A framework for ERP post-implementation amendments : A literature analysis
- Oseni, Taiwo, Foster, Susan, Rahim, Mahbubur, Smith, Stephen Patrick
- Authors: Oseni, Taiwo , Foster, Susan , Rahim, Mahbubur , Smith, Stephen Patrick
- Date: 2017
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Australasian Journal of Information Systems Vol. 21, no. (2017), p.
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Post-implementation amendments to ERP systems (ERP-PIA) are of importance for advancing ERP research, but more importantly essential if ERP systems are to be used as a strategic and competitive business tool. For ease of clarity, we have adopted the term “amendments” to encompass the main forms of post implementation activities: maintenance, enhancements and upgrades. The term “amendments” is used to counteract one of the major findings from this research - the inconsistency of terms used by many authors to explain post implementation activities. This paper presents a review of the ERP post-implementation amendment literature in order to provide answers to two specific questions: first, what is the current state of research in the field of ERP-PIA; and second, what are the future research directions that need to be explored in the field of ERP-PIA. From the review, we develop a framework to identify: (a) major themes concerning ERP post-implementation amendments, (b) inherent gaps in the post-implementation amendments literature, and (c) specific areas that require further research attention influencing the uptake of amendments. Suggestions on empirical evaluation of research directions and their relevance in the extension of existing literature is presented.
- Authors: Oseni, Taiwo , Foster, Susan , Rahim, Mahbubur , Smith, Stephen Patrick
- Date: 2017
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Australasian Journal of Information Systems Vol. 21, no. (2017), p.
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Post-implementation amendments to ERP systems (ERP-PIA) are of importance for advancing ERP research, but more importantly essential if ERP systems are to be used as a strategic and competitive business tool. For ease of clarity, we have adopted the term “amendments” to encompass the main forms of post implementation activities: maintenance, enhancements and upgrades. The term “amendments” is used to counteract one of the major findings from this research - the inconsistency of terms used by many authors to explain post implementation activities. This paper presents a review of the ERP post-implementation amendment literature in order to provide answers to two specific questions: first, what is the current state of research in the field of ERP-PIA; and second, what are the future research directions that need to be explored in the field of ERP-PIA. From the review, we develop a framework to identify: (a) major themes concerning ERP post-implementation amendments, (b) inherent gaps in the post-implementation amendments literature, and (c) specific areas that require further research attention influencing the uptake of amendments. Suggestions on empirical evaluation of research directions and their relevance in the extension of existing literature is presented.
The reliability of performance during computer-simulated varying gradient cycling time trials
- Clark, Bradley, Paton, Carl, O'Brien, Brendan
- Authors: Clark, Bradley , Paton, Carl , O'Brien, Brendan
- Date: 2014
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Journal of Science and Cycling Vol. 3, no. 3 (2014), p. 29-33
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Ergometer based time trials are commonly used to assess performance changes due to training or other interventions. This investigation establishes the reliability of a novel computer simulated cycling time trial. Nineteen cyclists (age: 32 ± 12 years, mass 73 ± 11 kg, height 178 ± 5 cm) completed four time trials over a 20-km course which included numerous changes in gradient. The time trials were completed over a 4-week period in order to establish both short and long-term reliability. Performance time (mean ± SD) for trials one to four was 2265 ± 149 s, 2252 ± 153 s, 2236 ± 146 s and 2240 ± 154 s respectively; the corresponding power output for consecutive trials was 293 ± 35 W, 297 ± 36 W, 299 ± 35 W and 299 ± 35 W. The coefficient of variation (± 90% confidence limits) of performance for trials separated by 7, 14, 21 and 28 days was 1.1% (0.8% – 1.5%), 1.3% (1.1% – 1.9%), 1.3% (1.1% – 1.9%) and 1.5% (1.1% – 2.1%) respectively for time; the corresponding values for power output were 2.0% (1.5% – 2.7%), 2.3% (1.8% – 3.2%), 2.6% (2.0% – 3.6%) and 3.2% (2.5% – 4.5%). Further analysis based on rider ability indicated slower riders were less reliable than faster riders by a factor of ~1.1. Reliability of time trial performance diminishes with increasing time between trials. Additionally, faster riders show better reliability than slower riders over time. Researchers should consider the effect of time between trials and athlete ability when making conclusions about intervention effectiveness.
- Authors: Clark, Bradley , Paton, Carl , O'Brien, Brendan
- Date: 2014
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Journal of Science and Cycling Vol. 3, no. 3 (2014), p. 29-33
- Full Text:
- Reviewed:
- Description: Ergometer based time trials are commonly used to assess performance changes due to training or other interventions. This investigation establishes the reliability of a novel computer simulated cycling time trial. Nineteen cyclists (age: 32 ± 12 years, mass 73 ± 11 kg, height 178 ± 5 cm) completed four time trials over a 20-km course which included numerous changes in gradient. The time trials were completed over a 4-week period in order to establish both short and long-term reliability. Performance time (mean ± SD) for trials one to four was 2265 ± 149 s, 2252 ± 153 s, 2236 ± 146 s and 2240 ± 154 s respectively; the corresponding power output for consecutive trials was 293 ± 35 W, 297 ± 36 W, 299 ± 35 W and 299 ± 35 W. The coefficient of variation (± 90% confidence limits) of performance for trials separated by 7, 14, 21 and 28 days was 1.1% (0.8% – 1.5%), 1.3% (1.1% – 1.9%), 1.3% (1.1% – 1.9%) and 1.5% (1.1% – 2.1%) respectively for time; the corresponding values for power output were 2.0% (1.5% – 2.7%), 2.3% (1.8% – 3.2%), 2.6% (2.0% – 3.6%) and 3.2% (2.5% – 4.5%). Further analysis based on rider ability indicated slower riders were less reliable than faster riders by a factor of ~1.1. Reliability of time trial performance diminishes with increasing time between trials. Additionally, faster riders show better reliability than slower riders over time. Researchers should consider the effect of time between trials and athlete ability when making conclusions about intervention effectiveness.
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »