in a critical mission function must provide the ERP user with the accurate, timely, and usable output desired. If each process step in a critical mission function is working as designed, the critical mission function would add to a capability. For example, if the critical mission function of work order management is working as designed, the informational output from the process can be used in accomplishing specific strategic goals. In this study, visibility of assets in maintenance is a strategic capability that allows management to support combat operations by assessing and predicting equipment readiness based on current equipment configuration and maintenance status (equipment in maintenance) and future maintenance needs (scheduled maintenance). For example, if all process steps within the critical mission functions of work order management and manage scheduled maintenance are working as designed, management at higher levels of the Army hierarchy can use the information produced by these business processes to determine current maintenance requirements across the organizations maintenance facilities, current maintenance status, and plan for future preventative maintenance such as when an equipment item is due for a service. This visibility facilitates maintenance capacity and load planning to ensure equipment readiness rates meet mission 25

requirements. Figure 2 provides a partial mapping of the mission critical function (MCF) and critical mission function (CMF) matrix, which serves as the conceptual framework for this study.

Figure 2. Conceptual framework describing an ERP with several business modules with a proposed relationship between information effect of CMFs and visibility of maintenance.

Organization of the Remainder of the Study Chapter 2 provides a review of the scholarly knowledge base on total asset visibility, Army maintenance and logistics processes, enterprise resource planning systems, process management, critical success factors, and the resource based view of the firm. Chapter 3 discusses the quantitative methodology chosen for this study. This chapter also presents statistical analysis procedures that were used to investigate the

26

relationship between the effectiveness of total asset visibility and the processes the ERP uses to contribute to the capability. Chapter 4 provides a detailed discussion of the analysis procedures, significant including statistical results with all necessary charts and graphs. Chapter 5 discusses the results, implications, and areas for future research.

27

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW Government agencies are implementing enterprise resource planning (ERP) platforms as a way to improve cost effectiveness and develop improved capabilities. The Army is just one example of a Government agency that is transforming its logistics business processes using an ERP to reduce costs to build improved warfighting support capabilities, such as total asset visibility. To investigate this phenomenon, this study presents an exhaustive literature review that crosses many bodies of knowledge. Figure 3 presents a graphical representation of the topics found in this literature review. Four main knowledge areas were investigated. These topics include total asset visibility, enterprise resource planning systems, critical success factors, and the resource based view of the firm. Figure 3 also provides an indication of the supporting topic areas that are discussed in this literature review, which includes topics such as ERP integration and process management.

28

Figure 3. Literature Review Map

Total Asset Visibility (TAV) Total asset visibility (TAV) is an important concept for an agile and mobile military force. This is especially true in the post-cold war era where conflict is characterized by small hot spots scattered around the world requiring swift military action. Swift action requires military logisticians to develop innovative methods to move personnel and equipment rapidly to these hot spots. Simon (2001) suggested that moving an agile force requires a military to develop and implement just-in-time supply chain processes, which is postulated to generate a significant advantage over adversaries. Such a system will require a military force to develop and implement a capability that provides 29

an organization a common view of its assets in the logistics pipeline. Such a capability is not limited to military organizations; corporate organizations have a need for TAV as well. Corporate organizations also find TAV to be an important capability. For instance, Johansson and Helstrom (2007) suggested that in corporate organizations, TAV can be more important than having visibility over its products (p. 801). Currie, Heminger, Pohlen, and Vaughan (1996) defined the commercial version of TAV as total supply chain visibility (p. 23), which provides organizations visibility of assets in the logistics pipeline from the distribution center to the point of sale. Simon (2001) defined TAV as a capability allowing military leaders to assess operational and logistics situations on the battlefield. This includes (a) the operational readiness of material and equipment (b) the ability to rapidly acquire, pack, and ship supplies and equipment to maintain supply levels (c) the ability to predict equipment failures using forecasting and simulation (p. 64) and (d) the ability to monitor and enhance the movement of unserviceable material and equipment from the battlefield to repair facilities. Such a capability is critical to ensure that combat forces have the equipment and material necessary to conduct combat operations decisively. Not knowing where material and equipment are in the logistics pipeline could lead to poor decisions that could alter the outcome of a campaign. Joint Warfare Center (2000) suggested that visibility systems are capability enablers. These enablers increase combat effectiveness by providing leaders accurate and timely information to increase battlefield effectiveness. For example, TAV is an important component of distribution operations because it provides a means to increase 30

the responsiveness of the Army logistics systems to meet the customers needs through the use of timely and accurate supply chain information. This component increases combat effectiveness by providing leaders a common view of the overall distribution enterprise from source of supply to the user on the battlefield. However, the lens through which the Joint Warfare Center defined TAV is the transportation communitys view of visibility. This view considers assets that are in the transportation pipeline. This includes port to port visibility, where a units assets and cargo conveyed from one point on the globe to another. In principle, the differing definitions above align to the same goal, which is to provide the information necessary to provide logistics support to the combat commander. This support enables logistics organizations to help sustain combat power through increased control and reliability of the logistics pipeline. It is postulated that a TAV capability will increase Army leaderships confidence in the logistics system. Confidence can be increased by providing near-real time information about the material and equipment in the logistics pipeline that is usable and accurate (Currie, Heminger, Pohlen, & Vaughan, 1996; Simon, 2001). Significant limitations in the past have limited the Armys ability to create a TAV capability. One of the limitations is the LIS currently used to automate the Armys logistics processes. Simon (2001) provided a detailed discussion of high-level limitations at the DoD level. However, Simon suggested the Army has found it difficult to develop a TAV capability in part because of the use of outdated information systems that are incompatible with internal and external agencies, and contain redundant data and antiquated logistics processes. The use of stovepiped systems significantly limits 31

Armys visibility of the logistics pipeline; this limits the Armys ability to conduct rapid replanning and redirection (p. 64) of material and equipment required to support the responsiveness needed by combat forces. Simons view of the limitations in developing a TAV capability aligns with the GAOs (2007) findings. Also, antiquated logistics processes that have not maintained pace with current technology advances is another limitation, which prevents the creation of a TAV capability. For instance, the Armys concept for TAV is stated in Army Regulation (AR) 710-2 (2008). This regulation defines the Armys supply policy at the operational level. According to the Regulation, the capability for visibility of assets resides in the Logistics Integrated Database (p. 98) (LIDB) maintained by the Army Material Commands (AMC) Logistics Support Agency (LOGSA). However, it can be postulated that the capability provided by the LIDB is limited because it does not provide real time logistics data. This is because LIS systems send daily, weekly, and monthly data to LOGSA, who then uploads and stores the data in the LIDB. This sporadic uploading of data cannot provide a real-time view of logistics data; it is accurate only as to the last update received from LIS. Rhodes (2004) suggested that systems such as the LIDB provide a limited TAV capability because of the lack of integration among the legacy systems. This issue is compounded by the many organizations that have developed homegrown information systems that retrieve, upload, and manipulate logistics and financial data from databases such as the LIDB to create a TAV capability with logistics and finance data that are often outdated. He provided an example of the Financial and Logistical Interface Program (FINLOG) (p. 7) that Forces Command built to compensate for the Armys inability to 32

furnish the data necessary to supply up-to-date logistics and financial data. Additionally, this tool combines logistics data with financial data from financial systems of record with supply data from LIS and LOGSA. It is important to note that current Army legacy LIS contain no financial data. They contain only logistics transactional data that have to be reconciled with standalone financial systems such as the Standard Army Financial Information System (STANFINS), which is being replaced by GFEBS. Even with the replacement of STANFINS, LIS transactional data will still require reconciliation with GFEBS, which is time consuming and often creates data errors. When fully implemented, GCSS-Army will provide journal-level financial data to GFEBS on a daily basis through interfaces, which eliminates the need to reconcile transactional level data with financial systems of record. Also, AR 710-2 (2008) suggested the use of TAV and automatic identification technology will increase the effectiveness of the Armys redistribution processes. Redistribution processes facilitate the redistribution of assets in inventory during an emergency situation (p. 98) to units in critical need of material and equipment. For example, if an organization is taking on considerable battle losses, the Army can redirect material and equipment that is due in to other organizations to the organization taking losses to maintain the organizations combat effectiveness. The TAV capability as described above includes several components. These components include (a) visibility of material and equipment maintained in operational inventories (b) visibility of material and equipment in the logistics pipeline, and (c) visibility of assets (material and equipment) in repair. Investigating supplies in operational inventory and in the logistics pipeline is outside the scope of this study. 33

However, because the TAV capability is composed of several parts, a basic discussion of visibility of supplies in operational inventories and in the logistics pipeline appears here to facilitate a basic understanding of the complete capability.

Visibility of Operational Inventories The Army suggests the visibility of assets in operational inventories includes material and equipment in inventory, moving in a warehouse, and moving throughout an organization. Included are the quantities of material on-hand, due-in, and due-out to customers. This also includes visibility of when a material condition code or ownership or purpose code for a material has changed or when the stockage code or requesting objective is changed. When movement of property assets (tools, trucks, tent, diagnostic equipment, etc.) are involved, visibility over these assets provide leaders with notifications when equipment arrives at the retail supply activity and when an issue or receipt transaction occurs. Otherwise, Property Accountable Officers prepare and submit a manual report to the LOGSA for input into the LIDB to update asset records (Department of the Army, 2008). The Armys TAV capability as currently designed provides logistics managers with visibility of excess material, which affords Item Managers nationally a capability to redistribute the excess material according to operational needs. Finally, it is suggested that this capability is still in development. For example, it is envisioned that as the TAV/LIDB is fully developed and implemented that it would create the data required to fulfill this objective (Department of the Army, 2008, p. 102).

34

Visibility of Supplies in the Pipeline Visibility of supplies in the pipeline is provided by what Estevez (2005) described as radio frequency identification (RFID) (p. 24). The use of RFID promises to increase the visibility of the material stored in warehouses, and of its movements internal to the warehouse, and increase the accuracy of inventories. It also promises to provide areas for increased productivity as well as methods of integrating information into end-to-end processes. As hinted to in this study, the information provided by the RFID capability is integrated into an enterprise system, which complements the TAV capability and facilitates further enhancements to the transformation of the Armys logistics processes. Finally, RFID is not contained within current LIS, third party servers gather and store RFID data, which is fed to the LIDB and other LIS, providing a limited, albeit functional, in-transit visibility (ITV) to support decision making.

Visibility of Assets in Maintenance The last component of TAV, and the focus of this study, is the visibility of assets in the maintenance process. The LIDB contains a maintenance module (Department of the Army, 2010-2011, p. 94), which provides maintenance managers historical equipment maintenance data generated by maintenance organizations. The historical data contained in the module are generated from equipment maintenance work orders sent to LOGSA by the Armys standard Army management information systems (STAMIS) from different levels of the organizational hierarchy. These LIS provide maintenance managers with data to measure performance at different levels of the maintenance hierarchy. This includes mean-time-to-repair, repair parts consumption, and reasons for maintenance 35

action (p. 94), etc. However, this data does not provide visibility of equipment status in repair. Much like the other visibility components discussed so far, these LIS provide maintenance data to the LIDB for historical research and other purposes required by higher level Department of the Army organizational needs. Finally, to establish a foundation for the research on the capability of TAV and using this capability to establish a competitive advantage, Table 2 provides a list of variables that are relevant to this study. Table 2. Variables Relevant to This Study
Variable Description Visibility of assets in maintenance (VISMNT) Information Effect (INFEFF) Variable Type Dependent Prior Research Department of the Army, 2007b, 2008, 2010-2011; Estevez, 2005; Johansson & Helstrom, 2007; Rhodes, 2004; Simon, 2001 Crow, 2002; Department of the Army, 2005, 2008; Gattiker & Goodhue, 2000; Karim, Somers, & Bhattacherjee, 2007; Ng, Ip, & Lee, 1999; PM LIS, 2005; Pettit & Beresford, 2009; Trkman, 2010; Uemura, Oiki, Oka, & Nishioka, 2006

Independent

Army Maintenance and Logistics Processes The Army has four core maintenance processes, which are (a) performance observation (b) equipment services (c) fault repair and (d) a single-standard repair (Department of the Army, 2011, p. 1-2). Every organization in the Army that owns and operates equipment follows these four maintenance processes. All maintenance information generated by these maintenance processes is recorded and stored in LIS in each organization (see Figure 1). The first three processes are of particular interest to this study, because it is postulated that efficiencies created in these processes through process improvements can increase the effectiveness of visibility of assets in maintenance. These 36

processes allow management at all levels to manage the Army Maintenance Management System (TAMMS) to ensure equipment readiness is maintained to meet Army standards. In general, these core processes allow maintenance managers and logisticians to plan, prioritize, conduct, and record maintenance transactions. Performance Observation Process The purpose of the performance observation process is the foundation (Department of the Army, 2011, p. 1-2) of the Armys maintenance program. This process is mostly a manual process, but is supported by information systems, diagnostic equipment, and in the future, on-board sensors to record equipment faults and deficiencies. For example, every equipment item must be inspected by the operator before, during, and after the equipment is operated. This is known as the preventive maintenance checks and services (PMCS) (p. 1-2). All PMCS operations are recorded on the maintenance and inspection worksheet or Department of the Army (DA) Form 5988-E. When no fault exists, the operator annotates the date the inspection was completed on the form, where it is maintained in the equipment file with the vehicle while in operation. When the vehicle is returned, the operator annotates the equipment record with usage information, fuel and oil added, and the form is returned to the LIS operator, who enters the data into the SAMS-1E system. Finally, when a fault is noted during operation, the operator annotates the fault on the equipments maintenance inspection worksheet. Upon returning to the organization, the worksheet is returned to the LIS operator, who records the fault on the equipment record in the LIS (Department of the Army, 2006).

37

Fault Repair Process The fault repair process is used to restore equipment to original specifications, including any deficiency that would prevent equipment from performing as designed, and includes any attached components, radio and communications equipment, and weapons. Fault repair can be performed by the equipment operator or crew, the organizations maintenance personnel, or support maintenance personnel. For example, if an operator found a broken light bulb during a preoperative inspection, the operator would request a light bulb from the organizations SAMS-1E operator, and then install the light bulb. If the light bulb did not correct the fault, the operator notes the fault on the equipments DA Form 5988-E. The operator then presents the form to the SAMS-1E operator, who presents the form to the maintenance supervisor for assessment. The maintenance supervisor presents the form to a maintenance technician to verify the fault. Once verified, the maintenance form is returned to the maintenance supervisor, who directs the SAMS-1E operator to record a fault on the equipments equipment record in the LIS, which then generates a work order to correct the fault (Department of the Army, 2006). Equipment Service Process The purpose of the equipment service process is to maintain and extend the operational life of material and equipment and to increase equipment readiness (Department of the Army, 2007, p. 14). Services are maintenance actions performed on equipment at some predetermined interval. Intervals range from operation time in miles and hours to specific intervals such as daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, or other predetermined intervals as defined by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM). The LIS captures and stores all service related data for future analysis until purged. Based on 38

the service requirements, services are conducted locally. For example, most equipment services are conducted in the maintenance facility of the owning organization. Once a service is completed, the LIS operator annotates the completed service on the equipment record in the SAMS-1E. Next, the LIS operator updates the equipment record in SAMS1E with the next service due. Also, the DA Form 5988-E contains a list of all service related information, which is updated regularly following regulatory guidance (Department of the Army, 2006). Single-Standard Repair The single-standard repair is not a process but the policies and procedures followed by all maintenance personnel. Every equipment item has a technical manual (TM) developed by the OEM and adapted to fit the single-standard repair process for the Army. For example, each TM lists the before, during, and after inspection items that all operators must visually inspect while utilizing equipment. The TM also lists the maintenance allocation chart (MAC) that describes the levels of maintenance required to correct a fault. The TM also provides a list of procedures and tools needed to correct a fault at the different levels of maintenance. For example, if an alternator was found to be broken, the TM would describe the procedures to remove and replace the defective alternator, and the level of repair. To support the single-standard repair process, the Army established four different levels of technical manuals. For example, equipment operators use the -10, or operators manual to perform operator level maintenance. Organizational level maintenance activities use the -20 manual for component replacement (on-platform repair). Support and depot level organizations follow the -30 and -40 level manuals for component repair (off-platform repair) (Department of the Army, 2006). 39

Finally, the four core maintenance processes assist maintenance personnel in managing the Armys maintenance program. These processes, initially manual, were automated over the past 20 years in the LIS to streamline maintenance processes to create efficiencies in managing maintenance. However, these processes do not provide visibility of asset in maintenance to support decision making. To enable visibility of assets in maintenance activities, seven supporting processes performed in an ERP are postulated to increase the visibility over these core maintenance processes.

Supporting Logistics Business Processes To support decision making and provide visibility over the core maintenance processes, legacy LIS allowed users to record daily logistics transactions in individual disconnected information systems through automated business processes. At predetermined time intervals, these transactions are rolled up and sent to the next organizational maintenance echelon, where an LIS compiles and sends the data to the LIDB at LOGSA for retrieval, analysis, and decision making. GCSS-Army dramatically improves legacy LIS supporting business processes through business process reengineering (BPR). In GCSS-Army, the logistics and maintenance management module provides six supporting maintenance business processes, which enhance the Armys maintenance and logistics business capabilities. These business capabilities are identified in this study as being a mission critical function (MCF). A combination of mission critical functions can be used to create a specific capability. For example, by combining MCFs of retail supply, property book/unit supply, maintenance, and logistics management, the Army has created a logistics capability 40

within an ERP that enables its combat service support function on the battlefield. Table 3 lists the business processes implemented in GCSS-Army that support the four core maintenance processes. Table 3. Business Processes that Support the Four Core Maintenance Processes
Maintenance MCF Update equipment record process Manage platform configuration process Work order management process Manage scheduled maintenance process Configuration & maintenance management process Maintenance supply process Note: MCF = mission critical function Process Description Allows a user to update equipment records. Allows a user to update equipment configuration. Allows a user to create, update, and close maintenance work orders. Allows a user to manage equipment scheduled maintenance activities. Allows a user to maintain the equipments master data. Allows a user to order repair parts to correct faults.

Update Equipment Record Process Legacy LIS contains an equipment record for every equipment item owned by a unit. LOGSAs material master data file (MMDF) provides the equipment record to LIS. Once data is input into the LIS, the LIS operator builds an equipment record on each equipment item authorized for and maintained by an organization. The equipment record contains the details on the equipment such as any warranty, the equipment registration number, serial number, current usage reading, equipment category code, and equipment readiness code. The equipment record also identifies the equipments assigned operator and his or her supervisor, and facilitates readiness reporting. For example, if an equipment item or component on an equipment item is not available for administrative 41

purposes or is inoperative, SAMS-1E assigns the equipment a status. Equipment status ratings include fully mission capable, partially mission capable, or non-mission capable. This process allows a user to update the status of equipment when its status changes. Creating an equipment record manually in each LIS for each equipment item introduces data inconsistencies propagated in each LIS as data files are transferred (Department of the Army, 2005). GCSS-Army is subsuming the MMDF and will become the authoritative data source (ADS) for all equipment records. Additionally, since the ERP is integrated, data conversion activities will ensure equipment record master data, such as serial number, model number, and other master data inconsistencies are investigated and resolved, and an enterprise equipment record is created in GCSS-Army, which is aligned to an asset number obtained from GFEBS. This provides an initialized data set for the equipment record. Since GCSS-Army will become the ADS for equipment master data, this process is expected to provide the user with more reliable data and timelier status updates. In fact, Uemura, Oiki, Oka, and Nishioka (2006) provided evidence that standardized equipment records contained in an ERP contribute to standardization, improved efficiencies, and timelier equipment status updates. According to the researchers, standardized equipment records provide an organization with improved visibility of equipment status throughout an organization in near real-time. It is proposed that the enhancements made to this process increase the effectiveness of visibility of assets in maintenance.

42

Manage Platform Configuration Process The platform configuration processes report the exact documented configuration of an equipment end item, prime system, or miscellaneous item. This process allows a user to configure and reconfigure equipment to facilitate the removal of a defective component and install a new component. For example, a prime system is a system composed of equipment end items, assemblies, components, modules, and parts (PM LIS, 2005, p. 5-32) to perform a specific mission. Prime Systems are readiness reportable as individual equipment items. An equipment end item is a separate item of equipment that functions independently from other items (p. 5-32). When equipment is reconfigured, the configuration of the equipment is reported to LOGSA for readiness reporting. Reporting of these changes is delayed because this information is rolled up monthly to each hierarchy and reported to LOGSA. It is postulated that near real-time visibility of equipment configuration changes is positively related to an increase in the effectiveness of visibility of assets in maintenance (Department of the Army, 2005). Work Order Management Process The maintenance work order process spans every core process. For example, no work can be performed on equipment that expends more than a quarter of an hour of labor without a maintenance work order. This process also allows a user to create, change, and close work orders on equipment, which updates the equipments status on the equipment record maintained in LIS, because the Army must track direct and indirect labor hours and the repair parts consumed in correcting faults and performing scheduled services. For example, when a fault is found that cannot be corrected by the equipment operator, a maintenance work order is opened to correct the fault. If the fault requires 43

repair parts, parts are ordered against the maintenance work order, which records the consumption of the parts against the work order in the LIS (Department of the Army, 2005), which contributes to the total cost of ownership for the equipment under repair. In legacy LIS, when the repair is completed, the labor hours are recorded, parts are issued and installed, and the maintenance work order is closed. Financial data are applied to the maintenance order later by the installation resource management office. When equipment cannot be repaired locally, the equipment and maintenance order are forwarded to the next level of maintenance. This process supports the readiness reporting process as the Army tracks equipment in maintenance at different levels of repair, such as organizational, support, and depot. Work order data are rolled up and sent to LOGSA weekly where they are loaded into the Work Order Logistics File (WOLF) in the LIDB. However, legacy systems do not support near real-time visibility of work in progress. Gattiker and Goodhue (2000) suggested that an ERP can enhance the maintenance production processes of an organization by providing visibility of work order status, which facilitates better control of work in progress. In GCSS-Army, enhancements to the work order process have been made using best business practices provided by the ERP software. No longer will a work order have to be sent by a batch file; maintenance work orders contained in the ERP allow management to forward maintenance work orders to the next level of maintenance in real time. When the orders are forwarded, all maintenance related information is added to the work order in near real-time. When a maintenance order is completed, all parts are installed, labor hours are applied, and the maintenance order is technically closed, which means that all financial data are applied to the order at the time it is closed, eliminating 44

the need for financial reconciliations. Ng, Ip, and Lee (1999) suggested that a maintenance work order process encapsulated in an ERP allows an organization to track the maintenance operations, procedures, and the labor expended (2104) in a production process. This functionality allows leaders to monitor the progress of jobs, thereby, enhancing the maintenance process to the point to allow better capacity planning and capacity loading (p. 2104) of the organizations resources and providing real time visibility of all work in progress. Finally, it is expected the enhancements made in this process are positively related to the increase in the effectiveness of visibility of assets in maintenance. Manage Scheduled Maintenance Process Equipment services process is a core process as described previously, and the manage scheduled maintenance supporting process allows users to manage the complete end-to-end process. All operator level services are scheduled one year out and a tolerance of 10% (Department of the Army, 2005, p. 38) is allowed before or after the service is due. This process allows a user to create maintenance plans, set the interval when the service is conducted, record completed services on the equipments preventive maintenance schedule, and record Department of Defense (DD) Form 314. This process also allows the SAMS-1E user to create a maintenance work order when an interval is reached, assign the necessary resources, and order the necessary parts to complete the service. When a service is completed, the DD Form 314 is annotated and the next service is scheduled. However, service schedules are not visible outside the organization that performs the services. For example, services and inspections are managed locally as directed by the organizations leadership. An enterprise wide view of scheduled 45

maintenance will allow managers to better plan maintenance capacity and react to changing maintenance requirements faster in a hostile environment. As a result of these enhancements, it is postulated that having visibility over the scheduled maintenance process in near real-time is positively related to an increase in the effectiveness of visibility of assets in maintenance (Department of the Army, 2005). Configuration & Maintenance Management Process The configuration and maintenance management process allows users to view or modify the equipments master data record when permanent configuration changes are necessary. For example, when a modification work order (MWO) is applied to an equipment item, it can change its configuration so that its model number, serial number, or national stock number changes. This requires the equipments master data record to be updated with the new configuration information. This process is also includes recording and tracking software changes for equipment that contains embedded software programs. Configuration changes are recorded on a DA Form 2408-4 that is maintained in a separate information system, the Modification Management Information System (Department of the Army, 2005, p. 132) (MMIS), which will be subsumed by GCSSArmy. In legacy, users access MMIS through a web portal to retrieve configuration information and manually input the data into LIS. It is proposed when these data are contained in an enterprise system, equipment configuration will be easier to maintain and more accurate. For example, when a new object is configured to a weapons system, it is instantiated in the ERP and aligned to the systems serial number instantly. It is proposed that enhancements made to this process will increase the effectiveness of the process. As

46

a result, it is expected to be positively related to an increase in the effectiveness of visibility of assets in maintenance (Department of the Army, 2005). Maintenance Supply Process The maintenance supply process supports the four core maintenance processes by providing the repair parts necessary to correct faults and perform services. Several subprocesses are contained in the maintenance supply process area. These subprocesses provide logisticians with a capability to issue, receive, and store material and retrograde unserviceable repair parts back to national repair facilities. For example, if an equipment operator finds a light bulb inoperative on a piece of equipment, the operator annotates the fault on the equipments maintenance and inspection worksheet, and submits the form to the SAMS-1E user, who checks the organizations repair parts inventory, and issues the light bulb to the operator, and decrements the inventory stock, and generates a replenishment order for the part. If the light bulb is not on-hand at the organization, the SAMS-1E system generates a parts request. The parts request is sent to the Standard Army Retail Supply System-1 (SARSS-1) at the supply support activity via SFTP or by removable media. When SARSS-1 converts the parts request to a purchase order and sends the order to the national source of supply, the source of supply sends a supply status to SARSS-1 and subsequently to SAMS-1E through the same communications protocol the parts request was sent to SARSS-1. SAMS-1E then updates the equipment record and DA Form 5988E with the supply status, which notifies the operator and management that the part is on order. If the part is on hand at the SSA, the part is issued to the customer, and the SAMS-1E operator either replenishes the organizations inventory for the consumed part 47

or issues the part to the maintenance order, and updates the work order status. If the part is issued to the work order, the technician installs the part, notifies the SAMS-1E operator the part is installed, and the SAMS-1E operator updates the work order status in SAMS1E. The technician notifies the maintenance supervisor of the completed maintenance action, and the maintenance supervisor performs a final inspection. If the final inspection confirms that the work is completed, the SAMS-1E operator closes the work order and notifies the owning unit that the equipment is ready for pick-up. This action updates the equipment status in the equipment record to operational. If the part is not on-hand at the SSA, the SSA generates a purchase order to the national level supply system. When the national level supply system generates a supply status for the repair part, SARSS-1 generates a supply status and sends the status to the customers SAMS-1E. This supply status is updated regularly, based on predefined system parameters until the part is received at the SSA and the customer picks the part up. It is important to note that each status update for the part on order is done as a batch file process. This batch file is transmitted to the system by means of removable media or SFTP on a daily basis, and the operators of the systems must take action for the status updates to take effect. The maintenance supply processes in SAMS-1E were reengineered using best business practices contained in the ERP. This reengineering collapsed many of the inefficient processes contained in the SAMS-1E LIS to include the SSA retail supply functionality. Having the maintenance supply and retail supply functionality within the same enterprise eliminates the need for batch processing, because the material requirements planning (MRP) module runs on a predetermined schedule picking up 48

pending parts requests, converting them to stock transport orders (if the part is on hand) or purchase orders (if the part is not on hand) and providing near real-time supply status several times a day. It is proposed that this process will increase the effectiveness of the maintenance process by providing near real-time supply status, facilitating better maintenance planning. As a result of the supply process enhancements, it is expected that the effectiveness of this process is positively related to an increase in the effectiveness of visibility of assets in maintenance (Department of the Army, 2005; Department of the Army, 2008).

Business Information The outputs of the six supporting maintenance processes described above, in the form of information, allow managers to assess maintenance capabilities, equipment status, and prioritize maintenance and associated repair parts based on organizational priorities. The information output of these processes allows organizational users to peer into the maintenance processes to prioritize work and repair parts based on equipment faults and urgency of equipment need. For example, the information provided by the work order process allows management to assess current workload and what work is backlogged, to shift work to different areas based on current and future priorities. If a supported organizations priorities change based on mission changes, managers can assess workload and backlog and shift assets to different organizations for maintenance, increasing equipment readiness.

49

In Army doctrine, the information produced from legacy systems is used for many purposes at different levels of the Army hierarchy. For example, non-supervisor maintenance personnel such as clerks and mechanics use maintenance information to create and manage maintenance work orders, replenish inventories, and resource maintenance orders with appropriate repair parts, taking advantage of tactical level report functions. Leaders and maintenance supervisors use maintenance information to distribute maintenance activities and to ensure resources are available to resource maintenance facilities adequately. These personnel also use information further up in the hierarchy to ensure maintenance resources are adequately utilized and maintenance organizations are performing work according to organizational priorities. Information at this level is used to analyze capacity gaps and move assets around to ensure that maintenance organizations distribute work load adequately across the operational landscape. Also, at this level, maintenance information is used as input into the military decision making process (MDMP) for exercise, deployment, and sustainment planning and execution. Information used by leaders is considered to be operational information (Department of the Army, 2005). Because information is a critical output of maintenance processes, maintenance reporting is the heart of the legacy LIS, because LIS were prone to data errors and inconsistencies owing to errors, as well as to the need for a global view of equipment readiness to aid in maintenance planning and decision making. This logistics reporting requirement originates with manual maintenance processes and is still in force today to resolve inconsistencies that exist because of isolated and disconnected LIS. Many of the reports existing in legacy LIS are exact replications of the reports generated in the manual 50

system. In many instances, once a report is generated, the legacy LIS purges the data used to generate the reports, which remove historical data from the LIS. The only way to review historical data is to log into the LIDB and search for the data (Department of the Army, 2005). GCSS-Army produces much of the same data that legacy systems produced, and in many cases, GCSS-Army provides improved data sources for reporting. Unlike legacy systems in which reports were static, GCSS-Army provides interactive screen displays and reports that can be manipulated, resorted, and filtered as well as exported to standard office automation software, such as Excel. Further, GCSS-Armys screen view is interactive, meaning that with no additional configuration, most maintenance processes provide visual indicators (icons showing status) of equipment readiness, easing the comprehension of data on the screen. In legacy, when leaders in higher echelon organizations want to view equipment readiness for subordinate organizations, LIS operators must send batch data files from one LIS to the other and then run a program in the LIS to generate the reports. In GCSS-Army, anyone with the proper roles and permissions can view maintenance capacity, backlog, and equipment readiness data for an organization from any terminal on the military network. In the context of this study, the enhancements made in the supporting maintenance processes are expected to increase the accuracy, timeliness, and usability of maintenance information, enhancing tactical and operational decision making. For instance, an important finding in Karim, Somers, and Bhattacherjees (2007) research suggested the information created by the six supporting maintenance processes can improve tactical and operational level effectiveness of an organization by increasing the 51

effectiveness of management decisions with regard to resource utilization, waste reduction, responsiveness to customer demands, and improved quality. In light of this finding, it is expected that the business processes will create the information necessary to allow organizational users to assess an organizations maintenance capabilities, which is positively related to an increase in the effectiveness of visibility of assets in maintenance. The information output of maintenance processes described above is generally defined in this study as the information effect of business processes, and is the independent variable in this study (Karim, Somers, & Bhattacherjee, 2007).

Enterprise Resource Planning Systems Enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems are integrated systems that are multidimensional in nature and are based on predefined business models as designed by the manufacturer. These systems assist firms in planning, control, and resource optimization (Jarrar, Al-Mudimigh, & Zairi, 2002). Further, Jarrar, Al-Mudimigh, and Zairi suggested that an ERP is used as an umbrella (p. 124) for process integration allowing a single view of operations from a single IT infrastructure. Integration allows a firm to share common data allowing all users of the organization access to integrated data in near real-time (Tsai, Chen, Hwang, & Hsu, 2010, p. 26). Jarrar, Al-Mudimigh, and Zairis definition of an ERP aligns with other researchers in the field. However, other researchers define ERP differently. For instance, Bendoly and Jacobs (2004) defined ERP as an approach (p. 99) rather than a tool for organizational optimization. Finally, these researchers suggested the purpose of an ERP is to track the status of daily transactions and business activities. 52

Motivations for Using an ERP Enterprise resource planning systems are becoming valuable assets for firms across many industries. Government agencies across the globe are realizing the capabilities these systems offer to improve organizational performance and effectiveness. Pabedinskait (2010) suggested ERPs are important to an organizations survival; without them, enterprises could no longer function (p. 691). Further, ERPs can create the organizational synergy that provides organizations with the stimulus (p. 691) to develop effective business processes leading to organizational success. Other researchers identified many other motivations that drive companies to adopt an ERP. Al-Mashari, Mudimigh, and Zairi (2002) suggested that the first of two motivations for using an ERP is technological. Technological motivations include meeting compliancy requirements, such as government regulatory requirements and the replacement of obsolete systems, improved visibility, and the integration of business processes and systems (p. 354). The second motivation is operational. Operational motivations include improving responsiveness to customers, improving inadequate business performance, and reducing high costs structures (p. 354). The Armys motivation to adopt an ERP solution fits into both categories. For instance, over 16 legacy LIS are being replaced with GCSS-Army. Technologically, the Army hopes the ERP platform will provide improved visibility over its logistics processes, a single repository for logistics data, and integration of financial data. Operationally, the Army needs to reduce its logistics foot print, reduce its logistics costs, and improve its TAV capability, and the organization is planning on the ERP to help in improving its capabilities for streamlined logistics. For example, Umble, Haft, and 53

Umble (2003) suggested that an ERP can trim operating costs and generate more accurate demand forecast (p. 244), which can add millions to the bottom line of an organization. With respect to the Armys logistics processes, costs can be reduced with more accurate demand forecasting by reducing the size of its inventories carried forward by combat service support organizations. The result of smaller inventories is a smaller logistics footprint as well as a reduction in transportation costs associated with moving these stocks across the battlefield. Umble, Haft, and Umble provided evidence that ERP software implemented in Owens Corning saved the firm $50 million in logistics, material management, and sourcing (p. 244). Other researchers suggested different motivations for the use of enterprise systems. For example, Nah, Lau, and Kuang (2001) suggested for most firms, the aggressive use of IT in the pursuit of its business objectives is an effective strategy. Accordingly, an ERP enables a firm to manage its resources more efficiently through standardization and process oriented operations. Further, Jarrar, Al-Mudimigh, and Zairi (2002) suggested ERPs are used in a broad strategy to integrate business processes allowing management to view and manage all aspects of operations from a single infrastructure. Nikolopoulos, Metaxiotis, Lekatis, and Assimakopoulos (2003) agreed and suggested that when firms implement an ERP, they seek to streamline and integrate operational processes and information flows (p. 184). This comment aligns with Pabedinskaits (2000) suggestion that ERPs assist firms in creating synergy for more effective operations.

54

Tsai, Chen, Hwang, and Hsu (2010) suggested that in many cases, a firm will choose to implement an ERP to integrate and modernize (p. 27). Modernization is another motivation for the use of an ERP in the Army. The Army hopes to modernize its logistics capabilities by collapsing over 16 LIS into a single enterprise system. Piggee (2011) named this the revolution in military logistics (pp. 1-2), because the Army can no longer afford to work with its isolated information systems. Gulledge and Sommer (2002) suggested that using isolated information systems can reduce an organizations effectiveness in meeting its strategic goals. Further, modernizing the Armys logistics information systems will provide leaders with more accurate logistics information, increased visibility of logistics processes, and increased accuracy in decision making. In a government setting, Crisostomo (2008a) suggested that the main motivation behind the use of an ERP is the incompatibility of its legacy systems with each other. Allen, Kern, and Havenhand (2002) suggested the motivation for the use of an ERP in higher education institutions is the elimination of duplication of efforts and resources as well as to to increase operational efficiency and effectiveness of its business processes (p. 227). This duplication of effort and resources typically stem from using non-integrated information systems, which in many instances, duplicate the same services provided to customers. The Army is experiencing problems with disparate legacy systems. For instance, the Army has over 16 legacy logistics information systems that are not integrated, which duplicates transactions, services, capabilities, and often creates data inconsistencies across the organization.

55

The implementation of GCSS-Army will integrate, and in most cases, streamline or eliminate antiquated business processes contained in the Armys LIS. It is suggested that this will change increase the productivity of the functional units that utilize the systems, to reduce waste, duplication of effort, information system lifecycle costs, and allow will the user to view an enterprise wide data set across the organization (Allen, Kern, & Havenhand, 2002; Crisostomo, 2008a; PM GCSS-Army, 2011). Finally, it is proposed that using an ERP in a public organization such as the Army can reduce costs by streamlining processes, decreasing waste, increasing the speed of service, and improving customer service.

ERP Success and Failure Although many motivations for using an ERP exist, implementing an ERP can be a nightmare (Chen, 2001, p. 374) and defining success can be just as difficult. For instance, many firms use a mixture of metrics to help define the success of an ERP. Many firms use benefits as a metric in defining ERP success, while others use information technology (IT) effectiveness as a measure of success. Others use alignment and fit as well as other metrics in the measures of success. It is often difficult to define success and failure adequately, as some researchers and practitioners have defined success and failure in different degrees. ERP Success ERP success has been debated for over 20 years. Gargeya and Brady (2005) described two degrees of success; complete and partial. According to the researchers, an implementation that is completely successful results in streamlined business processes, 56

improved organizational effectiveness, enhanced competitive performance, and increased responsiveness to customer demand (Gargeya & Brady). An ERP implementation viewed to be a complete success would be one that provides a solid foundation to allow the firm to transform itself into a lower cost, higher performing organization (Miranda & Kavanagh, 2005, p. 37), thereby increasing value for customers and enhancing competitiveness (Singla, 2005). Seddon, Calvert, and Yang (2010) conducted a study to develop a model of enterprise system (ES) success based on the realization of ERP benefits. The model is a two-part model that described success factors leading to ES success, both in the shortterm and in the long-term. In the short-term, the researchers identified factors that lead to ES success, such as functional fit and overcoming organizational inertia (p. 305), while in the long-term, they identified integration, process optimization, and improved access to information (p. 305), as contributors to ES success. Finally, Crisostomo (2008b) conducted research to determine the management attributes required for a successful ERP implementation in public organizations. She suggested an ERP in the public sector must be flexible enough to allow the institution to meet the needs of the organization. Crisostomo identified two management attributes necessary for a successful ERP implementation, which are the skills and knowledge of the project manager (p. 11) and the management of change during the implementation. However, these factors address project management processes and not ERP configuration or implementation processes. ERP Failure Singla (2005) suggested the failure rate of ERP implementations approaches 60% (p. 119). However, a definition of ERP failure must be provided in order to 57

appropriately assign failure; two degrees of ERP failure can be found in the literature. For instance, Gargeya and Brady (2005) suggested a firm can experience either a complete or partial failure. Complete failures are those implementations that ended before implementing the system companywide or when a firm experiences a problem so significant that it leads to a long-term financial catastrophe (P. 501). A partial failure is defined as a problem that results in tenuous adjustment processes (p. 501) or resulted in some disruption of company operations. Even with such high failure rates, organizations are finding the systems absolutely essential to responsive planning and communication (Singla, 2005, p. 119). Gargeya and Brady (2005) discussed ERP success and failure factors with a focus on the implementation of SAP branded ERP systems in 44 (p. 501) companies based on a content analysis of ERP literature. Further, Gargeya and Brady suggested implementation failure can often result in fatal difficulty and 70% of all ERP implementations fail, even after three years (p. 501). Also, they suggested that no single factor can be contributed to the success of an implementation. Finally, regardless of the degree of failure, Dezdar and Sulaiman (2009) suggested that to reduce the failure rate associated with ERP implementations, management needs to understand the failure rates and to develop solutions to reduce or eliminate ERP failure.

Enterprise Success Sedera, Gable, and Chan (2003) conducted an exploratory study using factor analysis employing a dual-survey research methodology to develop a model based on DeLone and McLeans (1992) Success Model (p. 479) to measure the success of an 58

information system (IS). DeLone and McLeans model has been defined as the most comprehensive and widely cited model (p. 479) used in measuring IS success. Further, measuring the success of an IS is a complex endeavor (p. 476). Sedera, Gable, and Chans proposed model has five independent constructs that have guided researchers to in defining enterprise success. Further, they posited the constructs to be correlated and additive measures of the same multi-dimensional phenomenon (p. 479), enterprise success. The original DeLone and McLean (1992) model used six constructs; however, Sedera, Gable, and Chan removed the use construct because they posited the organization in the study mandated the use of the information system, thereby nullifying the voluntary use as posited by the original models authors. In the context of this study, mandatory use of the system also removes the voluntary use construct from any measurement of process performance. Further, Sedera, Gable, and Chan (2003) suggested that measuring the success of an information system is neither simple nor straightforward (p. 480). They suggested that bias can be introduced in the expected outcomes, because of inaccuracies in measurements (p. 480). They suggested further that evidence on this topic is mixed with both positive and negative (p. 476) effects on the organizations who implemented an IS. The study focused on measuring the success of enterprise systems in a government institution in Queensland Australia with a live SAP system (p. 480). They defined the system as one that encompasses a wide range of software products that support day-today operations and provides a firm with a standardized integrated process-focused environment (p. 477). The objective was to develop a framework that is both 59

operational and meaningful, and generalizable (p. 477) beyond the study. Finally, they suggest that previous studies of enterprise success collected data at higher levels of analysis, typically ignoring the process level (p. 482); this studys focus is at the process level of analysis.

The Benefits of Using an ERP Enterprise resource planning systems are associated with many benefits. They are generally categorized as being tangible or intangible (Al-Mashari, Al-Mudigm, & Zairi, 2003; Singla, 2005). Tangible benefits are those benefits that can be touched, felt, measured, and are typically objective, while intangible benefits are subjective and hard to measure. Although many of the benefits associated with an ERP implementation have been identified as being tangible or intangible, Al-Mashari, Al-Mudigm, and Zairi (2003) grouped benefits into five high-level categories. Among the benefits the researchers identified were operational, managerial, strategic, IT infrastructure, and organizational (p. 356). This suggests that identifying, categorizing, and grouping benefits is both difficult and subjective. Singla (2005) conducted a study using a mixture of survey data and literature research and identified 11 tangible benefits and 19 intangible benefits associated with small and medium sized businesses and public sector enterprises. Singlas study indicates little difference exists in opinions on the level of importance of the benefits between the firms he studied. This finding suggests the benefits to using an ERP remain the same across different industries and sectors.

60

Al-Mashari, Al-Mudimigh, and Zari (2003) also investigated ERP benefits. Like Singla (2005), they suggested the benefits provided by an ERP can be classified as both tangible and intangible (p. 355). For instance, tangible benefits can be realized in the reduction of inventory, increased productivity, and a reduction of transportation and logistics costs (p. 355). The researchers suggested intangible benefits include increased visibility of data, and new or improved business processes (p. 355). Umble, Haft, and Umble (2003) added to the line of ERP benefits research. They identified two major benefits of an ERP, which are an integrated view of the entire organization and a single repository of data. These benefits are important to an organization like the Army, which has chosen to move from a series of non-integrated systems to an integrated platform, because data originating from, entering, storing, monitoring, and reporting on business transactions, provide a seamless integration from all information flows in the organization (p. 243), thereby increasing operational performance. Most research on ERP benefits is focused on private sector organizations. However, Crisostomo (2008a) investigated ERP benefits in the public sector organization in Guam. She indicated that some of the benefits of using and ERP in a government agency are (a) lower operating costs (b) timely reporting of financial statements and (c) easier access to reliable information (p. 31). These are not much different from the benefits sought by private sector organizations. Further, Allen, Kern, and Havenhand (2002) explored ERP implementations in four separate higher education institutions and found the benefits do mirror those in the private sector. For instance, they suggest that simplicity is one benefit that is sought in public sector organizations and ERPs provide this benefit. ERPs provide customers with a single source to retrieve the information they 61

need; these integration benefits are sought in the private sector as well as by the Army. Regardless of the sector under investigation, many researchers agree on many of the benefits offered by an ERP. For instance, Al-Mashari, Al- Mudimigh, and Zairis (2003) and Singla (2005) agreed that an ERP provides a firm with an integrated view of the organization and provides a single repository of data. A single repository for data provides a seamless integration from all information flows in the organization (AlMashari, Al- Mudimigh, & Zairi, p. 243) increasing visibility of the organizations data. Singla identified three key tangible benefits (p. 130), which include improved inventory management, productivity, and cash management and three key intangible benefits such as improved business processes, standardization, and information visibility (p. 130). Singla agreed with Al-Mashari, Al- Mudimigh, and Zairi on improved business processes; however, Al-Mashari, Al- Mudimigh, and Zairi added other intangible benefits, which include increased visibility of data (p. 355). Finally, Tsai, Chen, Hwang, and Hsu (2010) suggested focusing on benefits can be detrimental to an ERP implementation. For instance, they suggest that striving to reach benefits can sometimes result in implementation failure and suggested well defined metrics must be used when evaluating the benefits to be achieved. They provided examples of the consequences of failure while focusing on benefits, such as in the case of the failure of FoxMeyer Drug Companys ERP implementation, which drove the firm into bankruptcy (Tsai, Chen, Hwang, and Hsu).

62

ERP Alignment and Fit Even though ERPs are used in most industries, Singla (2005) suggested that it is important to understand that most ERP packages marketed today are essentially complete and that the firms software and business processes need to be aligned (p. 120) for the ERP implementation to be considered successful. Required are a mixture of business process reengineering and software configuration (p. 120), and organizations must work hard to ensure and ERP fits the organizational structure and processes. ERP Alignment Kang, Park, and Yang (2008) investigated ERP alignment with what they called organizational integration modes, which are listed as (a) people-based (b) standardization-based and (c) centralized-based (p. 25). Further, each of these integration modes define how organizations coordinate and control activities (p. 26) in order to achieve goals. To investigate these modes, they used the lens of strategic alignment theory (p. 26). According to these researchers, an organization will realize higher performance if the fit between its business strategy, information system strategy, and information system infrastructure (p. 26) is high. The researchers listed a series of issues associated with dissimilar legacy systems such as poor integration and the inability to obtain near real-time information for decision making. They also suggested that using legacy systems versus an enterprise system resulted in imbalances among functional groups within the organizational hierarchy. Finally, the researchers findings indicate ERP alignment is dependent on how well an organization develops its enterprise objectives (Kang, Park, & Yang, 2008).

63

ERP Fit Hong and Kim (2002) researched ERP success with a focus on organizational fit using correlation analysis. They described two perspectives with regard to organizational fit and ERP implementation. First, is the package adaptation perspective (p. 26), which is the modification of the ERPs code to fit the organizations processes. However, most would agree strongly that an ERP should not be modified to fit an organizations processes. Second, is the organizational adaptation perspective in which academics suggest that ERPs do not provide models for every process of every industry (p. 26), and require modification to fit the specific organizations processes. Seddon, Calvert, and Yang (2010) suggested the greater the fit, the more effective and efficient the organizations processes will be (p. 312). Morton and Hu (2008) conducted a case study on organizational fit using the structural contingency theory. Morton and Hus goal was to determine whether a relationship existed between an organizations structure and technology. They suggested for a good fit between technology and organization structure, the organization must reengineer its processes to fit the enterprise solution, which means that the organization must adopt process-oriented structures (p. 391). According to these researchers, the fit between the organization and the systems design is a critical determinant of IS success (p. 391). Finally, this is important because it is generally accepted that enterprise solutions are not typically aligned to an organization and a firm implementing an enterprise solution, and the firm will need to implement significant changes in order to adapt to the ERP.

64

ERP Effectiveness What has been discussed thus far, ERP benefits, ERP success and failure, and ERP alignment and fit, all lead to how well a firm will perform once the ERP has been selected and implemented. Karim, Somers, and Bhattacherjee (2007) suggested these topics all lead to ERP effectiveness. They defined ERP effectiveness as the ability of an ERP to improve decision making, planning, and resource management and delivery (p. 229). Tsai, Chen, Hwang, and Hsu (2010) advanced research on DeLone and McLeans (1992) Information Success Model, which provides 10 high-level categories by which to measure ERP effectiveness. The researchers findings suggested that when a firm is more successful at reengineering its processes to fit the ERP, the more successful the firm will be at increasing its competitiveness. These findings suggest that to increase a firms competitiveness, an organization should implement business process reengineering so that the firms business processes fit the ERP solution and limit the level of customization. Soh and Markus (1995) advanced a synthesis of five different models that attempted to measure the effectiveness of IT systems in increasing organizational performance. However, they found that the models contained a mixture of variance and process theory and suggested the models could not explain when, how, or why (p. 30) IT investments resulted in improved organizational performance. Although satisfying, the theories provided the conditions that are only necessary, but not sufficient (p. 30) in measuring IT effectiveness. As a result, the researchers advanced a synthesized model that is a better-developed sequence of pure process theories (p. 33). The model is 65

composed of three parts, which are IT conversion process, IT use process, and competitive process (p 37), which are broken down into constructs, which include (a) IT expenditure (b) IT assets (c) It impacts and (d) organizational performance (p. 37). One construct that could be used in this study is IT impacts because the unit of analysis is at the business process (p. 37). Further, this construct facilitates the assessment of IT impact in the areas of (a) new products/services (b) redesigned business processes (c) better decision making and (d) improved coordination (p. 37). However, this construct is not a good fit with the capabilities perspective. This is because the appropriate unit of analysis to determine the success of an ERP in increasing a firms competitiveness is the output of the business process (Karim, Somers, & Bhattacherjee, 2007). In fact, Karim, Somers, and Bhattacherjee (2007) suggested the business process provides a context in which one can examine IT business value and is a vehicle by which a firm can build and materialize organizational capabilities (p. 229).

Integration Al-Mashari, Al-Mudimigh, and Zari (2003) advanced a discussion and the development of a theoretically and grounded theory of ERP critical success factors focusing on benefits realization. These researchers suggested approaching an ERP from this perspective is one of the most effective means toward traceability (p. 352) which facilitates integration. According to these researchers, the enterprise solution is the first approach (p. 354) used by organizations to combine business management and IT concepts into a comprehensive management strategy within a single infrastructure. This presents the firm with a holistic view of the firms business functions that is built around 66

a single database that interfaces with the firms different business units. Lee, Siau, and Hong (2003) agreed and suggested the ability to react effectively to rapid changes in a firms environment comes from an integrated organization; an organization must integrate business functions into a single system (p. 54) so that data can be shared throughout the organization as well as with customers and suppliers. Beretta (2002) defined integration as a strategy of leveraging resources. He also suggested that for an organization to build a competitive advantage, integration of the organizations resources would be a prerequisite for high performance. An ERP facilitates integration by enabling an organization to share common information across all functional units, thus allowing a single view of information in near real-time. Lee, Siau, and Hong (2003) defined integration as the capability to integrate a variety of different system functionality (p. 56) into a single system. In the Armys logistic organizations, each logistics area is run by functional units. For instance, supply and asset management actions are governed by many of the same regulations. However, the transactions and governance for each business area are maintained in separate standalone information silos, such as the Standard Army Retail Supply System (SARSS) for supply and the Property Book Unit Supply Enhanced (PBUSE) for asset management. Sharing information from each system should increase asset visibility for all types of supply actions. Berretta (2002) suggested that integration from enterprise solutions comes from technologies that enable integration (p. 257) and the organizations movement to adopt a process view. Accordingly, integration is a strategy to be used in leveraging resources through resource sharing (Beretta, 2004, p. 69). The researcher suggests that targeting,

67

blending, and recycling are strategies for resource leveraging, but require high levels of integration (p. 69). Seddon, Calvert, and Yang (2010) suggested integration is composed of two components; back- and front-end integration, (p. 314). This analysis differs from that of Beretta (2002); however, the goal of integration is achieved when a firm properly integrates disparate information systems into a single platform. Integration provides the firm with many advantages such as data accuracy, end-to-end visibility, greater information visibility, as well as a single and easier system for users to learn and use (p. 314). Lee, Siau, and Hong (2003) suggested that integration with an ERP is pushoriented (p. 59) and forces an organization to adapt to the processes built into the system by the vendor. Finally, integration with an ERP is a bottom-up approach (p. 59) which starts with the individual business process.

