QUANTITATIVE CORRELATION OF ENTERPRISE RESOURCE

PLANNING TYPE, SUCCESS, AND TECHNOLOGY LEADERSHIP STYLE IN

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

by

Patricia M. Dues

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Management in Organizational Leadership Doctor of Management in

Organizational Leadership with a Specialization in Information Systems and Technology

UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX

October 2010UMI Number: 3455559

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript

and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3455559

Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC.

All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC

789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346

Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346 © 2010 by Patricia M. Dues

ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDABSTRACT

Enterprise resource planning (ERP) is a primary strategy of technology leaders

challenged with meeting the business needs of the user community. Many advantages

exist to support an ERP technology focus. In local government, senior technology

leaders have the challenge of demonstrating leadership skills to justify fiscal and

operational decisions. The quantitative, correlational study examined the degree to which

a relationship exists among the independent variables of leadership style and type of ERP

implemented, and the dependent variable, perceived ERP success, in local government

technology leaders. Senior technology leaders of U.S. cities, counties, and townships

who adopted enterprise resource planning within their organizations were the target

population of the study. Pearson r coefficient, multiple linear regression, and standard

descriptive statistics were used to analyze the results of the study. The theories of

transformational leadership and diffusion were foundations for the leadership style

researched in the study. The results of the study indicated a relationship exists between

transformational leadership style and successful ERP. A significant relationship also

existed between leadership style and type of ERP, if type was other than the major ERP

vendors. Future research is recommended to explore and identify a leadership model for

successful ERP by public sector technology leaders.v

DEDICATION

I dedicate this study to two friends by my side throughout this journey. My dear

friend, Lorraine Klenk, was an inspiration for me. At 89-years-old she is a woman who

had two professional careers, but was not able to complete a college education. Her pride

in my accomplishments provided me the encouragement to continue when I was close to

giving up. My friend, Barbara Marcella, was on her own journey to complete her

bachelor’s degree while I completed my doctorate. She understood my challenges and

could be turned to when illness, personal crises, and depression stalled me. Because of

these two special friends I have been able to complete my journey with my head held

high and a great deal of personal pride.vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The model for this study was the City of Las Vegas and their CIO, Joseph

Marcella. Mr. Marcella has demonstrated a leadership style that I believe contributed to a

successful Oracle ERP environment at the city. I would like to thank him for ‘planting

the seed’ for my problem statement and supporting the research I conducted.

I acknowledge the University of Phoenix for providing an excellent online

classroom experience. The productive annual residencies prepared me for each step of

the journey. The professional staff assistance kept me informed and provided

encouragement at some of my most difficult times. The incredibly talented, experienced,

and committed team of faculty was unsurpassed and I thank them for a valuable

education.

This was one of the most difficult accomplishments of my life. I acknowledge the

guidance and support of my mentor and committee chair, Dr. Jean Perlman. Dr. Perlman

was always available to assist, guide, listen, and direct as needed – and the need was

there. She set high expectations and I sometimes felt I could not reach the bar she set.

But I believe I did. I hope I made her proud of my accomplishment. My committee

members, Dr. John DeNigris III and Dr. Jay Klagge, offered time, insight, guidance, and

encouragement. I am grateful for such an outstanding committee who shared their

expertise, knowledge, and time with me. I am honored and humbled to be called doctor.vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables .............................................................................................................x

List of Figures ...........................................................................................................xi

Chapter 1: Introduction ..............................................................................................1

Background of the Problem .......................................................................................1

Statement of the Problem...........................................................................................3

Purpose of the Study .................................................................................................. 4

Significance of the Study ...........................................................................................5

Significance of the Study to Leadership ....................................................................6

Nature of the Study ....................................................................................................6

Overview of the research method. ...................................................................... 7

Overview of the design appropriateness............................................................. 8

Research Questions ....................................................................................................9

Hypotheses.................................................................................................................9

Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................10

Definition of Terms..................................................................................................11

Assumptions.............................................................................................................11

Scope and Limitations..............................................................................................12

Summary ..................................................................................................................13

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature.........................................................................14

Title Searches, Articles, Research Documents, and Journals .................................. 14

Historical Overview of Enterprise Resource Planning ............................................16

ERP critical success factors.............................................................................. 16viii

ERP challenges. ................................................................................................ 17

Public sector ERP challenges. .......................................................................... 18

Current Findings ...................................................................................................... 19

ERP type. .......................................................................................................... 19

Leadership style. ............................................................................................... 20

ERP success...................................................................................................... 22

Public sector ERP success. ............................................................................... 23

Conclusion ...............................................................................................................24

Summary ..................................................................................................................25

Chapter 3: Method ...................................................................................................26

Research Method and Design Appropriateness .......................................................27

Population ................................................................................................................ 28

Sampling Frame .......................................................................................................29

Informed Consent and Confidentiality.....................................................................30

Geographic Location, Data Collection, and Instrument Reliability ........................31

Validity ....................................................................................................................33

Internal validity................................................................................................. 33

External validity................................................................................................ 33

Data Analysis ...........................................................................................................34

Summary ..................................................................................................................35

Chapter 4: Results .................................................................................................... 37

Demographic Synopsis ............................................................................................37

Data Collection ........................................................................................................40ix

Data Analysis ...........................................................................................................43

Findings....................................................................................................................44

Outliers. ............................................................................................................ 51

Summary ..................................................................................................................51

Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................53

Findings and Interpretations ....................................................................................55

Type of ERP and perceived ERP success......................................................... 56

Leadership style and perceived ERP success. .................................................. 57

Leadership style and type of ERP..................................................................... 57

Leadership style, type of ERP, and perceived ERP success............................. 58

Implications and Recommendations ........................................................................59

Summary ..................................................................................................................61

References................................................................................................................63

Appendix A: Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Survey.....................................72

Appendix B: Introductory Letter .............................................................................74

Appendix C: Informed Consent: Participants 18 Years of Age and Older..............76x

List of Tables

Table 1 Frequencies and Percentages of Government Type and Number of

Employees in Organization...................................................................................... 38

Table 2 Frequencies and Percentages of ERP Involvement and Vendor Type .......39

Table 3 Frequencies and Percentages of “Other” ERP Vendors Used by Senior

Technology Leaders .................................................................................................40

Table 4 Point-biserial Correlations between Successful ERP and ERP Vendor

Type..........................................................................................................................46

Table 5 Pearson Correlation between Perceived ERP Success and Leadership

Style..........................................................................................................................47

Table 6 Means and Standard Deviation on Leadership Style and Successful ERP. 48

Table 7 Point-biserial Correlations between Leadership Style and ERP Vendor

Type.......................................................................................................................... 49

Table 8 Multiple Regression of Relationship among ERP Vendor, Leadership

Style, and Perceived Successful ERP.......................................................................51xi

List of Figures

Figure 1. Scatter plot for successful ERP and leadership style. .............................. 47

Figure 2. Scatter plot with relationship among ERP vendor, leadership style, and

successful ERP.........................................................................................................501

Chapter 1: Introduction

Enterprise resource planning (ERP) is a philosophy adopted by technology leaders

interested in enhancing the value of their business operations (Olson, 2004). Technology

leaders in the public sector industry are aligned with those in private sector to evaluate,

select, implement, and support ERP. A multitude of vendors market ERP products with

varying costs associated with ERP adoption (Sumner, 2005). Local government

technology managers are presented a challenge to demonstrate leadership qualities and

fiscal responsibility when making ERP decisions (Neely, 2005). A key factor in

justifying ERP decisions is the degree to which the critical success factors of ERP

adoption are met (Dawson & Owens, 2008).

The purpose of the study and description of the problem are presented in chapter

1. Included in the discussion are the significance and nature of the study with hypotheses

and research questions. A theoretical framework is presented that delineates other

relevant studies, issues, and perspectives. Prior to summarizing chapter 1, definitions,

assumptions, scope, limitations, and delimitations are identified.

Background of the Problem

ERP systems are software solutions with business information and functionality

combined into one organizational database. The advantages of ERP focus on the

technical, financial, and the organizational benefits (Daneva & Wieringa, 2008). From a

technical perspective, the information in the database is shared, accessed, and viewed by

all users simultaneously. On the financial side, there is an expectation of economic

savings because the business operations needs are consolidated with one software vendor.

Organizationally, effective communication is possible because of the shared database of 2

information. The complexity of ERP results in costly implementations, resourceintensive projects, and unsuccessful completion (Sumner, 2005). ERP success is difficult

for both public and private sector organizations; but in public sector, a principal predictor

of success is top management’s knowledge and support of the implementation

(Crisostomo, 2008).

The major ERP vendors in the marketplace are: SAP, Oracle, and Microsoft Great

Plains (Sumner, 2005). The Oracle ERP product line includes a number of types of ERP:

Oracle eBusiness Suite, PeopleSoft Enterprise, J. D. Edwards World, and J. D. Edwards

Enterprise One (Oracle, 2009). The following factors influence the ERP product

decisions of technology managers: business functionality, technology foundation, vendor

partnership, and cost (Turban, Leidner, McLean, & Wetherbe, 2008).

The combination of implementation cost and total cost to support ERP places

additional focus on the long-term value received. Local government technology spending

declined from $24.4 billion in 2008 to $23.8 billion in 2009, with the average cost of an

ERP implementation ranging between $400,000 and $300 million (McCafferty, 2009).

As fewer dollars are available to spend on technology, successful ERP increases in

importance. To deal with fiscal challenges, technology managers adopting ERP solutions

demonstrate leadership traits of innovation and vision. Their ERP decisions and

successful oversight of ERP implementations have initiated improvements in business

operations and competitive advantages (Muscatello & Chen, 2008).

Harrison (2005) established critical success factors (CSFs) for ERP system

implementations reflective of the factors influencing ERP acquisition. For both public

and private sectors the primary CSFs include (a) improved business transaction and 3

processes, (b) improved internal communication, (c) improved customer relationship

management, (d) reduced operational costs, (e) increased adaptability to business

changes, and (f) achieved return on investment. Harrison correlated the CSFs expected

against the CSFs realized as a result of ERP. Public sector participants had an

expectation of reduced operational costs and a return on investment, but the success

factors were not realized by approximately 50% of those surveyed. In comparison,

nearly 60% of the private sector participants both expected and realized success in the

specific areas. The results of Harrison’s study indicate that public sector technology

leaders are challenged with successfully adopting ERP.

Post-Modernism began as technology opened the world’s businesses to

globalization (Wren, 2005). Business leaders were provided the ability to use

information technology for increased and improved communication throughout the

world, as the World Wide Web came into being. The amount of information available to

companies and individuals increased. Successful leaders retained the same traits but a

significant one was added - that of a change agent. A change agent is an individual with

the ability to motivate and excite staff about the positive potentials technological change

can bring to an organization, as with enterprise resource planning.

Statement of the Problem

ERP implementations are expensive, resource intensive (Sumner, 2005), with

public sector organizations open to criticism when ERP is not successful (Neely, 2005).

Public sector technology leaders have based decisions on implementing ERP on the

expectation that there would be specific benefits, both fiscal and operational, as a result

of the implementation. The same leaders who have implemented enterprise resource 4

planning software have not achieved the expected results in business process

improvements, operational cost reductions, better communications, and return on

investment (Harrison, 2005). The problem is that public sector technology leaders do not

know whether the success of ERP is related to a specific leadership style or type of ERP.

To study the relationship that leadership style and type of ERP implemented have on ERP

success, quantitative correlational research was conducted of U.S. government

technology leaders who have adopted enterprise resource planning within their

organizations.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this quantitative, correlational study was to examine the degree to

which a relationship exists among the independent variables of leadership style (L-style)

and type of ERP implemented (ERP-type), and the dependent variable, perceived ERP

success (ERP-success) in local governments. A quantitative research method was used

because numerical data was collected and analyzed for each variable of the study

(Neuman, 2006). A correlational design was planned because the relationship among the

variables of the study would be identified as a result of the data analysis (Creswell,

2008). L-style was measured by the degree of transformational leadership style in local

government cultures defined as effectively communicating shared vision and goals;

encouraging innovation; and motivating, empowering, and inspiring teams (Mehlinger,

2006). ERP-type was the specific ERP vendor software implemented as reported by the

survey participants. ERP-success was measured by the degree each of the following was

perceived to have resulted: (a) improved business transaction and processes, (b) improved

internal communication, (c) improved customer relationship management, (d) reduced 5

operational costs, (e) adaptability of software to business changes, (f) achieved return on

investment, (g) accessibility to reliable information, (h) increased standardization of

processes, (i) improved reporting, and (j) elimination of redundant tasks (Harrison, 2005).

The specific population group for the study was local government technology

leaders within the United States who have adopted an ERP environment. Technology

leader was defined as the individual making the ERP decisions for the organization.

Participants in the study were senior information technology managers from local U.S.

governments of varying asset size that have implemented ERP software. The individuals

were requested to complete and return an Internet survey. The data included information

collected through a secure website that combined the surveys with demographic

questions.

Significance of the Study

Traditional returns on investment (ROIs) are not used in public sector

organizations (Cresswell, Burke, & Pardo, 2006). For this reason, technology leaders

implementing ERP systems in local governments have difficulty quantifying ERP

benefits as a derived ROI. Little research exists regarding how local government leaders

can justify the fiscal expenditure to implement and support ERP. This study may

contribute to developing a model to ensure successful adoption and ongoing support of

ERP systems within local governments.

Innovation and improved operations as a result of ERP include benefits such as

more access to information, more knowledge sharing, and more efficiencies and

effectiveness for departments and business processes (McCafferty, 2009). The findings

may provide an accurate, objective analysis of ERP implementation success factors to 6

assist local governments in areas of focus for business improvement and strategic

planning. A correlation of ERP success with a specific ERP vendor may drive future

decisions by technology leaders who have not yet moved their technology into an ERP

environment.

Significance of the Study to Leadership

Leadership is an important element to the success of ERP (Neely, 2005). The key

technology leader of an organization is in charge of technology direction and the catalyst

for change. Implementing and supporting ERP results in change throughout an

organization. To meet the challenge of successfully implementing and managing ERP

requires a leader with information technology (IT) knowledge, interpersonal

communication skills, and political insight (Scott, 2007); and also one who can

demonstrate the primary leadership quality of organizing a group to accomplish a

successful end purpose (Wren, 2005).

Factors of ERP success may include qualities demonstrated in transformational

leadership such as innovation, vision, and strong communication skills (Wren, 2005).

Findings from the study may help local government technology leaders with ERP

decisions. A leadership model for ERP success may contribute to innovative leadership,

successful decision-making and fiscal responsibility among local government technology

leaders.

Nature of the Study

The nature of the study was an examination of the impact a specific type of ERP

system or leadership style may have had on the success of ERP within local government.

The quantitative data was gathered based on the results of an Internet survey of local 7

government technology leaders in the United States. A quantitative research method with

a correlational design was used for the study.

Overview of the research method.

The purpose of the study was to examine the degree to which a relationship exists

among leadership style, type of ERP implemented, and perceived ERP success.

Hypotheses were developed to test the relationships of the variables. A principal

difference between qualitative and quantitative research is in the nature of the data. Soft

data, such as words, sentences, narrative descriptions, are common in qualitative

research. In quantitative research, hard data, as in the form of numbers, are gathered

(Neuman, 2006). For this study, hard data was collected for each of the variables to

measure the relationships.

Standardized data collection was accomplished by using a survey instrument

identified prior to the study (Cooper & Schindler, 2006). In this study numerical data

was collected based on responses to a custom survey. The levels of measurement were

standardized based on the survey results. A Lickert scale of 1-5 was used to measure the

respondents’ self-evaluation of their leadership style and success with ERP. The

variable, ERP-type, was a nominal measure based on the response to the ERP vendor

question on the survey (Salkind, 2003). Because more than one type of ERP may be

implemented, participants were allowed to reply with up to three different ERP vendor

names. ERP-type had no order or relationship but provided the ability to group

respondents by ERP vendor.

Quantitative research uses statistical analysis to test hypotheses and focus on

variables and the relationships among the variables (Creswell, 2008). A quantitative 8

research method was the appropriate research method for this study because numeric data

was collected from a large number of individuals with a survey instrument customized

for the study. Preset questions were asked to obtain data regarding the relationship

among three variables with no predetermined effect identified. Because the data was

both numerical and measurable, it could be analyzed and the results related back to the

hypotheses tested (Neuman, 2006).

Overview of the design appropriateness.

A correlational research design describes a relationship between two or more

variables without directly attributing effect of one variable on another (Creswell, 2008).

Correlational research design was appropriate because the intent of the study was to

identify the direction and degree of association among the variables. Of interest in this

study was if, and to what extent, the independent variables, ERP-type and L-style, had on

each other or on perceived ERP-success, the dependent variable. The tendency or pattern

of the variables was analyzed.

Correlations can reflect a direct or positive relationship among the variables, or be

the opposite. A correlational research design describes a relationship between two or

more variables without directly attributing effect of one variable on another (Salkind,

2003). In this study each variable had the potential of affecting one another. ERP-type

was defined as the specific vendor used for the ERP solution. L-style was defined as the

leadership style of the technology leader supporting ERP in the organization. By

determining the degree of influence that ERP-type and L-style may have on perceived

ERP-success, local government leaders may be assisted in future ERP implementation 9

decisions. As a result of this correlational research study, a linear relationship among the

variables was analyzed.

Research Questions

The goal of understanding the impact L-style and ERP-type have on ERP-success

was the basis for the research question. The type of ERP implemented within a local

government organization, the style of leadership, and the impact on the success of the

ERP were the criteria of the research. The research question was as follows: How does a

government technology leader’s perception of successful ERP relate to leadership style

and the type of ERP?

Hypotheses

Eight hypotheses were developed from the research question as follows:

H01: There is no relationship between perceived successful ERP and type of ERP.

H11: There is a relationship between perceived successful ERP and type of ERP.

H02: There is no relationship between perceived successful ERP and leadership

style.

H22: There is a relationship between perceived successful ERP and leadership

style.

H03: There is no relationship between type of ERP and leadership style.

H33: There is a relationship between type of ERP and leadership style.

H04: There is no relationship among perceived successful ERP, type of ERP, and

leadership style.

H44: There is a relationship among perceived successful ERP, type of ERP, and

leadership style.10

Theoretical Framework

Quantifiable benefits realized from implementing ERP systems include an offset

to cost and a derived return on investment (ROI) for the private sector (Harrison, 2005).

Public sector technology leaders have a greater challenge in determining an appropriate

ROI for their capital expenditures. For example, SAP conducted a study with a similar

theme in conjunction with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Based on the SAP study

a new return on investment framework was developed for governments with SAP ERP

systems (Cresswell, Burke, & Pardo, 2006). The findings of this study may contribute

additional information regarding public sector return on investment for other types of

ERP systems.

Follett’s vision of leadership (as cited in Wren, 2005) is an individual who can

organize and engage a team to work toward one vision for an enterprise. The quality

integral to a successful leader is trust (McCoy, 2007). The theory of transformational

leadership also includes the ability to manage change and innovation. Communicating

desired changes and creating an innovative atmosphere support Rogers’ diffusion theory

(2003). The theories of transformational leadership and diffusion are foundations for the

leadership style researched in this study. The findings may provide a guide to assist local

government technology leaders with determining the type of leadership style needed for

successful adoption of long-term enterprise resource planning.

In 2005, Verville, Bernadas, and Halingten’s qualitative research study had a

central phenomenon of identifying critical success factors to assist in making the right

choice of software when acquiring ERP. Included in the critical success factors were

elements of leadership skills such as clear and unambiguous authority, proper planning 11

and communication, and a strong partnership with users and the project team. A study

conducted by Mehlinger (2006) did not show a correlation between perceived degree of

ERP success and leadership style. The study provides additional data to support a

relation between perceived ERP-success and L-style.

Grover, Jeong, Kettinger, and Lee (1993) conducted a study that investigated the

managerial roles of the chief information officer (CIO) based on Mintzberg's classic

managerial role model. The researchers found that the managerial roles of CIOs do not

differ significantly from that of information technology middle managers. For this reason

the participants of this study were not limited to individuals with a title of CIO. The

survey was directed to the senior technology manager of the organization.

Definition of Terms

The following italicized words or phrases represent operational terms used in a

unique way throughout the study:

Critical success factors (CSFs): those factors that if done well result in the

organization’s success (Turban, Leidner, McLean, & Wetherbe, 2008).

Enterprise resource planning (ERP): software solutions with business

information and functionality combined into one organizational database (Daneva &

Wieringa, 2008).

Assumptions

The study was based upon two assumptions. The first assumption was that the

survey respondents would provide an accurate and honest reply to a sensitive topic

gauging their organization’s ERP success. The anonymity of the survey and the 12

voluntary nature of the data reporting provided an assurance to the respondents of

identity protection for their organization.

The second assumption is that the appropriate technology leaders of local

governments who had implemented ERP would reply. The survey request was directed

to the attention of senior technology leaders. Demographic questions were included in

the survey instrument with the intention of ensuring the respondents were key technology

managers of the organization.

Scope and Limitations

The scope of the study was limited to technology leaders of U.S. local

governments of varying population size, who have implemented ERP within their

organizations. In some cases, the participants were not the individuals who were the

original decision-makers or implementers of ERP within the organization, so the

perceived degree of success may not be directly attributable to their leadership style or

decision-making abilities. Also the participants may not have been able or willing to

share honest, accurate data regarding the perceived success of their ERP because of the

sensitive nature of the study.

A delimitation of the study was the selection of only local U.S. government

technology leaders who have implemented ERP as the population sample. Limiting the

population sample limits the scope of the study to a manageable level. As a result input

from other public sector organizations, such as federal or state, were included in the

study.

Generalizations of the study’s results may reflect an indication that type of ERP

or leadership style has a definite influence on its long-term success. It may be possible 13

for the study’s findings to be generalized to public sector technology leaders. The

findings may assist leaders in the midst of selecting an ERP system, or investigating a

remedy for a failed ERP implementation, to develop a leadership style conducive to

successful ERP.

Summary

ERP systems are expensive to implement and sustain (Sumner, 2005). In local

government, citizens may have a perception that fiscal responsibility is not being

adequately demonstrated by government technology leaders’ ERP decisions (Dawes,

Burke, & Dadayan, 2006). The CSFs of ERP success include leadership qualities such as

innovation, vision, and strong communication skills (Dawson & Owens, 2008). The

purpose of this study was to examine the degree to which a relationship exists among

leadership style, type of ERP implemented, and perceived ERP success in local

governments.

A lack of leadership exists in public sector organizations that have implemented

ERP. The study results provide data and additional information regarding factors

influencing successful ERP. A literature review related to ERP challenges and CSFs is

presented in chapter 2. A review of literature relevant to leadership style, type of ERP,

and perceived successful adoption of ERP in local government, the variables of the study,

are also presented in chapter 2.14

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature

Chapter 1 provided an overview of the background and problem associated with

the challenges of successfully implementing and supporting ERP in public sector

organizations and the leadership qualities and fiscal responsibility associated with ERP

decisions. The problem statement with the significance and nature of the study,

hypotheses, research question, and theoretical framework were included in this

discussion. The purpose of this quantitative correlational study was to examine the

degree to which a relationship exists among the independent variables, leadership style

(L-style) and type of ERP implemented (ERP-type) and the dependent variable, perceived

ERP success (ERP-success) in local U.S. governments.

Presented in chapter 2 is an historical overview of ERP philosophy in the

technology industry for both public and private sector. Studies are discussed relating to

the primary research question, identifying a relationship that may exist among successful

ERP sites, leadership style, and type of ERP. Research highlighting the critical success

factors and challenges of implementing ERP is reviewed. Current studies are identified

with accompanying findings relevant to leadership style, ERP type, and ERP success in

government and private sector.

Title Searches, Articles, Research Documents, and Journals

The University of Phoenix Online library database was the primary resource for

the study. This electronic resource includes the following: EBSCOhost, ProQuest, Gale

PowerSearch, Google Scholar, Journal of Leadership Studies, ACM Digital Library,

Library, Information Science and Technology, Business Insights, Business Source 15

Complete, Government Finance Statistics, IEEE Computer Society Digital Library,

Journal of Leadership Studies, Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts

(LISTA), Leadership Library on the Internet, Public Administration Review,

Dissertations and Theses @ University of Phoenix, and ProQuest Dissertations and

Theses.

Word, topic, author, and terminology searches were used to retrieve the

appropriate literature. Primary keyword searches included: enterprise resource planning,

ERP, leadership style of technology leaders, and successful ERP, critical success factors

of ERP, public sector ERP, government ERP, ERP implementations, ERP management,

government fiscal responsibility, ERP surveys, ERP leadership, technology budgets, ERP

costs, government IT budgets. Phrases or topics searched included: managing technology

projects in public sector, technology return on investments (ROI), chief information

officer (CIO) leadership, government classification demographics, Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), leadership and ERP critical success factor survey

instruments, and government innovation.

The sources of material relate to types of ERP vendors; associated ERP

implementations, costs, benefits, and success factors; including studies of leadership

styles for technology managers. The Web-based databases and search engines provided

results that included research involving all types of industries with a focus on public

sector entities, local, state, or federal. Industry-specific journals, periodicals, technology

websites, textbooks, and peer-reviewed articles include the majority of media referenced

for this study. Although there are a variety of ERP software vendors, limited literature 16

exists regarding studies correlating successful ERP and various types of ERP. The

majority of the studies focused on one specific vendor product, SAP.

Historical Overview of Enterprise Resource Planning

Since the 1990s system architecture and the types of software developed have

been changing as technology leaders of organizations adopt a philosophy termed

Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) (Sumner, 2005). Enterprise software is software

that integrates the business operations across the company in the areas of finance,

customer relations, human resources, supply chain planning, and manufacturing. ERP

systems are designed to manage and standardize operations to reduce business costs and

increase efficiencies (Behar, 2006). ERP focuses on minimizing the diverse types of

software applications and vendors employed to meet an organization’s business needs.

In 1990 information technology costs averaged 9% of an organization’s cost of

operations. By 1999 the total investment grew to 22% (Rettig, 2007). The increased

funding commitment has placed significant importance on competent and resourceful

management of technology – both in private and public sector. Public sector managers

are assisted with this financial challenge with a number of return on investment (ROI)

models. Government leaders are encouraged to become more innovative in addressing

economic issues and evaluating the models that have been developed (Dadayan, 2006).

Components of an innovative organization include a shared vision, leadership, and the

will to innovate (Tidd, Bessant, & Pavitt, 2005).

ERP critical success factors.

Several reasons justify ERP as a business philosophy adopted by organizations.

Integration of data is the primary benefit (Sumner, 2005). ERP links financial data, 17

customer information, supply chain management, and human resources into one database

for the organization. ERP has also been attributed to improving business processes

because of the software integration (Laudon & Laudon, 2006). Performance and

usefulness of an ERP system have also been found to be contributing factors to success

(Peslak, Subramanian, & Clayton, 2007).

Technology leaders of customer-driven organizations, such as local governments

can benefit from ERP systems. Government technology leaders rely on ERP because of

the emphasis placed on the importance and criticality of participating in various

electronic forms of commerce. Successful ERP technology contributes to an organization

becoming more efficient, effective, and innovative (Haag, Cummings, & Phillips, 2007).

ERP challenges.

ERP technology leaders are involved in more than installing a suite of software

products (McNurlin & Sprague, 2006). Moving to an ERP technology environment

creates a strong dependence on core technology: networks, telecommunications, and web

services. The result is an information technology infrastructure focusing on service

delivery and support with Nolan’s maturity level of meeting the needs of the organization

(1979). The maturity of an organization’s information technology management results

from the efforts of the senior information systems manager of the organization (Dawson

& Watson, 2005) - characteristics of successful technology leadership (Jones, 2007).

Enterprise resource planning systems require a long-term funding commitment.

An organization may incur costs of $15 million to implement ERP, while only 10% of

implementations succeed on schedule with full functionality. A technology manager may

invest up to 80% of a department budget in system support (Rettig, 2007). To maximize 18

the return on this software investment, top management support is integral to ERP

success (Crisotomo, 2008). As a result, providing the necessary funding commitment for

the software and systems required to gather and process the information needed by the

organization is addressed by the technology leaders.

Public sector ERP challenges.

The public sector technology leaders are working in unison with the private sector

to evaluate, select, implement, and support ERP systems. Information technology

projects in public sector have a significant impact to the technology budget. Government

IT investments provide value to the citizens in two ways: improve the value of the

government entity itself; or deliver benefits to the public at large (Dawes, Burke, &

Dadayan, 2006). Public sector technology leaders have difficulty quantifying the costs

versus the benefits realized in technology implementations by calculating a traditional

return on investment (ROI) (Cresswell, Burke, & Pardo, 2006).

The literature reviewed demonstrated the challenges public sector leaders have in

overcoming criticism from their constituents in making fiscal spending decisions, while

showing innovation and vision in their technology decisions. Public sector organizations

have been cautioned about the importance of proper budgetary procedures to keep longterm tax burdens low (Williams, 2009). Faulty state budget forecasts often result in a

huge budget gap. This financial challenge for public sector managers has led to increased

oversight of the fiscal responsibility demonstrated by their decisions. Public sector

technology leaders are cognizant of the fiscal impacts of implementing and supporting

ERP and prepared to fend off criticism of government fiscal decisions (Eggers & Singh,

2009).19

Organization leaders do not always understand the costs associated with an ERP

system when they first commence the implementation (Rettig, 2007). The research

indicated a variety of materials focusing on ROI in public sector organizations and the

challenge of identifying an appropriate and accurate ROI method. The basis for

calculating the ROI in public sector organizations consists of different types of analysis

criteria (Dadayan, 2006). This specialized method is described as public ROI (Dawes,

Burke, & Dadayan, 2006).

Current Findings

The perception exists that IT is a cost center required to have a return on

investment that meets the same criteria as purchasing any piece of equipment (Luftman,

Bullen, Liao, Nash, & Neumann, 2004). This overlooks the reality that in businesses

today, without IT, the organization cannot survive, much as an organization could not

survive without telephones. Funding for support of enterprise systems is waning because

of the complexity and cost associated with continued upgrades and skepticism that

functionality is adequate to meet an organization’s core business needs (Scott, 2007).

Technology leaders in local governments with successful ERP implementations influence

citizen perception of public sector organizational fiscal responsibility. Minimal research

has been conducted on the relationship of ERP success with type of ERP implemented or

leadership style in local governments.

ERP type.

The SAP implementation for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the success

factors met with this implementation indicate that the technology leaders demonstrated

vision by first focusing on providing a reliable and secure system to the business users 20

(Dawes, Burke, & Dadayan, 2006). The data warehouse tools were made available to

management and provided the information needed to fully oversee their operations. The

improved efficiencies in operations and personnel management resulted in an annual

return of nearly $2 million.

Another study on SAP ERP users focused on the relation of three critical success

factors (Thomas, 2008). The factors studied were change in technology, change

management, and best business practices. The study only included SAP users and did not

track differences between public and private sector organizations. One recommendation

as a result of this study was to conduct additional research on other ERP types, such as

Oracle.

A study that parallels the current one is Harrison’s study conducted in 2004. The

sample population included both public and private sector technology leaders. The

individuals were surveyed about the critical success factors (CSFs) expected and realized

with their SAP ERP implementations. Harrison found that the public sector respondents

consistently expressed disappointment in the realized return on investment and

anticipated reduction in operational costs as a result of ERP (2005). Once again,

Harrison’s study only included SAP ERP sites.

Leadership style.

The constant demand for change in an information technology environment

requires that the responsibility for initiating and implementing change is the

responsibility of the technology manager (Ness, 2005). The chief information officers

(CIOs) of the organization are typically the individuals in this role. Successful CIOs are

capable of applying IT to the business and demonstrate the flexibility to focus the 21

direction of technology on changing business needs. Of seven categories of critical

success factors for successful ERP, top management support was one of the predominant

categories (Nah & Delgado, 2006). Other skills needed by technology managers with

significant influence on ERP were found to focus on communications, power, knowledge,

and change (Harrison, 2005).

The staff of the 21

st

century is a mix of generations. As Generation-X employees

are making their way into organizations, implementing and supporting an ERP

environment can be challenging. A study of voluntary turnover among Generation-X

information technology professionals suggested that the motivators of voluntary

employee turnover in this sample included: lack of organizational loyalty and trust, poor

leadership communication, and little technology innovation (Burnes, 2006). Another

study on leadership styles and job satisfaction among the Generation-X population within

the information technology consulting industry emphasized the importance of

transformation leadership (Fismer, 2005). The results of the study indicated that an

organization with transformational leadership may be a better match for employees from

this segment of the population. Each of the studies reinforces the perspective that

leadership style may be an important criterion in achieving success in the technology

field.

Leadership style, and the impact this variable has on successful technology

management, is a criterion of various studies. Brown-Boone (2006) found that the effort

IT workers exhibit, their effectiveness, and job satisfaction directly correlated with the

leadership style of management. The scores indicated that transformational leadership

could influence the workers' behavioral outcomes. 22

One study focused on a different segment of the public sector population – higher

education. It was found that a combination of transformational and transactional culture

has an association with ERP success in higher education organizations and can be

predictors of successful ERP implementations (Mehlinger, 2005). Transformational

leadership characteristics and the decision-making process among senior and executive

level leaders in technology organizations were explored. Leaders with decision-making

based upon morals, integrity, honor, and trust were quickly changed or affected by the

pressures of organizational financial performance and influences of other leaders in

power positions (Steward, 2005). This is an indicator that those leaders making decisions

regarding ERP technology may have transformational leadership qualities, but subjugate

them to others in the organization with a more powerful position.

ERP success.

Critical success factors for ERP success include implementation costs within

budget, business operations benefits, and a satisfactory ROI (Harrison, 2005). Enterprise

resource planning is labeled as unsuccessful if over budget, abandoned, or not meeting

the requirements of the organization (Cresswell, Burke, & Pardo, 2006). A qualitative

research study identified critical success factors to assist in making the right choice of

software when acquiring ERP applications (Verville, Bernadas, & Halingten, 2005). The

study was aimed at assisting organizations defray the risk and uncertainty in the ERP

acquisition process. Three case studies were used as the basis for the study. User

acceptance and partnering with the vendor were essential to successful ERP in all three

cases. 23

ERP implementations are high risk and extremely hazardous to an organization

(Ettlie, Perotti, Joseph, & Cotteleer, 2005). A study conducted by Ettlie et al. found

business process reengineering to be a primary predictor of successful ERP adoption.

Another primary predictor of success found in this study was the importance of

leadership as a change agent.

Public sector ERP success.

Critical success factors related to ERP project management appear to be similar

between state government and private sector (Rosacker, 2005). Harrison also compared

and correlated the level of project success of public to private sector organizations with

ERP implementations (2005). A comparable level of success factors existed between

government and private sector organizations. In Harrison’s study private sector

organizations were more positive about their experience and long-term benefits resulting

from the ERP systems in place. This could be attributed to the challenges that public

sector entities face because of regulations, citizen oversight, and the spotlight of the

public arena.

ERP implementations are expensive, resource intensive, with public sector

organizations open to criticism when ERP implementations are not successful. Public

sector organizations have a history of a higher percentage of failed ERP implementations

than those in private sector (BearingPoint, 2006). It has been demonstrated that public

sector technology leaders can avoid ERP implementation failures by establishing

appropriate success factors at the outset of the project (Harrison, 2005).

An ERP change management survey of organizations that have implemented ERP

solutions found impediments to success related to change management and inadequate 24

support of the functional units (Kim, Lee, & Gosain, 2005). The organizations that

reported ERP success concentrated on the coordination of resources, information sharing,

and team collaboration over the enterprise. The respondents from the less successful

companies focused on the software features and functionality, an indication they lacked

the leadership necessary to deal with the change.

Conclusion

As information technology has evolved enterprise resource planning has also

evolved to become a near necessity for successful business operations (Sumner, 2005). A

variety of research conducted since the beginning of the 21st century focuses on the

critical success factors for ERP implementation and support in both private and public

sectors. This research indicates that technology leaders in public sector organizations are

criticized for not demonstrating fiscal responsibility and sound decision-making abilities

as a result of their organization’s ERP implementations. To prevent or overcome

criticism from their constituents leaders of public sector organizations are encouraged to

show innovation and vision in their technology decisions (Dadayan, 2006). A review of

the literature revealed an area of limited research in the correlation of leadership style or

type of ERP implemented with successful ERP in the public sector. Oracle is one of the

largest ERP vendors in the world and little research has been found that focuses on any of

the Oracle ERP products – eBusiness Suite, PeopleSoft, and JD Edwards. Additional

research on the ERP implementations in public sector with a focus on Oracle products is

suggested.25

Summary

A survey conducted of 14,000 organizations as part of the United Kingdom

Department of Trade and Industry suggested that over 80% of projects failed to meet

their performance goals, 80% were late and over budget, around 40% failed or were

abandoned, and less than 20% met success criteria (Tidd, Bessant, & Pavitt, 2005). This

indicates that organizations have partial success but with problems. Public sector

organizations have a history of a higher percentage of failed ERP implementations than

those in private sector (BearingPoint, 2006).

ERP systems are resource-intensive and expensive to implement. To prevent

failures and ensure success with ERP implementations within public sector technology

organizations, the analysis presented in this literature review indicates that a relationship

may exist between type of leadership style of senior technology manager of the

organization and successful ERP. If a strong relationship exists among any of the

variables a specific type of leadership model can be developed for public sector

technology leaders to follow to ensure success with ERP initiatives.

Chapter 3 includes the rationale for the research method and design

appropriateness for the study. The population, sampling, and data collection procedures

are described and include a rationale for the type of data being collected, the collection

technique used, the geographic group sampled, and an assurance of the confidentiality to

participants. A discussion of the survey instruments selected, their reliability and

validity, and appropriateness to the study is presented. Prior to a brief summary of the

key chapter points is a discussion of the data statistical analysis to be conducted.26

Chapter 3: Method

In chapter 2, a review was presented of the literature relevant to the quantitative,

correlational study. The purpose of the study was to examine the degree to which a

relationship exists among the independent variables, leadership style and type of ERP

implemented, and the dependent variable, perceived enterprise resource planning success.

Local U.S. government technology leaders comprised the sample population of the study.

Chapter 3 includes a discussion on the methodology and design appropriateness

of the quantitative method selected. The selection of a quantitative correlational research

method over qualitative design is discussed and the rationale for the research design

explained. The population, sampling, and data collection procedures are described. As

part of data collection, the survey instruments used in the study are described with their

appropriateness and reliability explained. Internal and external validity are also

discussed. An identification of the data analysis conducted in the study and technique

selection appropriateness are included in the discussion.

In qualitative studies a small sample size is used with the purpose of achieving an

in-depth understanding of the research question. A weakness of qualitative studies is that

results cannot be generalized to a larger population. Theory testing is a major component

of quantitative research with the researcher maintaining distance from the population in

order not to influence the survey results (Cooper & Schindler, 2006). The current study

spanned a large population sample of senior technology leaders throughout the United

States that have implemented an ERP solution with the intention of using the results for

successful ERP planning. 27

Although both quantitative and qualitative research use purpose statements and

research questions, quantitative differs by establishing hypotheses and theories for

testing; identifying variables and survey instruments with which to collect the data; and

by measuring differences and the significance of the differences among two or more

groups (Cooper & Schindler, 2006). In quantitative research questions are asked that

provide measurable answers such as how much, how often, and how many. The research

question of this study provides a measure of how much of a relationship exists among

perceived successful ERP, type of ERP, and style of technology leadership in local

governments.

Qualitative research focuses on a central phenomenon with a small group of

individuals providing information on this phenomenon (Creswell, 2008). The core of this

study was different. It compared data collected for each of the variables and the effect

each may have on the other. A large group of individuals were asked to participate in the

study with a focused research question and specific variables used to evaluate the results

of the study. This methodology takes a linear path meeting Neuman’s definition of

quantitative research (2006).

Research Method and Design Appropriateness

The research question was formulated to focus on the construct of interest -

leadership styles and type of ERP implemented of technology leaders of local

governments with successful ERP sites. How does a government technology leader’s

perception of successful ERP relate to leadership style and the type of ERP? The

variances of the correlations of the relationships were used to identify the significance 28

any variance has to each relationship. The null hypotheses developed from the research

question were as follows:

H01: There is no relationship between perceived successful ERP and type of ERP.

H02: There is no relationship between perceived successful ERP and leadership

style.

H03: There is no relationship between type of ERP and leadership style.

H04: There is no relationship among perceived successful ERP, type of ERP, and

leadership style.

The significance level for the study was set at α < .05. Each hypothesis was

analyzed. If the probability level was less than or equal to .05, p <

A correlational research design was used for the study to identify the extent that

two or more variables vary in relation to each other. A correlational design collects at a

specific point in time, the participants are analyzed as one sample group, a correlational

statistical test is used in the data analysis, and the researcher draws a conclusion or

interpretation from the results (Creswell, 2008). Each of the independent variables in this

study were analyzed separately but related back to the impact on perceived success of

ERP.

.05, then the null

hypothesis was rejected. A conclusion was drawn from the findings of the study where

statistical significance was demonstrated to exist.

Population

All participants were older than 18 years of age. The target population for this

study was senior technology leaders in local governments throughout the United States. 29

The leaders were responsible for the support of ERP systems within their organizations.

The population was limited to leaders at a level equal to that of CIO.

The study population accessed the survey through an Internet hyperlink. The

participants answered questions relevant to government type, location, employment

position, and ERP experience. Responses to the questions were used to extract the

appropriate sample population for the study (see Appendix A).

Sampling Frame

Convenience sampling was used to select the participants of the sample

population (Creswell, 2008). Individuals from local government organizations were

invited to participate in the study. A link to the Internet survey site was provided for

access to the survey (see Appendix B).

The sample size for the study was based on a combination of confidence interval,

likely response rate, and standard sampling error. A determination was made regarding

when to reject the null hypotheses. The standard values for significance level represented

by α were set at 5% and 1%. When α = .05, a 0.95 or 95% probability exists of a

correct statistical conclusion when the null hypothesis is true and is equivalent to a 95%

confidence level to reject H0 (Aczel & Sounderpandian, 2009). With a 95% confidence

interval, a 50% chance that the leaders surveyed have implemented an ERP system, and a

10% potential sampling error, a target sample size of approximately 100 was

recommended (Creswell, 2008). A random sample of senior technology managers within

local governments was developed based on the target sample guidelines.30

Informed Consent and Confidentiality

The surveys were conducted over the Internet and directed to the attention of the

senior technology manager of each organization. Potential participants were advised that

the survey was limited to individuals older than 18, who were senior technology

managers of local U.S. government organizations. The first screen of the survey required

the participant to affirm that they met the age and job position requirements. To proceed

to the survey questions, the participants were required to click on an ‘I agree’ button (see

Appendix C). The participants were advised that the data collected would be kept

confidential, there would be no monetary gain from the study, and the data would be used

strictly for research purposes.

Because the participants of the study were invited at random to participate in the

study, and the survey was self-administered and electronically delivered, confidentiality

of the participants was maintained. The survey did not ask any personal questions.

Names, addresses, or any other forms of identification of the participants were not

requested nor gathered in any manner during the survey process, with the exception of

the participant’s e-mail address if interested in receiving a copy of the survey results. An

independent Internet survey tool was used to gather the data from the participants with no

direct interaction with the researcher. As with all Internet transmissions, each

participant’s data submission included a TCP/IP internetwork communications address

specific to the participant’s network or a particular host on that network. The survey

service provider would have access to the TCP/IP addresses of the participants, but the

addresses would not be forwarded to the researcher. Only the consolidated data

responses would be shared and used in the data analysis of the results.31

Geographic Location, Data Collection, and Instrument Reliability

Data was collected for each variable: type of ERP, leadership style, and perceived

success of ERP. Senior information technology managers from local governments of

varying asset size throughout the United States that have implemented ERP software

were requested to complete and return the surveys. The data collection process was

conducted through a secure website that combines the surveys with demographic

questions.

A survey form was used to collect the data for the principal reason that the data is

numeric and measurable (Salkind, 2003). The data collection tool allowed the participant

to select a number, based on the Likert scale of 1-5, as the response to each question. To

be cognizant of the time constraints of the target population of senior technology

managers, the data collection tool was intended to be easy to use and not time-intensive

for responses. A custom survey focusing on leadership skills and ERP critical success

factors was used in the study. The constructs of leadership and successful enterprise

resource planning was addressed and validated through specific characteristics identified

in the survey instruments and responded to by the sample population. The survey

contained close-ended questions measured using a 5-point Likert scale. The survey was

designed to identify if transformational leadership skills were present in the technology

leaders responding to the survey and the level of ERP success the participants perceived

to have achieved. The survey website distributed the surveys and compiled the data. The

results were downloaded to an Excel spreadsheet for additional data analysis.

The survey instrument designed for this study was based on the surveys used in

two different studies. Mehlinger’s study (2006) determined the type of organizational 32

leadership style of technology leaders in higher education organizations with PeopleSoft

ERP adoption. Mehlinger used the Bass and Avolio’s Organizational Description

Questionnaire (ODQ) for her study. In this questionnaire the even number questions

refer to a transformational leader of an organization, the odd number questions refer to a

transactional leader.

On the proposed survey instrument, questions 1-13 were taken from Mehlinger’s

survey instrument and identify the degree of transformational leadership characteristics of

the participants. Based on a scale of 1-5, with 5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neutral,

2 = disagree, and 1 = strongly disagree, the total scores per participant will range from a

low of 13 to a high of 65. Higher points scored directly relate to a more transformational

leader.

The second half of the survey instrument focused on the level of ERP success

perceived to have been achieved by the participants. Harrison’s study (2005) identified

critical success factors of ERP implementations in public sector organizations using SAP

applications. Harrison developed a custom survey instrument and used it to identify the

benefits sought and realized as a result of an ERP implementation in both public and

private sector organizations. As an outcome of Harrison’s study there were 10 benefits or

critical success factors (CSFs) determined. The 10 CSFs were included on the survey

instrument to gather the level of ERP success as perceived by the participants as

questions 14-23. Based on a scale of 1-5, with 5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neutral,

2 = disagree, and 1 = strongly disagree, the total scores will range from a low of 10 to a

high of 50. Higher points scored directly relate to more successful ERP at the

participant’s organization.33

Neuman (2006) equated reliability with dependability. The survey was pilot

tested with a sample population of technology leaders in the southern Nevada

geographical region. The pilot group completed the survey and supplied written

feedback directly on the survey instrument regarding any poorly worded or unclear

questions, or if an excessive amount of time is needed to complete the survey. The

feedback on the survey instrument was used to determine a needed revision prior to

distributing it to the sample in the study.

Validity

Internal validity.

Neuman (2006) defined internal validity as an assurance there are no errors

internal to the design of the study, and that there are no alternative explanations for the

way the dependent variables correlate to each other in the study. The common threats to

internal validity include items such as selection bias, instrumentation errors,

contamination, compensatory behavior, and experimenter expectancy. The possibility of

any of the threats occurring was extremely low. The participants of the study were

randomly selected. Identities were not disclosed on the survey. The survey was

coordinated and distributed by an independent survey firm. Internal validity was high.

External validity.

Neuman (2006) described external validity as the ability to generalize the findings

from the study population sample to a broad range of individuals outside the study.

Factors influencing external validity include realism and reactivity. Because the study

was conducted through Internet surveys with a large population size from which to create

a sample of unbiased participants, external validity was expected to be high.34

Data Analysis

The data gathered was numeric and quantitative. Selection of the appropriate data

analysis tools was based on the type of data collected to test each hypothesis. Because

two or more variables were involved in the study, bivariate statistical analysis was

conducted (Neuman, 2006).

A measure of association of the variables was necessary to demonstrate the

strength and direction of each relationship (Neuman, 2006). Rho or Pearson’s product

moment correlation coefficient (r) was used to measure the association. The Pearson r

correlation statistic provides a statistically significant evaluation of any linear

associations between the variables. Cohen and Manion’s standard (as cited in Creswell,

2008) interpret the strength of correlational relationships as follows: .20-.35 represents a

small association, .35-.65 represents a medium association, .66-.85 represent a very good

correlation, and .86 or larger correlations represent a correlations seldom achieved and

may require retesting for validity and reliability.

A weighted score was derived for the responses associated with the

transformational leadership characteristics of the respondents and the critical success

factors as a result of the ERP implementation. The survey consisted of a list of questions

with responses based on a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 representing the least applicable

response. Leadership style and type of ERP implemented may impact perceived success

of ERP, either together or separately. Multiple linear regression analysis measured the

direction and size of any effect on the dependent variable (Neuman, 2006). A scatter plot

displays a test of the assumptions and to validate the regression model. 35

Tracked as criteria that could impact the interpretation of the study’s results was

whether or not the respondent was the technology leader at the time of the ERP

implementation, the number of employees within the organization, and the type of ERP

implemented. Descriptive statistics that include the mean, median, mode, standard

deviation, range, minimum, maximum, and sum were generated for the additional

criteria. SPSS version 18.0 for Microsoft Windows was used to enter and analyze the

survey data (Lee, Famoya, Shelden, & Brown, 2010).

Summary

Included in chapter 3 was a description of the methodology for the quantitative,

correlational study. The focus of the study was to determine if a relationship exists

among leadership style, ERP type, and perceived ERP success for local governments.

The data was gathered electronically using an independent survey tool. The sample

population consisted of senior technology managers of local governments throughout the

United States. Because numeric data was gathered and statistically analyzed a

quantitative method was appropriate (Neuman, 2006).

A quantitative research method was justified because: two or more variables have

been identified for the study, numerical data will be collected for each variable, and a

comparison and effect of each variable was measured (Neuman, 2006). Correlational

research design was supported because each of the variables in the study was analyzed

separately but related back to the impact on perceived success of ERP. A newly created

survey was developed incorporating the transformational leadership questions from

Mehlinger’s study (2006) and the ERP critical success factors of Harrison’s study (2005).

The survey instrument was pilot tested and revised as necessary prior to use in the study.36

The data analysis planned for the survey results include Pearson r coefficient,

multiple linear regression, and standard descriptive statistics. Scatter plots display the

relation of the variables. A detailed description of the study and its results are presented

in chapter 4.37

Chapter 4: Results

The purpose of the quantitative correlational research study was to examine the

degree to which a relationship exists among leadership style, type of ERP implemented,

and perceived ERP success in local governments. The study was performed on senior

technology leaders who adopted an ERP environment within U.S. local government. The

data collection procedures, the statistical analyses of the data, the results of the analyses

for each of the hypotheses, and a summary of the findings are presented in chapter 4.

Demographic Synopsis

The population for the study was senior technology leaders of public sector

organizations throughout the United States. The organizations were limited to local

government that included cities, counties, and townships. The study participants were

randomly contacted through three different channels: direct survey of a metropolitan CIO

organization, Internet blog at a government website, and an Internet marketing

advertisement in five different government electronic publications.

Thirty-three participants were involved in the study, of those 22 (66.7%) were

involved in city government and 11 (33.3%) were involved in county government. None

of the senior technology leaders endorsed township government. The size of each senior

leader’s organization was equally balanced in that a similar percentage was represented

among each level of employee count. For example, 8 (24.2%) of the senior leaders

worked in an organization with fewer than 1000 employees, 9 (27.3%) reported between

1001-3000 employees, 8 (24.2%) reported between 3001 and 5000 employees, and 8

(24.2%) reported organizations with more than 5000 employees. Frequencies and

percentages for demographic characteristics are presented in Table 1.38

Table 1

Frequencies and Percentages of Government Type and Number of Employees in

Organization

Characteristic Count Percentage

Government type

City 22 66.7

County 11 33.3

Township 0 0.0

Number of employees in organization

0 to 1000 8 24.2

1001 to 3000 9 27.3

3001 to 5000 8 24.2

Greater than 5000 8 24.2

A majority of senior technology leaders surveyed was involved in the selection of

Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) vendor for the organization (23, 69.7%) and was

responsible for the ongoing support of ERP (28, 84.8%). ERP vendor type varied among

the senior leaders in the research sample. Ten (30.3%) used Oracle PeopleSoft, 5

(15.2%) used Oracle eBusiness Suite, 4 (12.1%) used Oracle JD Edwards, 4 (12.1%) used

SAP, and none of the senior technology leaders used Great Plains. A large number of

leaders reported using an ERP system that is less common (14, 42.4%). The less

common ERP types were coded as “Other” for analysis. Frequencies and percentages for

ERP involvement and vendor type are presented in Table 2. 39

Table 2

Frequencies and Percentages of ERP Involvement and Vendor Type

ERP Demographic Count Percentage

Involved in selection of ERP

Yes 23 69.7

No 10 30.3

Responsible for support of ERP

Yes 28 84.8

No 5 15.2

ERP vendor type

Oracle eBusiness Suite 5 15.2

Oracle PeopleSoft 10 30.3

Oracle JD Edwards 4 12.1

SAP 4 12.1

Great Plains 0 0.0

Other 14 42.4

For the “Other” vendor types, 12 of 14 respondents wrote-in specific ERP vendor

types. The most common was AMS Advantage from CGI, used by as many as four

participants (12%). The frequencies and percentages for the “Other” ERP programs are

presented in Table 3. 40

Table 3

Frequencies and Percentages of “Other” ERP Vendors Used by Senior Technology

Leaders

Other ERP Vendors Count Percentage

Agresso Business World 1 3.0

AMS Advantage from CGI 3 9.0

Indigenous efforts using Oracle Platform 1 3.0

Kronos 1 3.0

Mixed environment - PeopleSoft for HR and

AMS for Financials

1 3.0

Munis 2 6.0

New World 1 3.0

SunGuard 2 6.0

Given the large number of “Other” ERP vendor responses, it was of interest to

understand if there was a relationship between the number of employees in an

organization and the “Other” vendor response. A point-biserial correlation was

conducted to investigate the variables. The correlation result was not significant, rpb (31)

= -.266, p = .135, suggesting the size of the organization was not related to the “Other”

choice of ERP vendor among the research sample.

Data Collection

The target population was senior technology leaders in local governments

throughout the United States. The leaders were responsible for the support of ERP

systems within their organizations. The population was limited to leaders at a level equal

to that of CIO.

The U.S. Census Bureau indicates a total of 36,011 municipalities, towns, and

townships (2007). To target as many of the public sector technology leaders as possible 41

as survey participants, a number of media were used. Public sector leaders were

contacted in three different ways: direct survey, Internet blog at a government website,

and an Internet marketing advertisement in five different government electronic

publications.

The surveys were conducted over the Internet and directed to the senior

technology manager of each organization. The respondents were advised that the data

collected would be kept confidential, there would be no monetary gain from the study,

and the data would be used strictly for research purposes. A copy of the study results was

offered to each of the respondents in compensation of time spent responding to the

survey. The respondent was provided the option of including an e-mail address if a copy

of the results was requested.

A survey link was sent directly to a group of public sector city and county CIOs

from the president of Metropolitan Information Exchange (MIX). MIX is an

organization comprised of chief information officers of cities and counties with

populations over 100,000 (Metropolitan Information Exchange, 2010). The president of

the organization posted an announcement of the research study survey to the membership

of 58 individuals. A link to the survey website was included in the announcement.

The Alliance for Innovation is an organization with 9000 participating local

governments that focus on new approaches to innovation in best practices for providing

government services. The research study survey was posted to the member-only website

with a request for participation from the membership. A link to the survey website was

included in the blog.42

To reach other public sector technology leaders advertising was acquired in five

different electronic publications: GCN – IT Management, GCN – State and Local,

Internet.com - CIO, WT – State and Local, and Computerworld. Marchex Adhere is a

pay-per-click advertising on the publication websites (Marchex, 2010). Advertisements

were posted on the publication websites requesting public sector technology leaders to

complete the survey by accessing the survey link.

Through the use of the three data collection channels, data was gathered for the

independent variables, ERP-type and L-style, and the dependent variable, perceived ERPsuccess. Specific data regarding enterprise resource planning in local governments was

collected through an Internet survey. The results were downloaded for data analysis with

the SPSS application.

A custom questionnaire focusing on leadership skills and ERP critical success

factors was used in the study. The survey was a combination of questions from two

surveys validated in previous studies. Mehlinger (2006) used the Bass and Avolio’s

Organizational Description Questionnaire (ODQ) for a study on type of organizational

leadership style of higher education technology leaders. The even number questions of

the ODQ refer to a transformational leader of an organization. Only the transformational

leadership questions from the ODQ were used in the study to determine the leadership

style of the participants.

The dependent variable, perceived ERP success, was measured using questions

from Harrison’s study (2005) that identified critical success factors of ERP

implementations. Harrison’s survey was validated in a study that identified 10 benefits or

critical success factors sought and realized as a result of an ERP implementation in both 43

public and private sector organizations. The 10 critical success factors were included as

questions on the survey instrument with the intention of determining perceived ERP

success among the study participants.

The survey for the current study was pilot tested with a sample population of six

technology leaders in the state of Nevada. The pilot group completed the survey and

supplied written feedback directly on the survey instrument. Comments were encouraged

regarding any poorly worded questions, unclear questions, or if an excessive amount of

time was needed to complete the survey.

The participants in the pilot survey included senior technology leaders from four

city governments and one county. A state technology leader responsible for the ERP

environment of the organization responded to the survey, but was not classified as a

senior technology leader, so the response was not included in the pilot results. A 5-point

Likert scale was used to gather responses to the questions. Responses were based on a

scale of 1-5, with 1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = neutral, 4 = disagree, and 5 = strongly

disagree. There were no suggested changes from the pilot participants but an observation

was made to reorder the scale with 5 = strongly agree to 1 = strongly disagree. The

survey instrument was changed prior to finalizing and distributing it to the sample in the

study.

Data Analysis

Survey responses were collected using the Internet data collection tool from

SurveyMonkey (2010). A separate data collector was established for each channel: direct

survey to MIX members, Internet blog at Alliance for Innovation website, and Marchex

Internet marketing advertisement in the various government electronic publications. The 44

collection processes were separated to ensure responses were received from each media

channel and to monitor the number of responses from each in the event the findings could

be impacted.

The study was planned with a 95% confidence interval, a 50% chance that the

technology leaders in the sample population would have implemented an ERP system,

and a 10% sampling error, resulting in a target sample size of approximately 100

participants (Creswell, 2008). The target sample size was used in identifying channels

for distributing the survey link to senior technology leaders of local governments. At the

time of the survey the MIX organization had 58 members, the Alliance for Innovation

had 9000 members, and the electronic government publications had the potential of

reaching all 36,000 city, county, and township leaders.

The sample size was less than the target. A total of 68 responded to the survey,

with 33 qualified participants completing the survey in its entirety. The introductory

questions confirmed that the participants were senior technology leaders of local

government organizations involved in implementing or supporting an ERP environment.

Three respondents completed the survey but identified themselves as not being senior

technology leaders of a public sector organization and the responses were not included in

the analysis. The reason for the drop out of the other respondents could be that the

potential participants did not meet the criteria for a senior technology leader.

Findings

The research question was formulated to focus on the construct of interest -

leadership styles and type of ERP implemented by technology leaders of local

governments with ERP sites perceived to be successful. The question was as follows: 45

How does a government technology leader’s perception of successful ERP relate to

leadership style and the type of ERP? The variances of the correlations of the

relationships were used to identify the significance any variance had to each relationship.

A point-biserial correlation was used to measure the association among the

variables. The significance level for the study was set at α < .05. Each hypothesis was

individually analyzed. If the probability level was less than or equal to .05, p <

Data regarding the relationship stated in H01 and H11 were analyzed. Hypotheses

H01 and H11 are stated as follows:

.05, then

the null hypothesis was rejected. Eight hypotheses were used to test the research

question. Each hypothesis is discussed below. A conclusion was drawn from the

findings of the study where statistical significance was demonstrated to exist.

H01: There is no relationship between perceived successful ERP and type of ERP.

H11: There is a relationship between perceived successful ERP and type of ERP.

To test the hypotheses, five point-biserial correlations were conducted to examine

the relationship between senior technology leader’s perceived success with regard to the

type of ERP vendor used in the organization. No analysis was conducted for the Great

Plains vendor because none of the participants endorsed that program. The results of the

correlations were not significant, p >.05, suggesting that there is no statistically

significant relationship between successful ERP and the type of ERP vendor. The null

hypothesis, that no relationships exist between successful ERP and type of ERP vendor

used, cannot be rejected. The results of the correlations are presented in Table 4.46

Table 4

Point-biserial Correlations between Successful ERP and ERP Vendor Type

Perceived ERP Success

Oracle

eBusiness Suite

Oracle

PeopleSoft

Oracle

JD Edwards SAP “Other”

r pb 0.15 -0.17 0.02 -0.08 -0.10

p .405 .358 .927 .670 .585

N 33 33 33 33 33

Data regarding the relationship stated in H02 and H22 were analyzed. Hypotheses

H02 and H22 are stated as follows:

H02: There is no relationship between perceived successful ERP and leadership

style.

H22: There is a relationship between perceived successful ERP and leadership

style.

A Pearson correlation was conducted to examine the relationship between a senior

technology leader’s perceived success with regard to the organization’s ERP and their

leadership style. The results of the correlation were significant, r (31) = .58, p <.001,

suggesting that as the scores on the leadership style variable increase, the scores on the

successful ERP also increase. Cohen and Manion’s standard (as cited in Creswell, 2008)

was used to interpret the strength of the relationship, where .20-.35 represents a small

association, .35-.65 represents a medium association, .66-.85 represent a very good

correlation, and .86 or larger correlations represent correlations seldom achieved and may

require retesting for validity and reliability. The correlation coefficient of 0.58 suggests

the relationship is strong. The null hypothesis, that no relationship exists between

successful ERP and leadership style, is rejected. The results of the correlation are shown

in Table 5. Figure 1 presents a scatter plot of the variables. 47

Table 5

Pearson Correlation between Perceived ERP Success and Leadership Style

Leadership Style Perceived ERP Success

r 0.58

p .000

N 33

Figure 1. Scatter plot for successful ERP and leadership style.

The Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Survey included 23 items that

investigated the leaders’ perception of their leadership style and the success of the

organization’s ERP implementation. For each item, respondents were instructed to

indicate the number that corresponds to the level of agreement with the item. Responses

were coded using the following scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 =

agree, and 5 = strongly agree. Items 1-13 were transformed to provide a composite score

for leadership style with a range of 13-65 points. Scores for leadership style ranged from 48

a minimum of 30 points to a maximum of 59 points (M = 51.06, SD = 6.72). Items 14-23

were transformed to provide a composite score for successful ERP, with a range of 10-50

points. Scores for ERP success ranged from a minimum of 20 points to a maximum of 50

points (M = 36.94, SD = 7.05). The means and standard deviations for the survey

subscales are provided in Table 6.

Table 6

Means and Standard Deviation on Leadership Style and Successful ERP

ERP Variables M SD

Leadership Style 51.06 6.72

Perceived ERP Success 36.94 7.04

With a maximum of 65 points and a mean of 51.06 derived for leadership style,

the participants demonstrated a high-level of transformational leadership characteristics.

With a maximum of 50 points and a mean of 36.94 derived for perceived ERP success,

the participants also indicated an increased rate of success. The significance of the

correlation between leadership style and perceived ERP success is supported by the

scores.

Data regarding the relationship stated in H03 and H33 were analyzed. Hypotheses

H03 and H33 are stated as follows:

H03: There is no relationship between type of ERP and leadership style.

H33: There is a relationship between type of ERP and leadership style.

The hypotheses were tested by conducting five point-biserial correlations to

examine the relationship between leadership style and the type of ERP vendor used. No

analysis was conducted for the Great Plains vendor because none of the participants 49

endorsed that program. Of the five correlations, the results were significant for the

relationship between leadership style and “Other” ERP vendor, r (31) = -.36, p =.040.

The relationship is negative or inverse suggesting that as participants used

“Other” ERP vendors, scores on the leadership style variable decreased, and as

participants did not use “Other” ERP vendors, scores on the leadership style variable

increased. The correlation coefficient of -0.36 represents a medium effect, suggesting the

relationship is typical or average (Cohen & Manion, as cited in Creswell, 2008). The

relationship between leadership style and Oracle eBusiness, Oracle PeopleSoft, Oracle JD

Edwards, and SAP were not statistically significant based on the correlation results. The

null hypothesis, that no relationships exist between leadership style and ERP vendor type,

is partially rejected. A statistically significant relationship may exist between leadership

style and “Other” ERP vendors, but not among the common ERP vendors. The results of

the correlation are shown in Table 7.

Table 7

Point-biserial Correlations between Leadership Style and ERP Vendor Type

Leadership

Style

Oracle eBusiness

Suite

Oracle

PeopleSoft

Oracle JD

Edwards SAP “Other”

r pb 0.60 0.04 0.19 0.19 -0.36*

p .740 .809 .282 .282 .040

N 33 33 33 33 33

Note: *p<0.05.

Data regarding the relationship stated in H04 and H44 were analyzed. Hypotheses

H04 and H44 are stated as follows:

H04: There is no relationship among perceived successful ERP, type of ERP, and

leadership style.50

H44: There is a relationship among perceived successful ERP, type of ERP, and

leadership style.

To answer the hypotheses, a multiple regression was conducted to examine the

relationship among ERP vendor type, leadership style, and perceived ERP success. In

preliminary analysis, the assumptions of linearity, homoscedasticity, and normality were

met by inspection of the scatter plot (see Figure 2). Variance inflation factors (VIF) of

less than 10 were found and the assumption of the absence of multicollinearity was also

met (see Table 8).

Figure 2. Scatter plot with relationship among ERP vendor, leadership style, and

successful ERP.

The results of the multiple regression were significant, F (6, 26) = 3.562, p =

.010; the model with the four common types of ERP vendors, “Other” ERP vendor, and

leadership style accounted for (R

2

) 45.1% of the variance in successful ERP. 51

Investigation of the individual predictor variables shows that leadership style has a

statistically significant relationship with perceived success of the organization’s ERP,

suggesting that for every one unit or point increase in the leadership style score, the

successful ERP score increased by 0.67 points. The results for the multiple regression are

in presented in Table 8.

Table 8

Multiple Regression of Relationship among ERP Vendor, Leadership Style, and

Perceived Successful ERP

Variables B SE β t p VIF

Leadership Style 0.67 0.17 0.64 4.04 .000 1.18

ERP Vendor Type

Oracle eBusiness Suite -0.54 3.38 -0.03 -0.16 .873 1.44

Oracle PeopleSoft -4.36 2.83 -0.29 -1.54 .135 1.66

Oracle JD Edwards -4.61 3.91 -0.22 -1.18 .249 1.60

SAP -6.36 3.91 -0.30 -1.63 .116 1.60

Other -2.30 3.27 -0.16 -0.71 .489 2.57

Outliers.

In reviewing the data collected, there were no respondents that strongly disagreed

to any of the questions, either on leadership style or perceived ERP success. A lack of

response could be interpreted as a threat to validity. The participants may have been

uncomfortable providing honest responses to questions that imply a role as leaders in an

ERP environment is not successful.

Summary

Chapter 4 presented the results of the data collected from the 36 survey responses

received from the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) survey of U.S. public sector

senior technology leaders. The data analysis performed tested four null hypotheses: a 52

relationship between perceived ERP success and type of ERP (H01), a relationship

between leadership style and perceived ERP success (H02), a relationship between

leadership style and type of ERP (H03), and a relationship among perceived ERP success,

type of ERP, and leadership style (H04).

No relationship was found to exist between type of ERP and ERP success (H01).

A relationship appears to exist between leadership style and ERP success (H02). A

relationship also exists between leadership style and specifically ERP vendor, “Other”

(H03). In analyzing H04 for a relationship among the three variables, a significant

correlation exists between leadership style and ERP success (H04).

An analysis of the findings is presented in chapter 5. The findings are interpreted

with implications to public sector technology leaders managing ERP environments.

Conclusions and recommendations are made for future research related to the study.53

Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations

The results of the data collection and analysis were presented in chapter 4. An

interpretation of those results and the significance to the study of leadership are discussed

in chapter 5. Conclusions and recommendations for further research are also included in

chapter 5.

Technology leaders have adopted enterprise resource planning as a primary

strategy for selecting and implementing business applications that meet the needs of the

user community and provide advanced system architecture for future growth (Olson,

2004). Although many advantages exist to an ERP technology focus, the complexity of

ERP results in costly implementations, resource-intensive projects, and unsuccessful

completion (Sumner, 2005). In local government, technology leaders have supported

decisions for ERP implementations on the expectation that both fiscal and operational

advantages would result. Harrison demonstrated (2005) that the expectations of

technology leaders in the public sector to redesign business processes, reduce operational

costs, improve communications, and achieve a positive return on investment have not

been met when implementing an ERP environment. An examination of leadership styles

shows that a transformational leader is one who can organize and engage a team to work

toward a specific vision for an enterprise (Wren, 2005), such as successful adoption of

enterprise resource planning.

The purpose of the quantitative, correlational study was to examine the degree to

which a relationship exists among the independent variables of leadership style and type

of ERP implemented, and the dependent variable, perceived ERP success, in local

government technology leaders. Senior technology leaders in local U.S. governments,54

who have adopted an ERP environment, were the target population for the survey. The

theories of transformational leadership and diffusion are foundations for the leadership

style researched in the study.

Standardized data collection was used with numerical data collected based on

responses to a customized survey. The survey was a combination of questions from two

validated surveys in previous studies. One study focused on leadership style of higher

education technology leaders and used the Organizational Description Questionnaire

(ODQ) for transformational leadership (Mehlinger, 2005). The characteristics specific to

transformational leadership were included as questions on the survey. The second study

identified critical success factors of ERP implementations for public and private sector

organizations (Harrison, 2005). The 10 critical success factors were included as

questions on the survey instrument with the intention of determining perceived ERP

success.

The survey instrument was pilot tested with a sample of six Nevada public sector

technology leaders. The pilot group provided feedback regarding the survey’s accuracy,

ease of use, clarity, and completion time requirements. The participants of the pilot

responded favorably to the instrument with one suggestion. It was recommended that the

weighting of the Likert scale responses begin with the strongly agree = 5 instead of = 1 as

originally intended. This change was made to the survey instrument.

The research question was formulated with a goal of understanding the impact

leadership style and type of ERP have on ERP success. Eight hypotheses were generated

to test the research question. They are as follows:

H01: There is no relationship between perceived successful ERP and type of ERP.55

H11: There is a relationship between perceived successful ERP and type of ERP.

H02: There is no relationship between perceived successful ERP and leadership

style.

H22: There is a relationship between perceived successful ERP and leadership

style.

H03: There is no relationship between type of ERP and leadership style.

H33: There is a relationship between type of ERP and leadership style.

H04: There is no relationship among perceived successful ERP, type of ERP, and

leadership style.

H44: There is a relationship among perceived successful ERP, type of ERP, and

leadership style.

