A Compilation and Analysis of Critical Success Factors for the ERP Implementation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nowadays, the adoption of a new enterprise resource planning system is a highly complex process, and it is not as easy as people imagine. It is a challenging task that requires rigorous efforts, careful thinking, and proper planning. Likewise, it demands a detailed analysis of such factors that are critical to the implementation. The field has sparked an immense interest in the research community, and hence several previous studies have tried to assess the current status of these systems and address some issues in the literature reviews. First, the research aims to conduct a comprehensive literature survey, in order to address some issues related to the implementation and management of ERP, and point out overall trends. Afterwards, we tried to provide a contribution to the research field of the critical success factors (CSFs) of ERP projects based on a systematic approach to review a large number of refereed papers published between 2006 and 2018 on ERP from which a large number of documents relating to CSFs on ERP were extracted, and selected for analysis. From that review, we led a survey through which we tried to investigate and examine the different critical success factors that need to be considered to ensure the success of ERP systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it