Process Management Al-Mashari (2003) suggested that organizations are becoming more interested in process based operations and that for organizations to adopt a process based structure, the ERP is the solution. Sullivan, Kelly, and Olson (1999) suggested that to be successful, an organization must define the value chain of core logistics processes that contribute directly to the firms strategy. Beretta (2004) suggested this core is the business process, because the business process allows firms to combine activities into integrated processes that can generate value for the firm (p. 71). This is because the outputs of a business process create value for the organization and can increase customer satisfaction. This finding suggests that for the Army to increase the logisticians confidence in the Armys 68

logistics capability, the Army must transform its silo-based functional logistics capability to an enterprise process-based logistics capability. The concept of process (p. 71) can offer the Army a solid foundation for enhancing its logistics capability. To transform its logistics capability, Gulledge and Sommer (2004) suggested Army leaders must embrace process management, because process management is a prerequisite (p. 473) for transforming functional silos into an enterprise capability. Chen (2001) suggested that a to-be state should also be included as a prerequisite for process-based operations, suggesting that the vision of what the organization will look like after the implementation is important. Vision requires an understanding of the organizations workflows so that process ownership can be established for managerial control. This understanding allows management to focus on the appropriate business process improvements to continue optimization of critical processes. According to Gulledge and Sommer, and Chen, this issue is one of the underlying ideas behind the use of ERPs, the integration of an enterprises resources into a single enterprise capability. Without this basic understanding, Gulledge and Sommer suggested the transforming organization will never realize the benefits sought from the transformation. Beretta (2002) defined a process as a conceptual scheme (p. 259) used to integrate a set of business activities and allows management to measure the usefulness of the combined activities. Transforming to a process-based orientation allows management to integrate activities and permits a firm to overcome existing functional boundaries and silos. In the concept of an ERP, success could be defined by the usefulness or output of the process. Success could be based on a user requirement, such as the need for a report or the need to create, manage, close out, or modify a maintenance work order in a 69

production plant. Further, Beretta indicated that a process is often described as a locus that allows management to integrate the resources and competencies of the firm to create a sustainable competitive advantage (p. 260). Finally, Sullivan, Kelly, and Olson (1999) identified and described three types of business processes, which are (a) core (b) support and (c) management (p. 266) with a focus on the DoD. Core processes are those processes that are fundamental, critical, and are deployed in order to accomplish the mission. Support processes are those that provide the resources to accomplish the core processes. Support processes are typically found in the form of infrastructure and are normally functionally oriented (p. 266) and in this study are considered to be critical mission functions. Finally, management processes are those processes linked to law and policy (p. 266).

Critical Success Factors ERPs are powerful and complex systems. To ensure a successful implementation, a firm must understand the link between the implementation process and what is successful, which requires a firm to select the factors that lead to success and manage these factors intensely. Much of what has been presented so far describes how researchers look at an ERP and how they link the system to success though factors such as benefits, fit and alignment, among others. However, much research over the past 30 years has pointed to the identification of critical success factors to determine the successful implementation of an IT system, such as an ERP.

70

Rockart (1979) conducted what is arguably the oldest study that addressed critical success factors (CSFs). Although the study was not related to IT or ERP systems, it did however, provide a seminal look at CSFs. For instance, Rockarts study focused on the information needs of executives to facilitate the effective management of a firm. His CSF research focused on the information needs of individual managers and on each managers current information needs and included hard and soft measures delivered in a meaningful way (p. 85). Further, he suggested that CSFs should focus on the limited numbers of areas that contribute to the firms performance. He further defined CSFs as factors that should receive managerial attention. Therefore, from an IT perspective, investigating CSFs as a method of identifying the factors and areas necessary to ensure a successful ERP implementation is important, because CSFs can help management define what components of an ERP are connected to corporate goals, and when defined, are continuously monitored to ensure a successful outcome. This approach is proposed by Rockart himself in suggesting that a control system composed of CSFs, can be tailored to a specific industry (p. 86). Many researchers in the IT knowledge area have used the CSF methodology to investigate IT and ERP implementation success. Francoise, Bourgault, and Pellerin (2009) suggested the topic of critical success factors represent a significant amount of literature (p. 373). However, Nah, Lau, and Kuang (2001) suggested that research in the area of ERP implementation critical success factors is rare and fragmented (p. 286) and that little has been done to identify the important factors that lead to the success of an ERP implementation. Francoise, Bourgault, and Pellerin suggested that critical success factors are the primary components of organizational objectives that will lead to the success of an ERP implementation. Also, 71

Francoise, Bourgault, and Pellerin suggested these factors cover a wide range of topics and areas of expertise, which the researchers described as crucial for success (p. 373). Although these researchers identified13 generic (p. 377) factors, one factor of particular interest in this study is business process reengineering and customization (p. 375) because business processes are used in the development of capabilities (Smith, 2008). Shanks, Parr, Hu, Corbitt, Thanasankit, and Seddon (2000) indicated that CSFs are particularly useful to practitioners because they provide guidance to management on where to focus attention and resources to ensure an ERP implementation is successful. Further, the researchers developed a synthesized ERP implementation model that contained four phases, which are (a) planning (b) implementation (c) stabilization and (d) improvement (p. 2). They also provided a list of 11 critical success factors that mirror much of what Somers and Nelson (2001) described as being imperative for the success of an ERP system. What is important about this study is that Shanks, et al (2000) listed the important factors for each implementation phase based on two separate ERP implementations in two different cultural settings. However, this research is based on two different organization types, an oil refiner and elevator company (p. 3) which differ not only in cultural aspects but also in business processes; even the researchers indicated that this approach has implications on the generalizability of the studys findings. Al-Mashari (2003) identified 13 CSFs. Of the 13 CSFs, Al-Mashari suggested that the most cited of CSFs is the organizations preparedness for embarking on ERP (p. 24), which suggests that change management is an important factor in the success of an ERP implementation. This research was focused on ERP adoption and identified 72

several common problems associated with ERP implementation and proposed several areas of future research on CSFs. One important finding from Al-Masharis study is that more empirical studies are needed on ERP implementations using critical success factors to determine how firms who have implemented enterprise solutions were successful. With this research gap in mind, the present study used a critical factor approach to determine the success of an ERP in delivering a desired strategic capability. Somers and Nelson (2001) conducted a survey study that identified and described 22 CSFs associated with ERP implementation based on 86 survey responses from Fortune 500 and 200 companies. What was unique about this study is the researchers defined six phases of the implementation processes and mapped the top five CSFs to each of these phases. Like Al-Masharis (2003), Somers and Nelson expanded empirical research in the area of CSFs and they suggested this area of research lacks broad-based empirical research (p. 1). Akkermans and Heldon (2002) conducted an exploratory grounded theory case study of an ERP implementation to expand empirically on Somers and Nelsons CSF research, which built on Somers and Nelsons original research by investigating the interrelationships between ERP implementation success and failures. Bhatti (2005) conducted an empirical grounded theory study to determine the importance of CSFs by developing and using the integrated ERP implementation framework (p. 2). Bhatti operationalized and empirically measured 12 CSFs to determine the importance of the CSFs in each of four ERP implementation stages to determine the level of correlation to implementation success. Bhatti investigated both project and business outcomes in this study. An interesting finding in this study was that of the 12 CSFs identified by Bhatti, the strongest relationship exists between the CSFs 73

project management, BPR, Change, management involvement, and user involvement (p. 8). Dezdar and Sulaiman (2009) conducted extensive content analysis of peer reviewed journals of business and IS fields contained in nine databases. The researchers indicated that many inconsistent and inconclusive findings (p. 1038) about CSFs exist in the literature. Focusing on three CSF taxonomies developed by earlier researchers, theses researchers developed a new taxonomy of 17 CSFs that are allocated to three different categories, which are ERP system environment, ERP implementation success, and ERP adopting organizational environment (p. 1046). Each category contains many of the CSFs found in the earlier taxonomies. Finney and Corbett (2007) conducted a qualitative content analysis of ERP and CSF literature that focused on the stakeholders perspective. They suggested that many of the studies on CSFs have used critical success factors, but did not take into consideration the stakeholders perspective (p. 330). These researchers identified some criticisms of the research focused on CSFs describing it as being biased and only focusing on the opinions of managers (p. 330), thereby leaving out the voices of other stakeholders such as users and consultants. Further, to afford more weight to CSFs, other members of the organization should be given the chance to voice an opinion of the success of an ERP. They suggested that because a firm must get CSFs right, it would make sense to include other stakeholder groups in the identification of CSFs that affect ERP implementation. For this reason, the effectiveness of a business process in this study is based on the users perspective taken from a statistical database of quantitative data.

74

Jarrar, Al-Mudimigh, and Zairi (2002) discussed CSFs associated with an ERP. Although many factors have been identified in other studies, they suggest most fall into one of four categories (p. 123), which are leadership commitment, business process reengineering, IT infrastructure, and change management. Of these four categories, the researchers suggested the most important factors are those related to business process reengineering and the integration of the firms core processes (p. 122). Pabedinskait (2000) identified and quantitatively analyzed what he considered to be the 16 most important factors that lead to ERP success. His analysis differs from other researchers in that he divided the 16 factors into three categories, such as (a) internal (b) external and (c) mixed (p. 695). According to the researcher, the internal factors are important because they revolve around activities such as business process reengineering, developing a vision, and top management support. Finally, the researcher suggests that the number one factor contributing to ERP success is the control of implementation of the projects time, budget, and tasks (p. 695), which are project management related factors. Soja (2006) suggested that a great number of conditions and factors influence the implementation of an ERP, which result in both positive and negative effects on the outcome of an ERP implementation. They suggested these factors originate from either the environment, such as the product technology level and the organizations willingness to change (p. 647) or the methods by which the ERP is being implemented. In determining ERP success based on CSFs, it is difficult pinpoint specific CSFs of other ERP implementations because of differences in samples and the lack of verification (p. 648) except for top management support. In fact, Soja suggested that potential CSFs and 75

the result of research differ substantially (p. 648) in ERP literature. Finally, the result of his research suggested the greatest influences on ERP success are project management related factors such as project team composition and involvement, the firms IT infrastructure, and the support of top leadership in the implementation. Sun, Yazdani, and Overend (2005) created a modeling simulation using the Forester simulation approach to identify the most important CSFs in the context of small manufacturing enterprises (SMEs) (p. 189). They suggested that out of the many CSFs found in ERP literature, the resource constraints of SMEs impede them from pursuing or managing all of the CSFs. As a result, these researchers used a simulation to identify the most important CSFs that SMEs should focus on so as to increase the chances of implementation success. According to this research, the four most important CSFs, in order of importance, are people, data, process, and management/organization (p. 190), which are project management-related CSFs. Also, they suggested the more attention given to any one CSF during an implementation, the higher the implementation success rate (p. 190). Finally, they excluded technology because the assumption was that technology had been purchased and would remain constant. Plant and Willcocks (2007) conducted a case study of two international small and medium enterprises implementing an ERP focusing on the project managers perceptions of CSFs (p. 62). They considered the 22 factors of Somers and Nelsons (2001) research to determine the factors from a cultural perspective. They listed several of the historical ERP failures, such as FoxMyer and Hershey as well as a successful implementation such as Cisco (p. 60). They also suggested that ERP implementations

76

are worth continuing to research because the technology tends to change quickly, which presents new risks and issues (p. 61). Morton and Hu (2008) noted that research of CSFs has been ongoing for over a decade and that research in the area of CSFs lacks a theoretical foundation (p. 392). Further, the evidence presented here suggests that measuring ERP success using CSFs is an obscure and highly subjective concept and the majority of ERP literature makes an attempt to define the concept, but provides no uniform definition (Pabedinskait, 2000, p. 691) or theoretical process to do so. In fact, Pabedinskait defined approximately 30 factors (p. 692), which was used to define ERP success. Trkman (2010) conducted a study of a Slovenian bank using the contingency dynamic capabilities theory and investigated the CSFs related to business process management (BPM). The purpose was to establish a theoretical basis for the use of CSFs in BPM activities. Two findings were noted. First, Trkman indicated that in an investigation of a firms reengineering processes in conjunction with an ERP implementation, the effectiveness of the business process (p. 127) is typically selected to be the dependent variable. Second, Trkman suggested that IT should be used in such a way as to enable dynamic capabilities, which can facilitate the sustainable strategic advantage (p. 131). Also, Trkmans research indicated that use of the resource-based view of the firm as a theoretical foundation in in a research project would be a wise one. Also, it is interesting to note that no research has taken the approach of measuring ERP success from a critical mission function perspective or from a capabilities development perspective.

77

Pettit and Beresford (2009) investigated supply chain related CSFs in the context of disaster relief. One finding in this study suggested that information is related to an effective logistics strategy, because information supports the decision maker in forward planning, coordination, and collaboration (p. 455) of logistics activities such as capacity utilization, scheduling, and maintenance (p. 457). Consequently, it could be argued that information is a key determinant in the effectiveness of visibility in maintenance. For instance, maintenance services must be scheduled in accordance with the organizations operational tempo so that the organizations mission will not be obstructed. Further, timely, accurate, and useful information allows organizational users and managers to assess equipment status and load the maintenance capacity of the facilities in accordance with organizational priorities. Given the finding that information supported an effective logistics strategy, visibility of maintenance is an ideal dependent variable to be used in the present study, because information provides the visibility organizational users need to adequately assess maintenance processes and equipment readiness for the Armys equipment sustainment needs (Pettit & Beresford, 2009).

Resource Based View of the Firm Critical success factors such as those described in the previous section are used in many industries to evaluate a firms competitive performance. However, Amit and Schoemaker (1993) suggested that for critical success factors to help in assessing competitive performance, they must be grounded in theory. The resource-based view (RBV) provides this theoretical link. The RBV posits that organizations are made up of a combination of intangible and tangible resources, which are difficult for other 78

organizations to emulate because often, the bundles of organizational resources are rare, valuable, and non-substitutable (Barney, 1995; Kristandl & Bontis, 2007; Porter, 1991). Using a mixture of resources with these characteristics is the foundation for creating a competitive advantage. By considering an organization as a collection of resources and capabilities (Amit & Schoemaker, pp. 34-35) the resource based view of the firm provides the requisite link to a theoretical base for the present study. The theory allows researchers and practitioners to evaluate key success factors of individual firm behavior (Mahoney & Pandian, 1992, p. 369) through the use of a portfolio of skills, routines, integration of skills across functional lines, experience, and know-how. Penrose (1997), in her seminal work The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, investigates how the prices and the allocation of resources among different uses are determined (p. 29), was one of the first researchers to investigate resources as being the key to competitive success. She identified the primary purpose of an organization as providing goods and services through the use of productive resources (p. 30). The underlying principle of this theory was the use of resources in firm growth. Although she stressed that firms are a collection of productive resources (p. 30), she indicated that resources alone could not affect the growth of a firm; it is the services that the resources produced that affected firm growth, because the functions and activities performed in the production process are what establishes the distinction or uniqueness (p. 30) of the firm, which facilitates the creation of an advantage over rivals. Porter (1991) discussed the need for and developed a dynamic theory of strategy (p. 45) by walking methodically through the history of strategy formulation. He addressed many of the determinants and indicators for a competitive advantage and 79

suggested that early strategy formulation was focused on the development of consistent goals and functional policies (p. 96) and the need to align the firms strengths and weaknesses with opportunities and threats (pp. 96-97) in the firms external environment. This point suggests that early strategy formulation is focused on the firms fit with its environment. In fact, Porter suggested this conclusion when he developed his five forces model as well as his identification of cross-sectional and longitudinal (p. 100) drivers within the environment that affect a firms strategy. Further, he suggested that the cost drivers and activities along the firms value chain affect the formulation of a competitive strategy. In fact, he stipulated that these cost drivers and activities are the underlying sources of a competitive advantage (p. 104). Finally, Porter discussed the RBV as being the most introspective and centered on the firm (p. 107) and that in most cases, the history of the RBV indicated that it is mostly concerned with diversification and the need for management to understand the distinctive strengths (p. 107) of the firm, which are its bundle of resources (p. 108). Barney (1995) suggested that Porters (1991) linking of a competitive advantage to a firms environment is only half of the story (p. 49). For a complete understanding of what affects a firms competitive performance, researchers must analyze a firms internal strengths and weaknesses (p. 49). For example, Barney observed that the firms environment alone cannot explain why firms are successful and for a complete understanding, the internal attributes (p. 50) of the firm must be considered. This point suggests the RBV concerns the resources a firm owns or controls. These resources can include tangible resources, such as finances, land, building, human resources, and technology. Also, these resources can include intangible resources, such as trade mark, 80

reputation, knowledge of technology, skills, and abilities (Barney, 1995; Wernerfelt, 1984). Wernerfelt (1984) used the RBV to investigate the economic impact of resources and how they could be used in product and market diversification. Whats unique about this study is the use of Porters five forces model (p. 172) as an evaluation tool. Further, he suggested that resource profiles enable a firm to optimize its resources in the creation of a competitive advantage through diversification. By establishing a resource profile, Wernerfelt suggested that evaluating the internal resources of a firm offers a different perspective, providing opportunities for management to configure resource pools that generate the best output for diversifying into new product or market areas. For instance, Wernerfelt suggested that companies who create effective resource profiles can generate a competitive advantage by creating a resource position barrier (p. 173), which results in higher returns, because the competitors acquisition of a matching resource profile would be costly. Finally, Wernerfelt suggested the internal attributes of the firm are the firms strengths, which are the key to competitive advantage, and discussed these strengths and weaknesses as both tangible and intangible. To investigate the connection between resources and competitive performance, Rumelt (1991) conducted an analysis of business unit and industry rate of return by analyzing the impact market factors have on firm performance. He indicated that stable performance at the business unit level is six times more important than stable industry effects (p. 178) in explaining the differences in competitive return rates. His conclusions indicated that increasingly disaggregated sources of resource immobility or specificity (p. 178) explained the variance in return rates. The researcher provided evidence of what 81

Penrose (1997) and Wernerfelt (1984) had discovered, all of which indicates that resources are a major component in developing a competitive advantage.

Resources A review of RBV literature revealed an underlying theme, which is the use of resources in creating competitive advantage. To gain an understanding of how resources are used to generate rent, it is generally accepted that for a firm to maintain a sustained competitive advantage, its bundle of resources must have one of four characteristics. Barney (1995) described these resource characteristics as being valuable, rare, inimitable, and having a support structure for the resource mix employed in a specific strategy. First, resources must be valuable; to be valuable, a firms resource base must allow the firm to take advantage of opportunities in its environment and neutralize potential threats to its competitiveness (Barney, 1995, p. 50). Second, a resource must be rare; the more a resource is used in an industry, the less it will generate an advantage. However, Barney stipulates that a common resource (p. 52) that is not rare can generate a small competitive advantage. Next, a resource should not be substitutable; competitors often imitate competitors products and services through substitution or duplication (p. 53), which reduces the value of a particular resource to others. However, firms with a long history have developed competitive processes, a knowledge base of skills and abilities in the workforce, and a bundle of firm specific resources that are unique, which is costly to imitate, thus, creating a competitive advantage. This is a result of cultural connections that have developed over time increasing trust and reputation (p. 55) among the members of the firm, which are difficult and costly to imitate. 82

Although Barney (1995) discussed both tangible and intangible resources, he did not fully describe either resource type. For instance, he discusses processes, skills, abilities, and culture, but did not provide a detailed description. Kristandl and Bontis (2007) suggested this result is common. For instance, they suggested that RBV literature mentions resources, but the literature does not do a good job of distinguishing between the resource types. In a search for a definition for intangible resources, Kristandl and Bontis used the theoretical lens of RBV (p. 1510) to investigate intangible resources. They found that RBV literature resources lack common terminology (p. 1510). While Barney (1995) identified three common characteristics of resources, Kristandl and Bontis expanded on the topic of non-substitutable, and suggested that competitors must not have equivalent resources in order to substitute otherwise inimitable resources (p. 1512). Barney did touch on this characteristic, but did not fully describe it. Kristandl and Bontis (2007) suggested the resource characteristics provided by Barney (1995) only showed that a firm possesses strategic resources and how well they are being used in creating resource barriers. Kristandl and Bontis added several additional characteristics that firm-specific resources must have for the firm to remain competitive. For instance, the resources should be appropriable (p. 1512). Next, the researchers suggested that a resource must be immobile (p. 1512), meaning that competitors should not be able to purchase the resources from the market. Additionally, for a resource to create value and increase firm performance, the firm specific resources must include all the firms assets, capabilities, business processes, firm attributes, information, and knowledge (p. 1512). Further, a resource must be heterogeneously distributed across companies (p. 1513). The researchers suggested the differences between companies 83

must be stable over time (p. 1515). Additionally, Kristandl and Bontis suggested that the RBV literature mentions intangible resources, but did not specifically distinguish between intangible and tangible resources. Finally, the researchers indicated that not all resources are equally important to performance and that intangible resources seem to be the most influential (p. 1515) to increase performance. Finally, structure is not necessarily a characteristic of a resource as Barney (1995) suggested. However, a firm that owns or controls resources that meet the characteristics described by Barney and Kristandl and Bontis (2007) can enable a firms strategic intent, but not without a structure to support the intent. For instance, with a structure that supports the strategic intent of a firm, the firm will fully realize and exploit a competitive advantage (Barney). Porter (1991) would agree. For instance, he suggested resources are not valuable in and of themselves and that they are only meaningful in some context and that scale, sharing across activities, an optimal degree of integration, and other drivers (p. 108) are important factors that enable a competitive advantage. Therefore, an organization that is not structured to take advantage of the integration and sharing of resources across functional lines may achieve only a temporary advantage even though the firm has done well in the other categories of resource characteristics.

Capabilities A second underlying theme of the RBV is that of capabilities or competencies, which can be found in varying definitions in RBV literature. For instance, it is generally accepted that a capability is the capacity of a firm to deploy its resources in a productive manner (Amit & Schoemaker, 1993). Kogut and Zander (1992) have a different 84

perspective. They defined capabilities more in line with the RBV as a set of inert resources that are difficult to imitate and redeploy (p. 385). Days (1994) definition takes the knowledge and process-based perspective, and he defined a capability as a complex set of organizational skills and learning, which is executed through organizational processes. The RBV literature provides other definitions for capabilities, but most fall in line with these definitions. However, it must be understood that while the RBV literature stipulates that organizations utilize resources and capabilities to develop competitive advantages, a difference exists between resources and capabilities. The former are observable and can be tangible and intangible and can be independently traded (Karim, Somers, & Bhattacherjee, 2007, p. 223), while the latter are intangible, unobservable, and cannot be independently traded. Hall (1993) conducted a case study of six companies with the goal of identifying the sources of competitive advantages and their contributions to organizational performance. Hall focused on linking intangible resources to capabilities and how they contribute to competitive success. He defined the types of intangible resources that are typically dealt with in a firm. Further, Hall classified and categorized them into one of two types of capabilities, which are capabilities based on assets and capabilities based on competencies (p. 610). Intangible resources were assigned to sub-categories in each capability area such as regulatory and positional (p. 610), which falls into the assets category. This category includes intangible assets that can be protected by law or are defendable by other means, including trade mark and reputation. The competency category includes functional and cultural capabilities (p. 610) and includes skills, knowledge, experience, and cultural aspects such as habits, beliefs, attitudes (p. 610), 85

and the like. Further, Hall suggested that these categories of capabilities enable the firm to create a capability differential (p. 610), thus, creating a sustainable competitive advantage. Finally, Halls research concluded with a new strategic analysis tool that enables a firm to identify intangible resources and capabilities that are vital to the firms success. Day (1994) conducted a qualitative investigation of the emerging capabilities approach to strategic management (p. 37) using total quality management (TQM) as a lens. His goal was to determine how organizations use capabilities to link products and services to customer needs. He found that capabilities are deeply embedded in an organizations routines and practices (p. 38). He also suggested that the single most important benefit associated with capabilities is that once deployed, capabilities are hard to emulate. This is because capabilities are so entwined with the organizational processes as to be costly to emulate, because competitors cannot easily separate the capability from other organizational processes. This generalization suggests that capabilities cannot be bought; organizations must build capabilities because they are closely coupled with the firms internal resources (Day, 1994). Like Hall (1993), Day (1994) categorized capabilities, but they differed from Halls categories. For example, Day described three categories of capabilities, which are described as (a) inside-out (b) outside-in and (c) spanning (p. 41). According to Day, inside-out capabilities are those that are developed in reaction to external opportunities or competitive challenges; Logistics could be categorized as an inside-out capability, because a logistics capability is developed to capture opportunities as well as to respond to threats external to an organization. Outside-in capabilities are capabilities that connect 86

business processes to the external environment. An example here would be a firm needing to develop new capabilities and forming a strategic partnership with a supplier or a vendor to increase customer value or to reduce transaction costs. Spanning capabilities are those capabilities needed to integrate the other categories of capabilities. It could be suggested that total asset visibility is a spanning capability because it integrates information from many lower-level business processes into a high level business capability. Finally, Day suggested that to diagnose a capability, the best method is to examine the business process, because the output of the business process is used to judge success. Stalk, Evans, and Shulman (1992) investigated the link between competitive performance and capabilities. They investigated how markets and customer choices have changed over time, and because of the changes, organizations were forced to reinvent the way strategy is formulated. Further, they suggested that an organization can no longer compete on product or market structure and have to concentrate on the dynamics of organizational behavior (p. 62) or what they described as capabilities. Specifically, these researchers investigated the cross-docking capability that Wal-Mart developed and deployed in its distribution centers as compared to other companies, such as K-Mart. They suggested few companies have the capacity to view business processes as having strategic value, which is a weakness for companies such as K-Mart. Amit and Schoemaker (1993) suggested that capabilities are usually developed and deployed using a combination of intangible and tangible resources to affect a desired end (p.35). Further, the researchers suggest that capabilities tend to be information-based, firm specific, and developed over time. For example, the 87

researchers suggested capabilities are facilitated by the firms ability to develop, carry, and exchange information throughout the organization. This observation aligns with Barneys (1995) view that organizational structure provides a catalyst for the use of information in building capabilities. Amit and Schoemaker also suggested that capabilities contain invisible assets (p. 35) such as knowledge, skills, and abilities and are often built by combining the resources of multiple functional areas, again, supporting Barneys structure characteristic.

Core Capabilities Because many organizations employ capabilities, Day (1994) suggested that capabilities must be employed in some distinct order to create a competitive advantage. This supports the postulation that business processes form the foundation for developing a strategic capability. Further, Day suggested that management must choose and develop a few superior capabilities in order to establish a superior competitive position. He defined a superior capability as a key success factor, one that enables a firm to provide products or services more cost-effective (p. 40) than those of rivals. Superior capabilities provide a demonstrable contribution to a sustainable competitive advantage and superior profitability (p. 40). According to Day, these are the capabilities that firms cannot copy because they are rare and immobile. In line with Days (1994) research, Leonard-Barton (1994) discussed core capabilities and how they are applied to a firm from a project perspective. She considered capabilities to be core if they differentiate a company strategically (p. 111). She described how different researchers described core capabilities, such as being a 88

competence, or a core or firm-specific competence, or invisible assets (p. 112). Early researchers suggested that a core competence is built on an existing skills or resource base that was often demonstrated by the highest performance (p. 112). She suggested that core competencies evolve over time and that a firms survival depends on the management of the evolution of the capability (p. 112) over time to ensure that the capability does not erode. She defined the different dimensions associated with core capabilities, such as being unique, distinctive, and being difficult to imitate (p. 112). And finally, she defined core capabilities as a set of differentiated skills, complimentary assets, and routines (p. 112) that allow a firm to maintain an advantage over rivals. Morash and Lynch (2002) also looked at core or distinctive capabilities (p. 28). They conducted a survey study of over 3000 supply chain industry firms and developed a model to analyze the effects of public policy on global marketing and supply chain networks. This model helped the researchers define the input, processes, output, and outcome of capabilities that a particular firm may have. Morash and Lynch utilized RBV in analyzing governmental policy and the effects of firm performance based on policy making in developing distinctive capabilities. They defined a distinctive capability as a capability based on skills and accumulated knowledge that if executed through specific organization processes would enable the firm to use its assets (p. 28). This assertion supports the notion of using business processes to develop capabilities. Most, if not all of RBV theory provided thus far is presented in the context of forprofit organizations. Melin-Gonzlez, Batista-Canino, and Snchez-Medina (2010) provided evidence that RBV is applicable to public organizations. Additionally, MelinGonzlez, et al. (2010) indicates the RBV has been used implicitly in public settings in 89

strategic planning activities. In fact, these researchers conducted a study in a public university setting to assist the organization in identifying valuable resources and core capabilities through the lens of RBV using the balanced score card approach. They suggested that RBV is applicable in the public setting because one of the principle concerns of RBV is the relationship between customer value and superior performance (p. 98). Pablo, Reay, Dewald, and Casebeer (2007) agreed and added that in the current environment of increased fiscal constraints placed on public organizations, they must still provide the services and products to the constituents they serve. This grounded theory study of an organization mandated to improve performance (p. 694) with reduced fiscal resources revealed that public sector organizations often look inside the organization to search for latent capabilities which are accepted as being valuable and appropriate (p. 703). In some cases, the constraints placed on these organizations require them to implement changes to reduce costs and improve performance. Pablo, et al. (2007) suggested that in a time of limited external resources, public organizations are forced to look internally (p. 687) for resources to improve organizational performance. This comment suggests that RBV is applicable to the public setting. Bryson, Ackermann, and Eden (2007) conducted a research action study using causal mapping and developed a livelihood scheme designed to help public organizations in developing a strategic plan to increase organizational performance. This study was conducted using RBV to assist a public health organization in identifying distinctive competencies. The researchers suggested that for a public organization to be successful, leadership must identify resources and create capabilities that lead to the greatest public 90

value as reasonable cost (p. 702). Further, this exercise often begins with the aspirations of the organization and stakeholder needs, which are then mapped to what the researchers called distinctive competencies (p. 703). They defined distinctive competencies as competencies difficult for others to emulate, which creates an enduring advantage (p. 704). Finally, one finding in this study indicated that to develop successful capabilities in public organizations, leaders must be able to exploit, sustain, and protect the distinctive competencies within their organizations. Finally, the RBV serves as a good foundation for the present study, because the theory supports the combining of various intangible and tangible resources in creating capabilities that form a competitive advantage. Further, the research presented here supports the notion that business processes are the link between information success and capability building as a method for creating an enduring competitive advantage, even in the public sector where funding sources are limited, which requires these organizations to look inward at what resources are available to serve constituencies.

91

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY Current research on ERP system success in creating a competitive advantage revealed a gap in linking ERP business processes to a competitive advantage. This gap in the literature can be resolved by using a database of survey data taken from an SAP implementation to investigate the relationship between ERP business processes and building a capability to meet an organizations strategic ambitions. Previous research on building capabilities suggested that combining routines and practices, technology, and know-how allows a firm to create a capability of strategic importance. Also, previous research indicated the RBV can be used to theorize the building of capabilities and to benchmark the success of capabilities by investigating the business processes developed in an ERP (Day, 1994; Hammer, 1996). Finally, the purpose of this quantitative study is to analyze the relationship of specific business processes (critical mission functions) developed in GCSS-Army and determine whether they are related to a component of the Armys strategic objective of TAV to investigate whether GCSS-Armys TAV capabilities have been diminished. The goal of this study is to determine whether the information effect of business processes developed within the GCSS-Army ERP will improve the Armys visibility over its assets in the maintenance process by using a MCF and CMF Matrix as illustrated in Appendix A.