The scope of the study was limited to technology leaders of U.S. local

government organizations who have implemented ERP within the organizations. The

limitations of the study were a result of the randomness of the survey distribution. In

some cases the participants were not the original decision-makers of the ERP

implementations within the organizations, so the perceived degree of success may not be

directly attributable to their personal leadership style. In other cases, the participants may

not have shared honest, accurate data regarding the perceived success of ERP within the

organization because of the sensitive nature of the study.

Findings and Interpretations

Four null hypotheses were tested in the study. A relationship was tested between

perceived ERP success and type of ERP (H01). A test of the relationship between

leadership style and perceived ERP success (H02) was done. Also evaluated was whether 56

a correlation between leadership style and type of ERP (H03) existed. A relationship

among all three variables, perceived ERP success, type of ERP, and leadership style

(H04), was also included in the study.

Of the four null hypotheses three were found to have a significant relationship.

No relationship was found to exist between type of ERP and ERP success (H01).

Relationships were found to exist between leadership style and ERP success (H02),

leadership style and type of ERP (H03), and all three variables of leadership style, ERP

type, and ERP success (H04).

Type of ERP and perceived ERP success.

No statistically significant relationship was observed between the type of ERP

and perceived ERP success. The significant value, p > .05, did not mean a relationship

was not present, only that the analysis did not detect any association between the two

variables (Simon, 2006). The result has importance to public sector technology leaders.

The average cost of an ERP implementation ranges between $200,000 and $300 million

(McCafferty, 2009). Purchasing and sustaining an ERP system can result in a significant

commitment of long-term costs. Funding to support ERP environments has begun to

diminish partially due to the cost associated with total cost of ownership (Scott, 2007).

The major ERP vendors in the marketplace were included in the study and a category

labeled “Other”. Since 44% of the ERP types were reported in the study as “Other”, the

results are important. Little research was found that evaluates specific types of ERP

against organizations with successful ERP environments. 57

Leadership style and perceived ERP success.

A statistically significant relationship was observed between leadership style and

perceived ERP success. The Pearson correlation coefficient was .58, which is p < .01.

The results indicate that as more transformational leadership traits are practiced by

technology leaders the success of ERP increases. The results are in line with a study that

related ERP success to proper change management and adequate support by information

technology resources to the business units (Kim, Lee, & Gosain, 2005). In the study the

members of organizations reported ERP success due to a focus on coordination of

resources, information sharing, and team collaboration throughout the enterprise. The

skills of a transformational leader are represented by these characteristics: innovation,

vision, and strong communication skills (Wren, 2005), and were correlated to ERP

success by the study.

Leadership style and type of ERP.

The results of the correlation between leadership style and type of ERP lack

statistical significance with the exception of the ERP type of “Other”. The null

hypothesis was not rejected. Fourteen (42.4%) of the respondents reported supporting

ERP applications not considered major types of ERP, e.g., Oracle, SAP, or Great Plains

(Sumner, 2005). “Other” had a correlation coefficient of -0.36, p < .05, which indicates

that as ERP-type is “Other”, leadership style decreases (see Table 7).

It is suggested by the inverse relationship that public sector technology leaders not

supporting an ERP environment from a major vendor may possess less transformational

leadership skills. The result is somewhat consistent with a study (Mehlinger, 2006) of

ERP success in higher education organizations. Based on the study, a combination of a 58

transformational and transactional culture could be predictors of ERP success. The

possibility of a relationship between type of ERP and leadership style may indicate that

ERP environments are not equal in complexity. The approach of the technology leader

may need to be adjusted based on type of ERP acquired and supported.

Leadership style, type of ERP, and perceived ERP success.

A multiple regression test of the three variables, leadership style, type of ERP,

and perceived ERP success, detected a statistically significant relationship between

leadership style and perceived ERP success. Hypothesis H22 also detected a significant

relationship between the two variables. Finding a direct relationship between

transformational leadership style and perceived ERP success is important to public sector

technology leaders dealing with the challenge of supporting an ERP environment and the

fiscal impacts of the decisions (Eggers & Singh, 2009). Leaders possessing

transformational leadership skills are supportive of staff. Top management support has

been identified as one of the critical success factors to ERP success (Nah & Delgado,

2006).

The results are inconsistent with a study conducted of higher education

organization technology leaders and the question of whether leadership style could be a

predictor of successful ERP (Mehlinger, 2005). Both transformational and transactional

leadership characteristics of individuals associated with an Oracle PeopleSoft

implementation were surveyed. A combination of leadership styles were possessed by

the survey participants, which included a mixture of university faculty, staff, and

administrators. No strong correlation was demonstrated of a specific leadership style to

success of the ERP implementation. Investigating an organizational culture versus the 59

individual leadership style of the senior technology leader with ERP responsibility could

explain the difference in the results.

Implications and Recommendations

ERP systems are challenging and expensive to implement and to sustain. As local

government budgets decline, fewer dollars are available to spend on technology

(Muscatello & Chen, 2008). Evaluating total cost of ownership for ERP against longterm value based on critical success factors is important to technology leaders. Public

sector technology leaders are continually challenged to demonstrate leadership qualities

and fiscal responsibility with ERP investments (Neely, 2005). Public sector technology

leaders who have implemented ERP environments have not achieved the expected results

in business process improvements, operational cost reductions, better communications,

and return on investment (Harrison, 2005).

The results of the study indicate that the type of leadership skills demonstrated by

technology leaders could have a direct relationship to the success of ERP in an

organization. The statistical significance of the results of the correlation of leadership

style to perceived ERP success contributes to encouraging a transformational leader in

the role of CIO of public sector organizations. With transformational leadership traits

senior technology leaders will not only possess industry knowledge in the field of

technology but will also demonstrate interpersonal communications skills with political

insight (Scott, 2007).

That ERP success was not shown to be directly correlated to type of ERP

implemented is encouraging to technology leaders in local government who have not yet

implemented an ERP environment. Organizations benefit with successful ERP 60

technology by providing efficiencies, effectiveness, and innovation (Haag, Cummings, &

Phillips, 2007). With funding diminishing for technology projects, and ERP systems in

particular (Scott, 2007), technology leaders need reassurance that the selection of an ERP

vendor is not directly related to ERP success. By establishing appropriate success factors

at the outset of an ERP project, the type of ERP implemented may not be as important to

success as selecting an ERP environment that is the ‘best fit’ for the organization

(Harrison, 2005).

The results impact public sector technology leaders in several ways. Based on the

findings, type of ERP selected was not shown to have an impact on ERP success. The

findings may be generalized to public sector technology leaders who have not yet

selected an ERP environment. A suggestion could be made that ERP investments be

aligned with the amount of funding available. Public sector technology leaders may be

encouraged to select the most appropriate ERP environment for the organization. Not

implementing one of the major brands of ERP, Oracle or SAP may be a more financially

affordable and fiscally sound decision. Besides controlling costs, a type of ERP with less

complexity than Oracle or SAP may also correlate to long-term success. A future study

that specifically analyzes all ERP-types against achieved critical success factors is

recommended.

The transformational leadership style characteristics of the leaders surveyed

decreased as the responses to type of ERP changed from the major ERP vendors to

lesser-known vendors. The inverse relationship may be an indication that vendors other

than Oracle and SAP require less teamwork, innovation, and communication to support.

Further research may be conducted to analyze all ERP types against transformational 61

leadership style characteristics. Because a significant relationship between perceived

successful ERP and increased transformational leadership skills are also shown in the

study, further research is encouraged.

Senior technology leaders (CIOs) of local government organizations were the

focus of the study. The response rate to the survey was less than the targeted rate. The

low response rate may have been due to the time constraints or lack of interest that CIOs

have in completing random surveys. A suggestion is made that a qualitative study be

conducted with CIOs of local governments with the goal of building specific case studies

of ERP success when transformational leadership is used. A case study on each major

type of ERP, e.g., Oracle, SAP, JD Edwards, including other types of ERP is

recommended. An increased perspective of the relationship between successful ERP and

transformational leadership skills by type of ERP may evolve.

The findings of the study may serve as a baseline for future research as it relates

to successful ERP in local government industry. Identification of additional factors such

as population size, government type, span of offices, or multiple ERP environments may

further aid senior technology leaders in adopting a leadership model in line with ERP

success. A quantitative correlational study may effectively research additional variables

related to leadership and ERP success.

Summary

The theories of transformational leadership and diffusion were used as the foundation

for the study. A correlation of the success of ERP through proper planning, strong

change management, good communication, and a strong partnership between the user

community and the technology team (Verville, Bernadas, & Halingten, 2005) with the 62

theory of transformational leadership (Follett, as cited in Wren, 2005) resulted from the

study. Rogers’ diffusion theory (2003) also supports the advantages of communicating

change and creating an innovative atmosphere.

The body of knowledge addressing the challenge of successful ERP in public sector

government is added to as a result of the study. Government technology leaders’

perception of successful ERP as it related to their leadership style and the type of ERP

supported was a focus of the study. A sample of U.S. local government senior

technology leaders were surveyed with 33 qualified participants. Eight relationships

were tested using Pearson’s correlational analysis. Statistical significance was found in

all but one relationship - perceived ERP success related to type of ERP.

The results of the study indicate a relationship exists between transformational

leadership style and successful ERP. Because the sample count is low, sensitivity to the

significance of the results is suggested. Future research is recommended to explore and

attempt to identify a leadership model for successful ERP by public sector technology

leaders.63

References

Aczel, A. D., & Sounderpandian, J. (2009). Complete Business Statistics (7th ed.).

New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Alliance for Innovation. (2010). Alliance for Innovation: Transforming local

government. Retrieved from http://transformgov.org/en/about/overview

BearingPoint. (2004). Implementing ERP systems in the public sector: Nine sure

ways to fail – or succeed. Retrieved from InfoDev e-Government Portal website:

http://egov.sonasi.com/repository/implementing-erp-systems-in-the-public-sector-ninesure-ways-to-fail-2013-or-succeed/view

Behar, H. (2006, September 15). Investing in integration: An enterprise resource

planning system can transform your business. Beverage World, 125(9), 80-82. Retrieved

from

http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/pqdweb?did=1134134031&sid=1&F

mt=2&clientId=13118&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Brown-Boone, V. L. (2006). Technology workers' perceptions of transformational

leadership and the workers' behavioral outcomes: An empirical investigation. (Doctoral

dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (AAT No.

3235054)

Burnes, P. T. (2006). A study of voluntary turnover among Generation X

information technology professionals. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest

Dissertations & Theses database. (AAT No. 3220543)64

Cooper, D. R. & Schindler, P. S. (2006). Marketing research. New York, NY:

McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Cresswell, A. M., Burke, G. B. & Pardo, T. A. (2006, October). Advancing return

on investment analysis for government IT: A public value framework. Retrieved from the

Center for Technology in Government website:

http://www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/reports/advancing_roi

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and

evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson Education, Inc.

Crisostomo, D. T. (2008). Characteristics and skills of implementing an ERP

system in the Guam public sector. Journal of International Business Research, 7(1), 31-

52. Retrieved from

http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/pqdweb?did=1777619061&sid=2&F

mt=2&clientId=13118&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Dadayan, L. (2006, September). Measuring return on government IT investments.

Paper presented at the 13

th

European Conference on Information Technology Evaluation,

Genoa, Italy. Retrieved from

http://www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/journals/ecite_2006_roi

Daneva, M., & Wieringa, R. (2008). Cost estimation for cross-organizational ERP

projects: Research perspectives. Software Quality Journal, 16(3), 459-481. doi:

10.1007/s11219-008-9045-8

Dawes, S. S., Burke, G. B., & Dadayan, L. (2006). The Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania’s integrated enterprise system. Retrieved from the Center for Technology 65

in Government website:

http://www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/reports/proi_case_integrated?chapter=1

Dawson, G. & Watson, R. (2005). What really matters: An empirical study on the

relative importance of the CIO and the maturity of the IS organization in producing

effective IS performance. Paper presented at the 2005 Southern Association of

Information Systems Conference. Retrieved from Southern Association for Information

Systems website: http://sais.aisnet.org/

Dawson, J. & Owens, J. (2008). Critical success factors in the chartering phase: A

case study of an ERP implementation. International Journal of Enterprise Information

Systems, (4)3, 19-23. Retrieved from

http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/pqdlink?did=1486559741&sid=1&F

mt=2&clientId=13118&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Eggers, W. D. & Singh, S. K. (2009). The public innovator’s playbook: Nurturing

bold ideas in government. Boston, MA: Harvard Kennedy School Ash Institute.

