Actual vs. Planned ERP System Implementation Costs in Slovak and Slovenian Companies

  • F. Sudzina
  • A. Pucihar
  • G. Lenart


Enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems are still more and more common in companies, not only in large ones but also in small and medium enterprises. Although virtually nobody really doubts their importance for running business, there is a sentiment regarding their implementation – both in terms of time and cost. We focus on the latter in this paper. The research question is to what extent do ERP system implementation costs exceed the planned costs in European context, which is characterized by fixed price policy. The questionnaire research, which focused on this issue, was conducted in Slovakia and Slovenia. The dependent variable was a percentage of actual ERP system implementation costs vis-à-vis the planned ones. The independent variables were the country, company size, information strategy, and representation of the IT department on board level. According to the collected data, companies with information strategy, and small companies as opposed to large ones, are more likely to stay on budget. Overall, 68.5% of companies stayed on budget and companies, on average, spent 106.0% of what they originally planned to.


Implementation Cost Medium Enterprise Company Size Enterprise Resource Planning Enterprise Resource Planning System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aladwani, A. M. (2001) Change management strategies for successful ERP implementation, Business Process Management Journal 7(3): 266–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wier, B., Hunton, J. and HassabElnaby, H. R. (2007) Enterprise resource planning systems and non-financial performance incentives: The joint impact on corporate performance, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 8(3): 165–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gable, G. and Stewart, G. (1999) SAP R/3 implementation issues for small to medium enterprises, in Proceedings of the Fifth America’s Conference on Information Systems, 779–781, Milwaukee, WI, USA.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cunningham, M. (1999). It’s all about the business, Information, 13 (3): 83.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Seewald, N. (2002) Enterprise resource planning tops manufacturers’ IT budgets, Chemical week 164(35): 34.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Basoglu, N., Daim, T. and Kerimoglu, O. (2007) Organizational adoption of enterprise resource planning systems: A conceptual framework, Journal of High Technology Management Research 18(1): 73–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    World Economic Forum, The Global Information Technology Report 2006-2007, accessed on 10 June 2008, available at 2007_nri_wef.pdf
  8. 8.
    European Commission. (2008) SME Definition: Recommendation 2003/361/EC Regarding the SME Definition, accessed on 10 June 2008, available at
  9. 9.
    Hunton, J. E., Lippicott, B. and Reck, J. L. (2003) Enterprise resource planning systems: Comparing firm performance of adopters and non-adopters, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 4(3): 165–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gefen, D. (2002) Nurturing clients’ trust to encourage engagement success during the customization of ERP systems, Omega-International Journal of Management Science 30(4): 287–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Markus, M. L., Axline, S., Petrie D. and Tanis, C. (2000) Learning from adopters’ experiences with ERP: problems encountered and success achieved, Journal of Information Technology 15(4): 245–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Markus, M. L., Tanis C. and Van Fenema, P. C. (2000) Multisite ERP implementations, Communications of the ACM 43(4): 42–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Peslak, A. R., (2006) Enterprise resource planning success :An exploratory study of the financial executive perspective. Industrial Management + Data Systems, 106(9), 1288–1303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schwalbe, K. (2006), Information Technology Project Management, 4th ed., Thomson Course Technology, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Swan, J., Newell S. and Robertson, M. (1999) The illusion of ‘best practice’ in information systems for operations management, European Journal of Information Systems 8(4): 284–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sumner, M. (2000) Risk factors in enterprise-wide/ERP projects, Journal of Information Technology 15(4): 317–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Copenhagen Business SchoolFrederiksbergDenmark
  2. 2.University of Maribor, Faculty of Organizational SciencesSloveniaEurope

Personalised recommendations