Research Design This dissertation utilized correlation and regression analysis and examined the relationship between the effectiveness of strategy measured by the information effect of 92

business processes. This is a retrospective records based research design that utilized a database of task performance and survey data to measure the significance of the relationship between the effectiveness of the Armys strategic capability of asset visibility of equipment in repair and the information effect of business processes, which contribute to this capability. This research relied on a Record Test database created by ATEC to record the mission critical and critical mission functions completed by the participants at an operational test event. The database also includes End of Test Survey responses from the participants of the operational test event. Swanson and Holton (2005) suggested that a database used for a different purpose or to obtain a different perspective, can be used in a research study such as this one. Further, the researchers suggested that using a database in research is different from conducting a context based or literature review study, because using a database facilitates the generation of new knowledge versus a meta-analysis aimed at a common concern or area of practice (p. 411). Quantitative research comes in four general forms, which are experimental, quasi-experimental, correlational, or descriptive (Swanson & Holton, 2005, p. 32). This study is non-experimental in nature, meaning that an existing phenomenon was investigated without manipulating the variables. Unlike simple descriptive research, which seeks to describe a phenomenon with the use of survey data, this correlational research seeks to determine the relationship between two variables using a database containing survey responses from an actual ERP implementation (Swanson & Holton). Quantitative research is grounded in the tradition of positivism and scientific knowledge;

93

the path to obtaining validated meaning is through experimentation and observation, which yields accurate and certain knowledge through objectivity (Crotty, 1998). This record-based research design was chosen because of the advantages the research method provides the researcher. For instance, the primary advantage of records based research is reduced cost and research time. Further, administrative records can be plentiful and are usually rigorous, are available for ad hoc or special studies (Hakim, 1983, p. 492) and administrative records can be available over a long period of time. Also, like survey research, a records-based research study allows a researcher to analyze multiple variables simultaneously to determine the type of relationship that exists between the variables (Creswell, 2009; Hakim, 1983). Using a records-based research method is not without its disadvantages. For instance, the records used in a research project can contain missing data; it can be difficult to comprehend any missing data items. Other disadvantages include the fact that data sets can contain data that was not recorded by the original researchers. One final disadvantage is that because the records already exist, the researcher cannot manipulate the records to fit the current research specifications. This study seeks to answer the following research questions: Research question #1: Is there a correlation between the information effect of effective maintenance management business processes and the visibility of assets in maintenance at the tactical level? Research question #2: Is there a correlation between the information effect of maintenance management business processes and the visibility of asset in maintenance at the operational level? 94

H1o: An increase in the effectiveness of a TAV capability (dependent variable) at the tactical level is not related to the information effect (independent variable) of correctly developed maintenance management critical mission functions (CMFs) (independent variable) developed in the solution. H1a: An increase in the effectiveness of a TAV capability (dependent variable) at the tactical level is related to the information effect (independent variable) of correctly developed maintenance management critical mission functions (CMFs) (independent variable) developed in the solution. H2o: An increase in the effectiveness of a TAV capability (dependent variable) at the operational level is not related to the information effect (independent variable) of correctly developed maintenance management critical mission functions (CMFs) developed in the solution. H2a: an increase in the effectiveness of a TAV capability (dependent variable) at the operational level is related to the information effect (independent variable) of correctly developed maintenance management critical mission functions (CMFs) developed in the solution.

Population and Sample The database used in this study contained responses from 345 participants from an operational test event following a major ERP implementation in a military organization from September 1 to October 21, 2012. The population for this study includes DoD employees, active duty military members, and DoD contractors. Figure 4 provides a summary of the employee types found in the database. 95

300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Contractor Military DoDCivilian

Figure 4. Demographics by employee type. The population under study is those logisticians who use an ERP to conduct dayto-day logistics operations, including warehouse operations, property management (property book), supply management (unit supply), retail supply operations (SSA), logistics management, and maintenance management operations. Finance users were also part of the test event working out of offices at the test location as well as offices in other parts of the United States, but are not part of this study. This studys population also includes leaders who utilize the output of the logistics business processes as input (e.g., reports, screen shots, automated workflows, etc.) in the decision making process. Figure 5 provides a breakdown of user roles found in the database.

96

Supply Opns Supervisor Supply Opns Non-sup (Clerk) Property Accountability Supervisory Property Accountability Non-sup (Clerk) Maint Opns Supervisor Maint Opns Non-Sup (Other) Maint Opns Non-Sup (Clerk) Log Mgmt Supervisor (SSA Manager) Log Mgmt Non-sup (Clerk) General Leadership Finance Supervisory Finance Non-sup (Clerk) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Figure 5. Demographics by user role. The sampling technique used to select the data elements included in this study was purposive sampling. This form of sampling is a deliberate form of sampling because the phenomenon under study provided a limited number of participants, and specific user groups found in the database provided the requisite responses to answer the research questions of interest to this study. Purposive sampling can be used in both qualitative and quantitative research (Tongco, 2007, p. 147). Although other sampling techniques exist, purposive sampling was the only option for this study. For example, only two Army organizations operate the ERP. Additionally, only one of the two organizations participated in the operational test event, which limits the amount of data available to provide the information relevant to the study. Tongco suggested that this sampling technique fits this situation. For example, the researcher suggested the technique could be used when some specific quality or type of information is sought and stipulated that purposive sampling is good for investigating a phenomenon where a specific skill or type of knowledge is needed (p. 152). Swanson and Holton (2005) described 10 reasons 97

for the use of purposive sampling, among them picking cases that meet some criterion (p. 52). The target audience for this study is listed in Table 4, which lists approximately 142 users. Table 4. Target Audience by User Role/Participant Group
User Role/Participant Group Maintenance Operations Supervisory Duty Position Maintenance Manager/Supervisor MOS Grouping Warrant Officer MOSs: 915A, 915E, 948A, 948D; Maintenance MOSs Skill level 4 Enlisted Logistics MOSs: 92A (skill levels 1 and 2) Enlisted MOSs: 11, 13, 19, 35, 68, 88, 91, and 92F series MOS (Skill levels 1, 2, and 3) Enlisted (Skill level 4 and 5) and Officer MOSs 11A, 11Z, 12A, 13A, 19A, 19C, 19Z, 25A, 25U, 35D, 68W, 88A, 90A, 91A, 92A, 94Z

Maintenance Operations Nonsupervisory (Clerk) Maintenance Operations Nonsupervisory (Other)

Automated Logistics Specialist

Mechanic/Technician

General Leadership

Commander, Executive Officer, First Sergeant, Platoon Sergeant

Note. Adapted from System evaluation plan for the global combat support system -army (GCSS-Army) release 1.1, 2011, by Army Evaluation Center, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD, pp. 3-1-3-35.

Forty-seven military occupational specialties (MOS) and three civilian career management fields make up the total population for this study. For instance, maintenance users MOSs range from 91A to 91X (Skill level 3 and 4). Supply and property book MOSs affected by this study are 92A and 92Y (Skill Level 1 through 4). Warrant Officers MOS including 920A, 920B, and 915E are also part of the study. Enlisted users include skill levels 1 through 5; skill level 1 equates to users in the military rank of Private (E1 through E3) and Specialist Four (E4); skill level 2 equates to a Sergeant, skill level 3, 4, and 5 equate to a Staff Sergeant (SSG), Sergeant First Class (SFC), and Master 98

Sergeant (MSG) respectively. Skill levels 3 through 5 can also hold leadership positions such as squad leader (SSG), platoon sergeant (SFC) and supervisor (MSG). Leaders are those users that either evaluate the performance of GCSS-Army users or use the output of the system for decision making. Leaders can be Warrant Officers or Commissioned Officers in the rank of Second Lieutenant through Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) from any MOS or functional area. Table 5 provides a description of the demographics by user role included in this study. Table 5.Study Demographics by User Role
Group ID 1 Demographics General Leadership Description of Demographic Group This group of participants includes company commanders, executive officers, first sergeants, and platoon sergeants. This group of users utilizes output of maintenance management business processes to assess operational readiness for mission planning. This group includes skill levels 4 and 5, and Commissioned Officers. This group of participants includes clerks that retrieve and manipulate logistics data from GCSS-Army into usable information. This group of participants also performs other duties such as master drivers, who input operator qualification data into GCSS-Army for an organization. This group of participants includes materials, operations, and maintenance management clerks in skill levels 1 through 2. This group of participants includes supervisors and clerks that retrieve and manipulate logistics data from GCSS-Army into usable information and use this information in decision making and logistics planning. This group of participants includes materials, operations, and maintenance management personnel including skill levels 3 through 5.

Logistics management nonsupervisor

Logistics management supervisory

99

Table 5.Study Demographics by User Role (continued)

Group ID 4 Demographics Maintenance operations supervisory Description of Demographic Group This group of participants includes supervisors and clerks that retrieve maintenance data from GCSS-Army and manipulate and format maintenance data into usable information for use in decision making and maintenance planning. This group of participants includes maintenance managers at mid- and senior- level of the organization. This group can include skill levels 4 and 5, Warrant Officers, and Commissioned Officers. This group of participants includes maintenance operations clerks, technicians, and maintenance personnel that enter maintenance related data into GCSS-Army at point of origination, e.g., maintenance sections and activities throughout the organization. This group includes skill levels 1, 2, and 3.

Maintenance operations nonsupervisory

Note. Adapted from System evaluation plan for the global combat support system -army (GCSS-Army) release 1.1, 2011, by Army Evaluation Center, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD, pp. 3-1-3-35.

Instrumentation and Measures Data were not collected specifically for this study; however, a basic review of the data collection instrument used by ATEC and OTC is warranted because the instrument used in the original data collection activities served as a starting point to identify the data elements needed to answer the research questions in this study. This fact is important because Hakim (1983) suggested that selecting a sample in a records based research study can be problematic (p. 499) and to reduce the complexity with this task, original record sources can serve as a tool to assist the researcher in identifying the information available in the data-set used in this study. Permission to use the operational test database for this study was given by the U.S. Army Combined Arms Support Command (CASCOM). The operational test event Record Test Survey instrument was used by test agencies to collect data to measure the systems survivability, suitability, and 100

effectiveness in an operational environment. The instrument was a computer-assisted self-administered instrument. The questions contained in the instrument were targeted to specific users, such as supervisors or maintenance clerks, to assess the systems survivability, suitability, and effectiveness from the users point of view. The instrument contained a mixture of Likert scale measures and simple response yes or no questions. Each Likert and simple response question was followed by a free-text scale question to allow the user to add qualitative responses, and in some instances, a free-text response was mandatory. The free-text responses contained in the data-set were not used in this qualitative study (Army Evaluation Center, 2011).

Data Collection The raw data in the database used in this study were analyzed to identify the users that completed the MCFs pertinent to this study, which involves maintenance management. This method allows the researcher to place a user in the appropriate demographic group listed in Table 4. Once the users were assigned to the appropriate demographic group, the raw data elements contained in the database were analyzed for each specific user group as listed in Table 6, which is a matrix of the relationship between the research questions, data elements, and demographics.

101

Table 6. Research Question, Hypothesis, and Data Element Matrix

Research Question Is there a correlation between the information effect of effective maintenance management business processes and the visibility of assets at the tactical level? Is there a correlation between the information effect of effective maintenance management business processes and the visibility of assets at the operational level? Research Hypothesis 1 Data Element INFEFF VISMNT Demographics Maintenance Operations Non-sup (Other) Maintenance Operations Non-Sup (Clerk) 2 INFEFF VISMNT General Leadership Maintenance Operations Supervisor

Note. INFEFF = information effect of the maintenance management business process. This is a sum of the maintenance management business processes completed by a user. VISMNT = visibility of maintenance, which is the number of reports and screen displays produced by a user.

Data Analysis The database for this study was obtained from ATEC in the form of a zipped Microsoft Access database, which was exported from the online data collection tool that ATEC used to record participant responses. Microsoft Excel and PASW Statistics version 18 was used to analyze data. Correlation and regression analysis was used to analyze the data to determine the information effect of business processes developed in GCSS-Army and the effectiveness of visibility of assets in maintenance. The result of the analysis is presented in various charts and tables that describe the relationship between the dependent and independent variables. Permission to use these data was provided by the Combined Arms Support Command (CASCOM).

102

Validity and Reliability Validity The population and sample demographics for this study are from a military organization, and it is postulated that the procedures used to analyze the raw data could be utilized in other military organizations without significant modifications because Government test agencies generally apply the same stringent rules for data collection and validation to all operational test activities. To generalize the results to organizations outside of military organizations without making significant modifications to the data collection and analysis procedures would be questionable. Reliability The reliability of the raw data contained in the database is subject to data errors and information that may be inconsistently recorded by the users (Hakim, 1983). To increase the probability of reliability, the test agencies employed a Data Authentication Group to authenticate each data element recorded by the operational test participants prior to the data being entered into the record test dataset.

Ethical Considerations This study utilized a database containing statistical data collected by the ATEC and OTC during a record test event to access GCSS-Armys effectiveness, suitability, and survivability in a field environment. This study did not collect additional data or come into contact with any participant; therefore, no ethical considerations exist with respect to human interaction. However, since this study used a dataset taken from an actual event, each users organization, role, MOS, and geographic location are annotated in the dataset 103

with a unique ID that was system generated to protect the identity of the participant; to maintain user anonymity; no personally identifiable data are contained in the dataset. To ensure security of the data and to maintain anonymity of the users in this study, the database is encrypted and maintained on a password protected external computer hard drive that only the researcher can access. Additionally, no user names, unique IDs, or organizational identifying data were annotated in the studys results. This method protects the users anonymity throughout the study and in the published results. Finally, since the researcher took part in the development of the instrument used in the data collection activities administered by the test agencies, it must be noted that the researcher took no part in the data collection, data authentication, or data analysis during the operational test event and this research is the first use of the dataset by this researcher.

104

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS This chapter presents the results of a correlation and regression analysis of visibility of maintenance and the information effect of the maintenance management critical mission functions in an ERP. This study is unique in the fact that this is the first study of its kind in the Department of Defense that investigates and reports on the relationship between the information effect of business processes and a strategic capability using a critical factor approach and a statistical data-set of primary data.

Database Demographics The statistical data-set contained records for 345 ERP users and many of the records did not meet the requirements for this study because of the focus on maintenance tasks a user completed within the ERP. The analysis of the task performance data contained within the database was annotated with 12 categories of users, which are listed in Figure 6.
Supply Opns Supervisor Supply Opns Non-sup (Clerk) Property Accountability Supervisory Property Accountability Non-sup (Clerk) Maint Opns Supervisor Maint Opns Non-Sup (Other) Maint Opns Non-Sup (Clerk) Log Mgmt Supervisor (SSA Manager) Log Mgmt Non-sup (Clerk) General Leadership Finance Supervisory Finance Non-sup (Clerk) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Figure 6. Database Demographics. 105

The demographic data contained in the data-set indicated that 203 or 58% users either did not perform tasks within the ERP or did not complete task performance questionnaires. These findings were validated using SAP Security audit logs, searchable reports that record the performance of transactions in an ERP for each user. In addition, some users listed in the data set were incorrectly categorized, such as supply operations users who performed maintenance related tasks. These users were realigned to the correct category. Table 7 lists the number of ERP users removed from this studys analysis. Table 7. Records Removed
User Role Finance Non-Supervisory1 Finance Supervisory General Leadership
2 1

N 35 2 25 24
1

Percent 17% 1% 12% 12% 9% 2% 5% 10% 1% 3% 15% 11%

Logistics Management Non-supervisory (Clerk)1 Logistics Management Supervisory (SSA Manager) Maintenance Operations Non-supervisory (Clerk) Maintenance Supervisor
2 2 2

19 4 11 20 2 7 31 23

Maintenance Operations Non-supervisory (Other)

Property Accountability Non-supervisory (Clerk)1 Property Accountability Supervisory Supply Operations Supervisor1
1 1,3

Supply Operations Non-supervisory (Other)

Note. Adapted from the GCSS-Army IOT&E final database. 1. Records were removed from the study because task performance data indicated the users performed no maintenance tasks. 2. Records indicate users did not submit task performance questionnaire. SAP security audit log verified users did not complete transactions within GCSS-Army. 3. Records indicated the user was incorrectly categorized to supply operations when task performance data indicate the users were maintenance users; these six records were realigned to maintenance operations.

106

The sample demographics are summarized in Table 8. This study consisted of 142 ERP users divided into four groups as described in the statistical data-set. Thirty-eight (27%) of the users were categorized as General Leaders, 51 (36%) were categorized as Maintenance Operations Non-supervisory (Clerk), 10 (7%) were categorized as Maintenance Operations Non-supervisory (Other), and 43 (30%) were categorized as Maintenance Supervisors. Table 8. Sample Demographics
User Role General Leadership2 Maintenance Operations Non-supervisory (Clerk) Maintenance Supervisor Note. Adapted from the GCSS-Army IOT&E final database. Six records were realigned to this category of users. 2. Five records were realigned to this category of users.
1. 1

N 38 51 10 43

Percent 27% 36% 7% 30%

Maintenance Operations Non-supervisory (Other)

Validity and Reliability The data in the operational test database are records of primary survey and task performance data used to evaluate the effectiveness of GCSS-Army in a combat environment. However, the operational test database is being used for a different purpose in this study. The data set contains data that represented what is being measured in this study. The data set was obtained from the original source and was not been altered by previous research studies and is deemed suitable for use in this study. Additionally, the database contains data elements that reflected the concepts presented in this study. Also, the procedures being used capture the constructs being presented in this study (Brodeur, Israel, & Craig, 2011). 107

Normality of Data One of the assumptions for correlation is linear relationships between variables and a normal distribution. Figures 7 and 8 provide a pictorial representation of the distribution of data in this study for the dependent and independent variables. The histograms and Q-Q Plots in Figures 7 and 8 provide indications the data are positively skewed.

Figure 7. Histogram and Q-Q Plot for the Dependent Variable.

Figure 8. Histogram and Q-Q Plot for the Independent Variable.

108

A visual inspection of the data revealed 10 records as potential outliers. The task performance data contained in records were compared with transaction counts in the SAP security audit log and system records. The task performance data contained in the records were accurate and were initially labeled as valid cases. These outliers were further scrutinized using the outlier labeling rule as described in Hoaglin, Iglewicz, and Tukey (1986) and Carling (1998) to screen out the outliers. The outcome of this scrutiny indicated that the 10 records were indeed outliers because they exceeded the outlier labeling criteria. Additionally, a test of normality was completed, and Table 9 provides a summary of both the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shaprio-Wilk tests with the outliers and with the outliers removed. The results of the tests indicated no significant change in distribution normality. Table 9. Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Variable Visibility of Maintenance With Outliers Without Outliers
a

Shapiro-Wilk Sig. Statistic .764 .752 .826 .814 df 142 142 132 132 Sig. .000 .000 .000 .000

Statistic .205 .222 .181 .192

df 142 142 132 132

.000 .000 .000 .000

Information Effect Visibility of Maintenance Information Effect

Note. Statistically significant results are indicated in bold font. . Lilliefors Significance Correction

Considering the results of the tests of normality, the researcher believes that the removal of the cases affected would be detrimental to the study, because the nature of the data being analyzed is indicative of users performing random transactions within the system and the number of cases in the study is small, which decreases power and effect size. For example, depending on a users job, a user could perform many more 109

transactions with the system than another user performing a different job or holding a like position in another organization. Additionally, many of the outliers identified using the outlier labeling rule were from leaders and other users preparing for a field exercise, where maintenance transactions would have increased because of the increase in the operational tempo of the organization preparing for the exercise.