Retrieved from http://www.deloitte.com/innovatorsplaybook

Ettlie, J. E., Perotti, V. J., Joseph, D. A., & Cotteleer, M. J. (2005). Strategic

predictors of successful enterprise system deployment. International Journal of

Operations & Production Management, 25(9/10). 953-973. Retrieved from

http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/pqdlink?did=918428331&sid=2&Fmt

=2&clientId=13118&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Fismer, E. C. (2005). Generation X leadership styles and job satisfaction in the

information technology consulting industry. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (AAT No. 3172511)66

Grover, V., Jeong, S. R., Kettinger, W. J., & Lee, C. C. (1993, Fall). The chief

information officer: A study of managerial roles. Journal of Management Information

Systems, 10(2), 107. Retrieved from

http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/pqdlink?did=1175043&sid=1&Fmt=

2&clientId=13118&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Haag S., Cummings M., & Phillips, A. (2007). Management information systems

for the information age (6

th

ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Harrison, J. L. (2005). Motivations for Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)

system implementation in public versus private sector organizations. (Doctoral

dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (AAT No.

3162216)

Jones, G. R. (2007). Organizational theory, design, and change: Text and cases

(5

th

ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Kim, Y., Lee, Z., & Gosain, S. (2005). Impediments to successful ERP

implementation process. Business Process Management, 11(2), 158-171. Retrieved from

http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/pqdlink?did=849960621&sid=2&Fmt

=2&clientId=13118&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Laudon, K. C., & Laudon, J. P. (2006). Management information systems:

Managing the digital firm. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Lee, C., Famoya, F., Shelden, B., & Brown, A. (2010). SPSS (PASW Statistics

18) Online Training Workshop. Retrieved from

http://calcnet.mth.cmich.edu/org/spss/toc.htm67

Luftman, J. N., Bullen, C. V., Liao, D., Nash, E., & Neumann, C. (2004).

Managing the information technology resource: Leadership in the information age (1

st

ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

McCafferty, D. (2009, April). Governing IT in government. Baseline. Retrieved

from

http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&

AN=37323915&site=bsi-live

McCoy, B. H. (2007, May). Governing values. Leadership Excellence, 24(5), 11.

Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&

AN=25310781&site=ehost-live

McNurlin, B. C. (2009). Information systems management in practice (8

th

ed.).

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Marchex. (2010). Pay-per-click advertising. Retrieved from

http://www.marchex.com/pay-per-click-advertising

Mehlinger, L. B. (2006). Indicators of successful enterprise technology

implementations in higher education. (Doctoral dissertation) Retrieved from ProQuest

Dissertations & Theses database. (AAT No. 3216235)

Metropolitan Information Exchange. (2010). About MIX. Retrieved from

http://mixnet.org/

Muscatello R. J. & Chen J. I. (2008). Enterprise resource planning (ERP)

implementations: Theory and practice. International Journal of Enterprise Information

Systems, 4(1), 63-77. Retrieved from 68

http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/pqdlink?did=1397138341&sid=3&F

mt=2&clientId=13118&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Nah, F. & Delgado, S. (2006). Critical success factors for enterprise resource

planning implementation and upgrade. The Journal of Computer Information Systems,

46(5), 99-113. Retrieved from

http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/pqdlink?did=1171027711&sid=12&F

mt=2&clientId=13118&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Neely, T. (2005, Winter). MBA leading through an ERP implementation. The

Journal of Government Financial Management, 54(4), 38-41. Retrieved

http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/pqdlink?did=965471761&sid=13&F

mt=2&clientId=13118&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Ness, L. R. (2005). Assessing the relationships among information technology

flexibility, strategic alignment, and information technology effectiveness. (Doctoral

Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (AAT No.

3178531)

Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative

approaches (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Nolan, R. L. (1979, March-April). Managing the crisis in data processing.

Harvard Business Review, 5(2), 11-126. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&

AN=3867671&site=bsi-live

Olson, D. L. (2004). Managerial issues of enterprise resource planning systems.

New York, NY: McGraw Hill.69

Oracle. (2009). Products and Services. Retrieved from

http://www.oracle.com/us/products/index.html

Peslak, A., Subramanian, G., & Clayton, G. (2007). The phases of ERP software

implementation and maintenance: A model of predicting preferred ERP use. The Journal

of Computer Information Systems, 48(2), 25 – 33.

Rettig, C. (2007, Fall). The trouble with enterprise software. MITSloan:

Management Review. 49(1). 21-27. Retrieved from

http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/pqdlink?did=1360145951&sid=1&F

mt=2&clientId=13118&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Freepress.

Rosacker, K. M. (2005, August). Managing information systems projects within

state government: Factors critical for successful implementation. (Unpublished doctoral

dissertation) University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.

Salkind, N. (2003). Exploring research (5

th

ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Education, Inc.

Scott, J. E. (2007, Spring). Mobility, business process management, software

sourcing, and maturity model trends: Propositions for the IS organization of the future.

Information Systems Management, 24(2), 139-145. Retrieved from

http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/pqdlink?did=1273895321&sid=11&F

mt=2&clientId=13118&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Simon, M. (2006). Dissertation and scholarly research: Recipes for success.

Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company.70

Steward, A. H., III (2005). Leader decision making: Influences on the decision

making process of executive level leaders in technology organizations. (Doctoral

dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations and Theses database. (AAT

No. 3202467)

Sumner, M. (2005). Enterprise resource planning. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson Prentice Hall.

SurveyMonkey (2010). Everything you wanted to know but were afraid to ask.

Retrieved from http://www.surveymonkey.com/AboutUs.aspx

Thomas, W. S. (2008). Achieving success through adoption of enterprise resource

planning: A quantitative analysis of SAP users in North and South America. (Doctoral

dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations and Theses database. (AAT

No. 3278298)

Tidd, J., Bessant, J., & Pavitt, K. (2005). Managing innovation: Integrating

technological, market, and organizational change (3

rd

ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley

& Sons.

Turban, E., Leidner, D., McLean, E., & Wetherbe, J. (2008). Information

technology for management: Transforming organizations in the digital economy (6

th

ed.).

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2007). 2007 census of governments. Retrieved from

http://www.census.gov/govs/cog/

Verville, J., Bernadas, C., & Halingten, A. (2005). So you’re thinking of buying

an ERP? Ten critical factors for successful acquisitions. Journal of Enterprise

Information Management. 18(5/6), 665-678. Retrieved from 71

http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/pqdlink?did=959214121&sid=12&F

mt=2&clientId=13118&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Williams, B. (2009). Performance-Based (Priority-Based) Budgeting: How to

address budget shortfalls in the states. Retrieved from American Legislative Exchange

Council (ALEC) Policy Forum website:

http://www.alec.org/am/pdf/apf/April09budgeting.pdf

Wren, D. A. (2005). The modern era - Organizational behavior and theory: The

evolution of management (5th ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. 72

Appendix A: Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Survey73

Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Survey

Demographic Questions

Government Type (City, County, Township) __________________________

Government Size (# of Employees) __________________________

ERP Vendor(s) Oracle eBusiness Suite _____ Oracle PeopleSoft _____

Oracle JD Edwards _____ SAP _____ Great Plains _____ Other ______

Y or N I am a senior technology leader of my organization, defined as overall

responsibility for the information technology of the organization.

Y or N I was involved in the selection of the ERP vendor for our organization.

Y or N I am currently responsible for the ongoing support of ERP for our

organization.

INSTRUCTIONS: For items listed below, answer each one based on a scale of 1-5, with

5 = Strongly Agree, 4 = Agree, 3 = Neutral, 2 = Disagree, 1 = Strongly Disagree

As a leader of ERP in my organization ….

1 2 3 4 5 1. I encourage people to go out of their way for the good of the team, department,

and/or organization.

1 2 3 4 5 2. I ensure that there is a continuous search for ways to improve operations.

1 2 3 4 5 3. I treat mistakes as learning opportunities.

1 2 3 4 5 4. I ensure that employees unsure about what to do have a lot of help from others.

1 2 3 4 5 5. I know my team trusts each other to do what is right.

1 2 3 4 5 6. I encourage my team to consider tomorrow’s possibilities.

1 2 3 4 5 7. I greet new ideas with enthusiasm.

1 2 3 4 5 8. I encourage individual initiative.

1 2 3 4 5 9. I encourage my team to strive to be the best in whatever they do.

1 2 3 4 5 10. I share stories of the challenges that we have overcome.

1 2 3 4 5 11. I know my team knows that they advance or achieve depending on their initiative

and ability.

1 2 3 4 5 12. I share a common goal with my team to work toward team, department and/or

organization success.

1 2 3 4 5 13. I encourage a strong feeling of belonging.

As a result of our ERP implementation …..

1 2 3 4 5 14. My organization has redesigned business processes.

1 2 3 4 5 15. My organization has reduced overall operational costs.

1 2 3 4 5 16. My organization has improved internal communications.

1 2 3 4 5 17. My organization has realized a return on investment.

1 2 3 4 5 18. My organization has improved customer relationship or supply chain management.

1 2 3 4 5 19. My organization has increased adaptability to business changes.

1 2 3 4 5 20. My organization has easier access to reliable information.

1 2 3 4 5 21. My organization has increased standardization of processes.

1 2 3 4 5 22. My organization has the ability to produce better reports with the information I need.

1 2 3 4 5 23. My organization has eliminated redundant tasks.

Thank you for your cooperation in completing this survey.74

Appendix B: Introductory Letter75

The message below displayed on the screen that preceded the survey.

Dear Participant,

My name is Patricia Dues and I am a student at the University of Phoenix working on a doctoral

degree in Management in Organizational Leadership with a Specialization in Information

Systems and Technology. I am conducting a research study entitled A QUANTITATIVE

CORRELATION OF ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING TYPE, SUCCESS, AND TECHNOLOGY

LEADERSHIP STYLE IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT. The purpose of the study is to examine the degree to

which a relationship exists among leadership style, type of ERP implemented, and perceived ERP

success in local U.S. governments.

Your participation in this study is requested. As a participant you will be involved in answering

an automated survey. It will take approximately 10 minutes. Your participation is voluntary. If

you choose not to participate or to withdraw from the study at any time, you can do so without

penalty or loss of benefit to yourself. Simply ‘back arrow’ out of the survey to exit out at any

time. No data entered up to that point will be saved or used in the study. When you have

completed the survey, a ‘submit’ button must be pressed in order to save and record your input.

The results of the research study may be published but your identity will remain confidential and

your name will not be disclosed to any outside party.

In this research, there are no anticipated risks to you. Although there may be no direct benefit to

you, the possible benefit of your participation is an improved understanding of the type of

leadership style that influences ERP success in public sector organizations.

If you have any questions concerning the research study, please call me at (702)683-3278.

As a participant in this study, you should understand the following:

1. You may decline to participate or withdraw from participation at any time without

consequences.

2. Your identity will be kept anonymous.

3. Data will be stored in a secure and locked area. The data will be held for a period of

three years, and then destroyed.

Sincerely,

__________________________________ _____________________

Patricia M. Dues Date

Doctoral Candidate, University of Phoenix

Press ‘Proceed to Survey Button’ acknowledging that the letter has been read and you agree.76

Appendix C: Informed Consent: Participants 18 Years of Age and Older77

The message below displayed on the screen after the letter of invitation and the

participant pressed the ‘Proceed to Survey’ button.

‘I Agree’ Button: By clicking the ‘I agree’ button, I acknowledge that I understand the

nature of the study, the potential risks to me as a participant, and the means by which my

identity will be kept confidential. My acknowledgement also indicates that I am 18 years

old or older and that I give my permission to voluntarily serve as a participant in the

study described.

‘I Do Not’ Agree Button: By clicking the ‘I do not agree’ button, I will exit out of the

survey without record of my access.