Homogeneity of Variance The Levenes F test is used to test for homogeneity of variance when data are expected to be normally distributed. In this study, the data seemed to be skewed to the right, indicating abnormalities in the distribution of data. Further, the Levenes F statistic tests the null hypothesis that variances in different groups are equal. The dependent and independent variable in this study was tested and summarized in Table 10. The Levene F test indicated the DV, Visibility of Maintenance F (3,138) = 4.470, p < = .05 and the IV, Information Effect has an F (3, 138) = 5.501, p < = .001. The difference between the mean score is significant; therefore, the Null hypothesis is rejected. Table 10. Test of Homogeneity of Variance
Variable Visibility of Maintenance Information Effect 4.470 5.501 Levene Statistics 3 3 df1 df2 138 138 Sig .005 .001

Note. Statistically significant results are indicated in bold font.

Because the data in this study are positively skewed, the non-parametric Levenes F test was conducted to test the Null hypothesis that variances in different groups are equal using the median and ranked pooled data. Like the previous Levene F test, the

110

results were significant as described in Table 11. Accordingly, the Null hypothesis is rejected. Table 11. Non-Parametric Tests of Homogeneity of Variance
Pooled Variable INFEFF_Rank_difference VISMNT_Difference_Rank Levene Statistic .898 3.004 df1 3 3 df2 138 138 Sig. .444 .033

Note. Statistically significant results are indicated in bold font.

Post-Hoc Test A Post-hoc test determines whether specific groups within a sample score higher than other groups. A post-hoc test was conducted to determine whether one of the four groups in this study scored higher than the other. Using the least squared difference (LSD) test, it was determined that the Null hypothesis that the means are equal is rejected. Table 12 provides a summary of the equality of means, where the Welch statistic = 12.45, p < = .001 and the Brown-Forsythe statistic = 3.95, p < = .023. The degrees of freedom for each statistic indicate that the Null hypothesis that the difference between the means = 0 is rejected. Table 12. Equality of Means Test
Statistic a Welch Brown-Forsythe
a

df1 3 3

df2 31.569 19.631

Sig. .000 .023

12.453 3.954

Note. Statistically significant results are indicated in bold font. . Asymptotically F Distributed

Linear Regression Simple linear regression tests were run on the dependent and independent variables. The results indicate a significant linear relationship between the dependent and 111

independent variables, where R = .938. Additionally, R Square = .88, which indicates that 88% of the variance in visibility of maintenance is explained by information effect. A summary of the regression statistics is described in Table 13 and 14 below. The regression equation is Visibility of Maintenance = 17.952 + 1.110 (Information Effect) Table 13. Regression Model Summary
Model 1 R .938 a R Square .880 Adjusted R Square .879 Std. Error of the Estimate 59.077

(Equation 1)

Note. a. Predictors: (Constant), Information Effect

Table 14. Model Coefficients a

Unstandardized Coefficients B 1 (Constant) Information Effect 17.952 1.110 Std. Error 6.255 .035 .938 Standardized Coefficients Beta t 2.870 31.898 Sig. .005 .000

Model

Note. Statistically significant results are indicated in bold font. a. Dependent Variable: Visibility of Maintenance

Research Questions The two research questions are listed below. The hypothesis and statistical results are listed after each research question. Research Question 1 Research question #1: Is there a correlation between the information effect of maintenance management business processes and the visibility of assets in maintenance at the tactical level? H1o: An increase in the effectiveness of a TAV capability (dependent variable) at the tactical level is not related to the information effect (independent variable) of 112

correctly developed maintenance management critical mission functions (CMFs) (independent variable) developed in the solution. H1a: An increase in the effectiveness of a TAV capability (dependent variable) at the tactical level is related to the information effect (independent variable) of correctly developed maintenance management critical mission functions (CMFs) (independent variable) developed in the solution. A TAV capability does share a significant relationship with the information effect of maintenance management critical mission functions at the tactical level as summarized in Table 15 where p = .01 (2-tailed), N = 61, Pearsons r = .921, and Spearmans Rho r = .939, so, H1o is rejected. Table 15. Correlations for Maintenance Non-Supervisor Users
Visibility of Maintenance Pearsons Correlation Visibility of Maintenance Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N 1 61 .912 .000 61 1 61 .939 .000 61 Information Effect .921 .000 61 1 61 .939 .000 61 1.000 61

Information Effect Spearmans Rho Visibility of Maintenance

Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N Note. Statistically significant results are indicated in bold font.

Information Effect

113

Research Question 2 Research question #2: Is there a correlation between the information effect of maintenance management business processes and the visibility of assets in maintenance at the operational level. H2o: An increase in the effectiveness of a TAV capability (dependent variable) at the operational level is not related to the information effect (independent variable) of correctly developed maintenance management critical mission functions (CMFs) developed in the solution. H2a: An increase in the effectiveness of a TAV capability (dependent variable) at the operational level is related to the information effect (independent variable) of correctly developed maintenance management critical mission functions (CMFs) developed in the solution. A significant relationship between the TAV capability and the information effect of maintenance management critical mission functions at the operational level is summarized in Table 16 where p = .01 (2-tailed), N = 81, Pearsons r = .958, and Spearmans Rho r = .886, and as a result, H2o is rejected.

114

Table 16. Correlations for General Leadership and Maintenance Supervisory Users
Visibility of Maintenance Correlation Visibility of Maintenance Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N 1 81 .958 .000 81 1 81 .886 .000 81 Information Effect .958 .000 81 1 81 .886 .000 81 1.000 81

Information Effect Spearmans Rho Visibility of Maintenance

Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N Note. Statistically significant results are indicated in bold font.

Information Effect

Summary of Results The data analysis reported in this chapter indicates a significant correlation between the visibility of maintenance and information effect, with the highest correlation existing between the variables at the operational level of operation. A more detailed discussion of findings is provided in Chapter 5.

115

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS The information effect of the maintenance management business processes developed within GCSS-Army indicates an increase in visibility of maintenance at both the tactical and operational level of strategy. Contrary to the GAOs (2007) findings, the information generated by the maintenance business processes in GCSS-Army provides increased visibility over the Armys assets in the maintenance processes, which improves the effectiveness of the Armys strategic capability of Total Asset Visibility.

Summary of Research Findings Operational Level of Strategy The statistically significant results of this study indicate that the information effect of the ERPs maintenance business processes provides the visibility necessary for leaders to evaluate the organizations maintenance capabilities allowing the operational user to shift equipment and maintenance assets at will, based on changing operational mission requirements across the battlefield. For example, operational leaders can pull maintenance information from the ERP that provides details of the organizations maintenance facilities, the maintenance backlog, and slack across the organization, allowing this group of users to coordinate more efficiently with tactical users to shift equipment and maintenance assets to other facilities when required, which increases the organizations operational effectiveness on the battlefield. Additionally, this information allows this group of users to advise operational commanders on the status of their equipment in near real-time without the need to roll up reports from subordinate organizations. Further, the information derived from the maintenance business processes 116

within the ERP provides operational users the ability to coordinate more efficiently with supply chain users to redirect equipment and material to units taking on heavy battle losses. This allows the unit to continue its mission while its assets are in maintenance. Tactical Level of Strategy A surprising finding from this research is that the information effect of maintenance business processes is also associated with a significant correlation with visibility of equipment in the maintenance process at the tactical level. This increased visibility allows tactical maintenance users to redirect repair parts to equipment that is more essential to the units mission than other equipment. It also provides this group of users with more accurate supply status of the parts due-in to the organization for its equipment, in near real-time. This functionality provides users at the tactical level the ability to affect changes that will lead to more improvements in the information effect of operational level information needs. For example, if tactical users have more visibility over equipment in maintenance, this group of users can add more maintenance assets to resolve equipment faults within their own organization, which improves equipment availability across the organization. As users at the tactical level make changes to the configuration of equipment, maintenance order status, and the changes to the equipment records for maintenance actions such as service completed and services due, this information contributes to the effectiveness of the visibility of maintenance at the operational level, providing operational level users the information necessary to effect operational decisions.

117

Conceptual Framework The conceptual framework used in this study provides the foundation for researchers and practitioners to map ERP business processes to a high-level strategic objective in the form of critical success factors. If the correct strategic goals are selected and mapped to the correct business processes, the information effect of the business processes will provide management the information necessary to influence strategic decisions that can make a difference on the battlefield. Further, it is assumed that the conceptual framework identified in this study will provide a methodology for aligning ERP development to the capabilities of a public sector organization utilizing the resource based view of the firm. The implications of this study suggest that if public sector organizations identify, map, and implement the organizations strategic business processes into an ERP, the organization will perform better than other organizations. The findings presented in this study indicate that if an organization utilized a critical success factor matrix, such as an MCF/CMF matrix, and measured the strength of the correlation between the business processes and the organizations strategic objectives, the agency could gain a long-term strategic advantage over other agencies. In the case of armies, this could present an overwhelming advantage on the battlefield.

Limitations One limitation of this study is that the sample size was small. If a larger sample were used, a different outcome may have been realized. It would be interesting to have more operational users of the leadership and maintenance supervisory types to identify 118

the operational information needs of these groups. A second limitation of this study is that serialization of equipment and components in the equipment configuration process was not fully investigated. It could be postulated that the effects of serialization would hinder TAV capabilities at the enterprise level as more equipment is initialized in the ERP. If the serialization process was perfected to include scanning capabilities at the tactical level as components are removed and installed as well as when components are placed into the depot for repair, TAV capabilities would be enhanced further, increasing the effectiveness of decision making at the operational level of strategy. A final limitation identified in this study is the number of data elements contained in the database that were blank, meaning that many users failed to provide a response to the task performance forms contained within the data asset. Had the data been completed, a different outcome to this study may have been realized. There are some recommended strategies to mitigate the limitations found in this study. First, it is recommended that a researcher could design a study specifically directed at operational users that expands beyond a single Army organization. This will allow a researcher to increase the number of observations. Second, there were many blank data points found in the database, rendering much of the task performance forms (TPF) unusable for this study. It is possible that the organizations exercise preparations had a higher priority than data collection activities, which resulted in the blank data elements found in the database. Increased senior leadership support for data collection activities could help here, or choosing an organization that has a stable OPTEMPO during the observation period could also help. A final mitigation strategy would be to use the data authentication group (DAG) to enforce the data integrity of the database. For example, 119

the DAG could conduct a more detailed review of the TPFs to ensure that all data elements are complete before accepting the TPF for entering into the database.

Future Research Six areas for future research are recommended. First, as the information effect of the business processes in this study was analyzed, it was realized that multiple process steps within a business process produce different types of information. Future research could analyze each process step of a business process within a particular mission critical function and determine the type information produced at each process step and then determine what strategic objective the information contributes to. This method would allow an organization to measure the effectiveness of the information in contributing to an organizations strategic objective and would allow the organization to identify specific information needs of the organization and develop a more robust matrix using the RBV for determining the strategic objectives of the business process. A second area of future research is to determine whether the MCF/CMF matrix could be used in strategic portfolio development by further expanding the MCF/CMF matrix beyond the mission critical function to a specific information system or ERP module. For example, once a mission critical function and critical mission function are defined, they could be mapped to an information system or a module within an ERP. This mapping would allow the organization to see where integration and/or duplication exist within an organization, to allow for further enhancements of an organizations strategic use of information technology.

120

A third recommendation for research is to use the MMF/CMF matrix to identify needed changes to the training needs of the organization. For instance, in the Army, each MOS has a Soldiers Manual and Trainers Guide that identifies the MOS critical tasks a Soldier must master to perform his or her job. As a result of the Army adopting the processes of an ERP, the training contained in these manuals must change from a taskbased training format to a process-based format. It is proposed that the mission critical functions the ERP must perform should be related to the training a user is given to realize the strategic potential of the ERP. By mapping the mission critical functions to training outcomes, the organization will realize the potential of the ERP more effectively if the MCF/CMF matrix is used as a guide to adapt institutional and sustainment training. A fourth area of research may be to use the MCF/CMF matrix in a different approach such as that of business analytics (Trkman, McCormack, Valadares de Oliveira, & Ladeira, 2010, p. 318) to determine what information would be necessary to monitor and improve the performance of the Armys maintenance management processes based on the implementation of GCSS-Army and business process orientation. Trkman, et al (2010) discussed business analytics in the context of supply chain performance improvements. Finally, the researchers suggested that business analytics could influence the performance of a supply chain. In light of this research, the MCF/CMF matrix could be used as a foundation to identify the metrics necessary to measure the performance of the Armys maintenance processes in relation to the Armys strategy and make improvements based on the outcome. A fifth area of research would be to use the Armys Integrated Logistics Architecture (AILA) as the foundation of a MCF/CMF matrix based on Operational 121

Activities (OA). Operational Activities are linked to both Army and DoD strategy. For example, each OA is linked to an Army Universal Task List (AUTL), which is linked to higher level strategic goals. Operational Activity 1.13 Provide Logistics has a parent child relationship with other Operational Activities within the Architecture. If a MCF/CMF matrix could be developed to include the information needed by each OA and then mapped to an ERP process, a more in depth study could be produced to measure the information effect of business processes and a strategic capability, such as Total Asset Visibility. A final area of future research would be to develop a study to investigate the implications of implementing a serialized scanning capability into the ERP and measure the effects of TAV at the operational strategy level and possibly at the DoD level of strategy. This study used a statistical database of task performance data to evaluate the relationship between the information effect of maintenance management business process and the effectiveness of a strategic capability, and the visibility of assets in maintenance, which is a component of Total Asset Visibility with the RBV of the firm as a theoretical foundation. Purposive sampling was used to select operational and tactical users from the task performance data to serve as the sample set. Correlation and regression analysis were used to measure the correlation between the variables. Finally, statistically significant results indicate the visibility of assets in maintenance increases at the operational and tactical level of strategy.

122

REFERENCES Akkermans, H., & Heldon, K. (2002). Vicious and virtuous cycles in ERP implementation: A case study of interrelations between critical success factors. European Journal of Information Systems, 11, 35-46. Allen, D., Kern, T., & Havenhand, M. (2002). ERP critical success factors: An exploration of the contextual factors in public sector institutions. Paper presented at the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii. Al-Mashari, M. (2003). Enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems: A research agenda. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 103(1), 22-27. doi: 10.1108/02635570210456869 Al-Mashari, M., Al-Mudimigh, A., & Zari, M. (2003). Enterprise resource planning: A taxonomy of critical factors. European Journal of Operational Research, 146(2), 352-364. doi: 10.1016/s0377-2217(02)00554-4 Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 33-46. Anderson, N. J. (2001). Challenges of Total Asset Visibility. Army Logistician, 33(1), 8. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.asp x?direct=true&db=tsh&AN=4114895&site=ehost-live&scope=site Army Evaluation Center. (2011). System evaluation plan for the global combat support system -army (GCSS-Army) release 1.1. Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. Army Test and Evaluation Command. (2011). IOT&E record test database (October 21, 2011 ed.). Washington, DC: Department of the Army. Barney, J. B. (1995). Looking inside for competitive advantage. The Academy of Management Executive, 9(4), 49-61. Bendoly, E., & Jacobs, F. R. (2004). ERP architectural/operational alignment for orderprocessing performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 24(1), 99-117. doi: 10.1108/01443570410511013 Beretta, S. (2002). Unleashing the integration potential of ERP systems. Business Process Management Journal, 8(3), 254-277. doi: 10.1108/14637150210428961. Beretta, S. (2004). Enabling integration in complex contexts: The role of process based performance measurement systems. Managerial Finance, 30(8), 69-91. doi: 10.1108/03074350410769236 123

Bhatti, T. R. (2005). Critical success factors for the implementation of enterprise resource planning (ERP): Empirical validation. The Second International Conference on Innovation in Information Technology (IIT05), 1-10. Retrieved from http://pdf.aminer.org/000/306/210/organizational_and_technological_critical_suc cess_factors_behavior_along_the_erp.pdf Currie, K. W., Heminger, A. R., Pohlen, T. L., & Vaughan, D. K. (1996). Dynamic Response Logistics: Changing Environments, Technologies, And Processes. Air Force, 2, 1-29. Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA319863#page=37 Brodeur, C. W., Israel, G. D., & Craig, D. D. (2011). Using secondary data to build strong extension programs. 1-4. Retrieved from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/PD/PD01000.pdf Bryson, J. M., Ackermann, F., & Eden, C. (2007). Putting the resource-based view of strategy and distinctive competencies to work in public organizations. Public Administration Review, 67(4), 702-717. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00754.x Butler, C., & Latsko, S. (1999). Army total asset visibility. Army Logistician, 31(1), 8688. Retrieved from http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/JanFeb99/1999jan_feb/artp86_99jf.pdf Carling, K. (2000). Resistant outlier rules and the non-Gaussian case. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 33(3), 249-263. doi: 10.1016/S0167-9473(99)00057-2 Chen, I. J. (2001). Planning for ERP systems: Analysis and future trend. Business Process Management Journal, 7(5), 374-386. doi: 10.1108/14637150110406768 Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. (3rd. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Crisostomo, D. T. (2008a). Characteristics and skills of implementing an ERP system in the Guam public sector. Journal of International Business Research, 7(1), 31-52. Crisostomo, D. T. (2008b). Management attributes of implementing an ERP system in the Public Sector. Journal of International Business Research, 7(2), 1-15. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: The meaning and perspective in the research process. London: Sage Publications. Crow, K. (2002). Configuration management and engineering change control. Internet: http://www.npd-solutions.com/configmgt.html. Retrieved from http://usa.arch.gatech.edu/old/CS6754/Readings/CONFIGURATION%20MANA GEMENT.pdf 124

Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 37-52. doi: 10.2307/1251915 Claxton, J. D., Cavoli, C., & Johnson, C. (2005). Test and evaluation management guide. Fort Belvoir, VA: Defense Acquisition University Press. DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60-95. doi: 10.1287/isre.3.1.60 Department of Defense. (2003). Focused logistics joint functional concept. Version 1.0. Washington, DC: Department of Defense Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/futurejointwarfare/concepts/jroc_fl_jfc.doc. Department of the Army. (2005). Department of the Army pamphlet 750-8, the Army maintenance management system (TAMMS) users manual. Washington, DC: Department of the Army. Retrieved from http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/p750_8.pdf Department of the Army. (2006). Department of the Army Pamphlet 750-3 Soldiers' guide for field maintenance operations. Washington, DC: Department of the Army Retrieved from http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/p750_1.pdf. Department of the Army. (2007a). Army regulation 710-1, centralized inventory management of the Army supply system. Washington, DC: Department of the Army. Retrieved from http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/R710_1.pdf. Department of the Army. (2007b). Army Regulation 750-1 Army materiel maintenance policy. Washington, DC: Department of the Army. Retrieved from http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/r750_1.pdf. Department of the Army. (2008). Army regulation 710-2, supply policy below the national level. Washington, DC: Department of the Army. Retrieved from http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r710_2.pdf. Department of the Army. (2010). U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command interim policy guidance (IPG) 10-5: Mission based test and evaluation (MBT&E). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command. Department of the Army. (2010-2011). LOGSA Pam 700-1, A guide for Soldiers. Redstone Arsenal, AL: U.S. Army Material Command LOGSA. Retrieved from https://www.logsa.army.mil/pam700-1/logsa_pam_700-1.pdf.

125

Department of the Army. (2011). Maintenance Operations. Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army. Retrieved from http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/attp4_33.pdf. Dezdar, S., & Sulaiman, A. (2009). Successful enterprise resource planning implementation: Taxonomy of critical factors. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 109(8), 1037-1052. doi: 10.1108/02635507910991283 Esteves, J. (2007). An updated ERP systems annotated bibliography: 2001-2005. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 19, 386-446. Esteves, J., Pastor, J., & Casanovas. (2002). Monitoring business process redesign in ERP implementation projects. Paper presented at the Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS). Finney, S., & Corbett, M. (2007). ERP implementation: a compilation and analysis of critical success factors. Business Process Management Journal, 13(3), 329-347. doi: 10.1108/14637150710752272 Francoise, O., Bourgault, M., & Pellerin, R. (2009). ERP implementation through critical success factors management. Business Process Management Journal, 15(3), 371394. doi: 10.1108/14637150910960620 Gargeya, V. B., & Brady, C. (2005). Success and failure of adopting SAP in ERP systems implementation. Business Process Management Journal, 11(5), 501-516. doi: 10.1108/14637150510619858 Gattiker, T. F., & Goodhue, D. L. (2000). Understanding the plant level costs and benefits of ERP: Will the ugly duckling always turn into a swan? Paper presented at the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Island of Maui. doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2000.926907 Government Accounting Office. (2007). Lack of an integrated strategy puts the Armys asset visibility system investments at risk. (GAO-07-860). United States Government Accounting Office Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07860.pdf. Gulledge, T. R., & Sommer, R. A. (2002). Business process management: Public sector implications. Business Process Management Journal, 8(4), 364-376. doi:10.1108/14637150210435017 Gulledge, T. R., & Sommer, R. A. (2004). Splitting the SAP Instance: Lessons on scope and business processes. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 44(3), 109115. 126

Hakim, C. (1983). Research based on administrative records. Sociological Review, 31(3), 489-519. doi: 10.1111/1467-954X.ep5467205 Hall, R. (1993). A framework of linking intangible resources and capabilities to sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 607-618. Hammer, M. (1996). Beyond reengineering: How the process-centered organization is changing our work and our lives. New York: Harper Business. Hammer, M., & Champy, J. (2001). Reengineering the corporation: a manifesto for business revolution. New York: Harper Business. Hoaglin, D. C., Iglewicz, B., & Tukey, J. W. (1986). Performance of some resistance roles for outlier labeling. Journal of American Statistical Association, 81(396), 991-999. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1986.10478363 Hong, K., & Kim, Y. (2002). The critical success factors for ERP implementation: an organizational fit perspective. Information & Management, 40(1), 25-40. doi: Doi: 10.1016/s0378-7206(01)00134-3 Jarrar, Y., Al-Mudimigh, A., & Zairi, M. (2002). ERP implementation critical success factors-the role and impact of business process management. Paper presented at the 2000 IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology. doi: 10.1109/ICMIT.2000.917299 Johansson, O., & Hellstrm, D. (2007). The effect of asset visibility on managing returnable transport items. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 37(10), 799-815. doi: 10.1108/09600030710848923 Kang S., Park, J., & Yang, H. (2008). ERP alignment for positive business performance: Evidence from Koreas ERP Market. The Journal of Computer Information Systems, 48(4), 25-38. Karim, J., Somers, T. M., & Bhattacherjee, A. (2007). The Impact of ERP Implementation on Business Process Outcomes: A Factor-Based Study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(1), 101-134. doi: 10.2753/MIS0742-1222240103 Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383-397. Kristandl, G., & Bontis, N. (2007). Constructing a definition for intangibles using the resource based view of the firm. Management Decision, 45(9), 1510-1524. doi: 10.1108/00251740710828744

127

Lee, J., Siau, K., & Hong, S. (2003). Enterprise Integration with ERP and EAI. Communications of the ACM, 46(2), 54-60. Leonard-Barton, D. (1994). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 111-125. Lockamy, A., & Smith, W. I. (1997). A strategic alignment approach for effective business process reengineering: linking strategy, processes and customers for competitive advantage. International Journal of Production Economics, 50(23), 141-153. doi: 10.1016/s0925-5273(97)00038-8 Mahoney, J. T., & Pandian, J. R. (1997). The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 13(5), 363-380. Melin-Gonzlez, A., Batista-Canino, R. M., & Snchez-Medina, A. (2010). Identifying and assessing valuable resources and core capabilities in public organizations. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 76(1), 97-114. doi: 10.1177/0020852309359046 Miranda, R. A., & Kavanagh, S. C. (2005). Achieving government transformation through ERP systems. Government Finance Review, 21(3), 36-42. Miksa, C. J., & Carlson, D. (2007). Total Asset Visibility? Canadian Military Journal, Autumn 2007, 86-87. Retrieved from http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo8/no3/miksa-eng.asp Morash, E. A., & Lynch, D. F. (2002). Public policy and global supply chain capabilities and performance: A resource-based view. Journal of International Marketing, 10(1), 25-51. doi: 10.1509/jimk.10.1.25.19529 Morton, N. A., & Hu, Q. (2008). Implications of the fit between organizational structure and ERP: A structural contingency theory perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 28, 391-402. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2008.01.008 Nah, F. F.-H., Lau, J. L.-S., & Kuang, J. (2001). Critical factors for successful implementation of enterprise systems. Business Process Management Journal, 7(3), 285-296. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S., G. (1997). An evolutionary theory of economic change. In N. J. Foss (Ed.), Resources, firms, and strategies. (pp. 82-99). New York: Oxford. Ng, J. K. C., Ip, W. H., & Lee, T. C. (1999). A paradigm for ERP and BPR integration. International Journal of Production Research, 37(9), 2093-2108. doi: 10.1080/002075499190923 128

Nikolopoulos, K., Metaxiotis, K., Lekatis, N., & Assimakopoulos, V. (2003). Integrating industrial maintenance strategy into ERP. Industrial Management + Data Systems, 103(3/4), 184. doi: 10.1108/02635570310465661 Pabedinskait, A. (2000). Factors of successful implementation of ERP systems. Economics and Management, 15, 691-697. Pablo, A. L., Reay, T., Dewald, J. R., & Casebeer, A. L. (2007). Identifying, enabling and managing dynamic capabilities in the public sector. Journal of Management Studies, 44(5), 687-708. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00675.x Penrose, E. (1997). The theory of the growth of the firm. In N. J. Foss (Ed.), Resources, firms, and strategies: Reader in the resource-based perspective (pp. 27-36). New York: Oxford University Press. Pettit, S., & Beresford, A. (2009). Critical success factors in the context of humanitarian aid supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 39(6), 450-468. Piggee, A. F. (2002). Transformation: Revolution in Military Logistics. Masters, US Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, PA. Retrieved from http://www.iwar.org.uk/rma/resources/logistics/Piggee_A_F_02.pdf Plant, R., & Willcocks, L. (2007). Critical success factors in international ERP implementations: A case research approach. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 47(3), 60-70. PM GCSS-Army. (2013). Global combat support system-Army. Retrieved June 16, 2011, from http://gcss.army.mil/About/Benefits.aspx PM LIS. (2005). SAMS-E system support manual (operations guides). Fort Lee, VA: Software Engineering Center - LEE. Porter, M. E. (1991). Towards a dynamic theory of strategy. Strategic Management Journal (1986-1998), 12, 95-117. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250121008 Ray, G., Barney, J. B., & Muhanna, W. A. (2004). Capabilities, business processes, and competitive advantage: choosing the dependent variable in empirical tests of the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 25(1), 23-37. doi: 10.1002/smj.366 Rhodes, D. R. (2004). Functional Management of Logistics Data: Time for a Single Manager. Master of Strategic Studies, Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, PA. 129

Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA424147&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf Rockart, J. F. (1979). Chief executives define their own data needs. Harvard Business Review, 57(2), 81-93. Rumelt, R. (1991). How much does industry matter? Strategic Management Journal (1986-1998), 12(3), 167-185. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250120302 SAP. (n.d.). SAP Americas. Retrieved Mar 2, 2012, from http://www28.sap.com/mk/get/SEARCH8LP?SOURCEID=41&campaigncode=C RM-US12-PPCPPCERP&dna=80570,8,0,102559030,801407670,1339290095,sap,52217601,134 31656345,,0&gclid=CInUnrO8wrACFdJd7Aod6UgSrg&omni_is1stviewinsessio n=1 Seddon, P. B., Calvert, C., & Yang, S. (2010). A multi-project model of key factors affecting organizational benefits from enterprise systems. MIS Quarterly, 34(2), 305-238, A301-A311. Sedera, D., Gable, G. G., & Chan, T. (2003). Measuring enterprise systems success: A preliminary model. Ninth Americas Conference on Information System (AMCIS), 476-485. Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/8896/1/8896.pdf Shanks, G., Parr, A., Hu, B., Corbitt, B., Thanasankit, T., & Seddon, P. (2000). Differences in critical success factors in ERP systems implementation in Australia and China: a cultural analysis. 8th European Conference on Information Systems, 2000, 537-544. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.133.4427&rep=rep1&t ype=pdf Simon, S. J. (2001). The art of military logistics. Communications of the ACM, 44(6), 6266. doi: 10.1145/376134.376167 Singla, A. R. (2005). Impact of ERP systems on small and midsized public sector enterprises. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 4(2), 119-131. Smith, R. (2008). Harnessing competencies, capabilities and resources. ResearchTechnology Management, 51(5), 47-53. Soh, C., & Markus, M. L. (1995). How IT creates business value: A process theory synthesis. ICIS '95 Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, 29-42. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=icis1995&sei130

redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fq%3DHo w%2BIT%2Bcreates%2Bbusiness%2Bvalue%253A%2BA%2Bprocess%2Btheor y%2Bsynthesis%26btnG%3D%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D0%252C47#search= %22How%20creates%20business%20value%3A%20process%20theory%20synth esis%22 Soja, P. (2006). Success factors in ERP systems implementations: Lessons from practice. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 19(6), 646-661. doi: 10.1108/17410390610708517 Somers, T. M., & Nelson, K. (2001). The impact of critical success factors across the stages of enterprise resource planning implementations. Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-34), volume 8, 1-10. doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2001.927129 Stalk, G., Evans, P., & Shulman, L. E. (1992). Competing on Capabilities: The New Rules of Corporate Strategy. Harvard Business Review, 70(2), 57-69. Sullivan, L. M., Kelly, L., & Olson, D. (1999). Defense enterprise planning and management. In D. J. Elzinga, T. R. Gulledge & C.-l. Lee (Eds.), Business process engineering: Advancing the state of the art. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers Group. Sun, A. Y., Yazdani, A., & Overend, J. D. (2005). Achievement assessment for enterprise resource planning (ERP) system implementations based on critical success factors (CSFs). International Journal of Production Economics, 98, 189-203. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2004.05.013 Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F. (Eds.). (2005). Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry. . San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. Tongco, D. M. (2007). Purposive sampling as a tool for informant selection. Ethnobotany Research and Applications, 5, 147-158. Retrieved from http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/handle/10125/227/i1547-346505-147.pdf?sequence=4 Trkman, P. (2010). The critical success factors of business process management. International Journal of Information Management, 30(2), 125-134. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2009.07.003 Trkman, P., McCormack, K., Valadares de Oliveira, M. P., & Ladeira, M. B. (2010). The impact of business analytics on supply chain performance. Decision Support Systems, 49(3), 318-327. doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2010.03.007

131

Tsai, W., Chen, S., Hwang, E. T., & Hsu, J. (2010). A study of the impact or business process on the ERP system effectiveness. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(9), 26-37. Uemura, T., Oiki, T., Oka, M., & Nishioka, Y. (2006). Kyushu Electrics ERP System Development and Operation for Overhead Lines System. CIGRE, CD-ROM, B, 2, 1-8. Retrieved from http://www.labplan.ufsc.br/congressos/cigre06/DATA/B2_D2_105.PDF Umble, E. J., Haft, R. R., & Umble, M. M. (2003). Enterprise resource planning: Implementation procedures and critical success factors. European Journal of Operational Research, 146(2), 241-257. doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00547-7 Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 171-180. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250050207 Whitehouse.gov. (n.d.). Wikified army field guide. Retrieved March 2, 2012, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/open/innovations/wikifiedArmy

132

APPENDIX A. MISSION CRITICAL FUNCTION (MCF)/CRITICAL MISSION FUNCTION (CMF) MATRIX Table A1. Mission Critical Function/Critical Mission Function Matrix
MCF Maintenance CMF Update Equipment Record Subprocesses Update Operational Status Update Technical Status Review Equipment Availability (Change Mode) Create Fault Notification Display Equipment Situation Report Install/Dismantle with Custom Functional Location Install/Dismantle Custom Functional Location Install/Dismantle Class IX Major Assembly Change Work Order (PM01) Add Operations/Components Record Direct/Indirect labor Hours Change PM Orders Create PM Notification Technically Close Work Order Update Notification/Create Order Forward Work Order to Support Maintenance Modify Work Order Long Text Print Work Order Modify Operations Update Component Change/Release Work Order Assign Maintenance Order to Shop Operations List/Time Confirmed Display/Change Operations List Issue Parts to Work Order Confirm Labor Hours Goods Issue to Work Order Confirm Work Order Completion Display Service Schedule Display Service Items Generate Equipment Service Inspection Sheet Create Oil Sample (O1) Request Baseline Mass Print Oil Sample Notifications Change Oil Sample (O1) Request - Enter How Taken/Normal Results Equipment Situation Report Serial Number Management Review/Change Equipment Master Record Display Functional Location Display Equipment/System Structure Execute Goods Issue Reversal for Work order in MIGO Review and Confirm Excess for Turn-in

Maintenance

Manage Platform Configuration

Maintenance

Work Order Management

Maintenance

Manage Scheduled Maintenance/AOAP

Maintenance

Configuration & Maintenance Management Maintenance Supply

Maintenance

133

Table A1. Mission Critical Function/Critical Mission Function Matrix (continued)

MCF CMF Subprocesses Settle Excess and Retention Parameters for Turn-in Pick & post Goods Issue - Outbound Delivery (Turn-in Recoverable Item to SSA) Turn-in Recoverable Item CLASS IX Turn-in Process (Other) Display Where Used Material Availability Information Display MRP List Extend Material to Storage Location, Warehouse, and MRP Area Process Customer Pick-up (SSA) - AIT Desktop Goods Receipt with Reference to Reservation (221) Bench Stock Replenishment & Consumption Goods Issue to Purchase Order

Maintenance

Maintenance Supply (contd)

134