Organizacija, Volume 49 Research Papers Number 3, August 2016 DOI: 10.1515/orga-2016-0014 A Primary Human Critical Success Factors Model for the ERP System Implementation Aleksander Jenko1, Matjaž Roblek2 1 Sapphir d.o.o., Ljubljana, Slovenia saso.jenko@sapphir.si 2 University of Maribor, Faculty of Organizational Sciences, Slovenia matjaz.roblek@um.si Background and Purpose: Many researchers have investigated various Critical success factors (CSFs) and the different causes of ERP implementation project failures. Despite a detailed literature preview, we were unable to find an appropriate research with a comprehensive overview of the true causes behind CSFs, observed from a human factors perspective. The objective of this research was therefore to develop and evaluate the Primary human factors (PHFs) model and to confirm the significant impact of PHFs on traditional CSFs and on the project success. Design/Methodology/Approach: The comprehensive PHFs research model was developed and examined in empirical quantitative research with the use of available literature and the application of the Root cause analysis. A survey was conducted in various Slovenian organisations in different branches that had previously implemented the ERP system SAP. The model was verified on a sample of 21 experts from 18 organisations. Results: The results show that the PHFs have a significant positive impact on the ERP implementation project success, but only the Competence and Team composition factors are significant linear predictors in an adapted regression model and contribute significantly in predicting project success. These results therefore confirm both proposed hypotheses and the adapted regression model. Conclusion: This study improves the understanding of PHFs and confirms that they have a significant impact on traditional CSFs and the ERP implementation project success. The proposed PHFs model offers project managers and other stakeholders an effective risk assessment of CSFs and is leading the way to human oriented model of ERP implementations. Keywords: ERP implementation project, Critical success factors, Primary human factors model 1 Introduction Over the last few decades, ERP systems have become an indispensable IT solution for all types of businesses and enterprises. ERP are business applications that integrate all the associated functional areas, business processes, and data within an organization. ERP solutions establish one central database, one integrated application, and one common graphical user interface that manages all its information and transactions. ERP allows different departments with diverse needs to communicate with each other by sharing the same information in a single system. ERP thus increases cooperation and interaction between all business units in an organization (Harrison, 2004). Despite the many benefits the ERP systems provide if properly implemented, there are also many weaknesses, especially at the implementation process itself; this is why a successful implementation and use of the ERP is particularly important. Projects of ERP implementation are known for their complexity; they usually have a long implementation cycle and are consequently subjected to high risk. They use industry specific business processes, unite a variety of stakeholders and involve various participants Received: February 24, 2016; revised: April 11, 2016; accepted: May 20, 2016 145 Organizacija, Volume 49 Research Papers Number 3, August 2016 with different knowledge, skills, and experience. Because of all these reasons, the success of an ERP implementation project is unpredictable. According to AMR (2015) and Standish Group (2013) and taking into account a standard triangle measure of project success, deadlines, budget and scope, only 39% of the projects are successfully finished, 43% are partly successful, and 18% are unsuccessful. The trend of successful projects has been positive in last years, but still insufficient as to what should be expected. Consequently, there has been a great interest in the ERP implementation area with numerous authors researching the causes and consequences of implementation failures from the early 1990's on. Such an interest is not surprising considering the growing importance of success in a company's most essential projects, with its high investment and organisational risks. Researchers in the past have introduced different CSFs and observed their interconnections, studied the causes and consequences, proposed actions, and used various risk management methods to improve people's perception and actions in order to increase the level of future implementations. In the last decade, the interest has focused mostly on the human group of CSFs and many researchers confirmed the strong impact of many human CSFs towards the implementation project success. Interestingly, although the failure rate of the ERP implementations has been highly publicized, companies have not been distracted from investing large sums of money in new ERP systems as they have become something of a business standard and a must-have. What is alarming on the other hand is the fact that companies obviously still do not put much effort nor invest extra time and attention to change the course of the implementation by following the best practices and recommendations from referential case studies in available literature. In doing so, the results would be evident in improve success rates. One of the objective reasons is definitely a well-established business routine approach and a lack of an efficient model to access and address the truly important risk factors. The critical success factors are defined by Rockart (1979) as: Those few critical areas where things must go right for the business to flourish. The problem emerges when those few areas become "too many" and when we suddenly have more than 90 various CSFs, which are impossible to cope with. There are also many causal factors behind CSFs which these general factors are not addressing and yet they are critical and have the important influence on CSFs and achieving project success. Ram and Corkindale (2014) have come to the conclusion that merely identifying possible CSFs in not sufficient to help with ERP success. Williams and Ramaprasad (1996) also noted that, although CSFs are widely used by academic researchers and practitioners, it is important to distinguish between different levels of criticality. They suggested four types of criticality in a descending order of power: factors linked to success by a known causal mechanism, factors necessary and suffi- cient for success, factors necessary for success, and factors associated with success. A causal link between a factor and an outcome is therefore empirically and logically stronger than a mere association. All the previously mentioned facts, especially the uncertain implementation results and the lack of a simple, yet comprehensive model to address the true causes behind CSFs were therefore the most important motivating factors for this research. The key research questions of this study were: Are the human factors truly the most important group of CSFs and if so, which primary human factors can be linked in a comprehensive research model to completely cover the causal influence on traditional CSFs? With the intention to answer these key research questions, the main objectives of research were: identification of the primary human factors, development of a comprehensive research model, and confirmation of the research model through an empirical analysis. 2 Methods 2.1 Methodology The research was conducted in the following stages: In the first stage, we reviewed the relevant scientific literature and resources; in the second stage, we formed a research model with the analytical method of the Root cause analysis by exploring the true causes behind CSFs and taking into account the literature findings and recommendations. The model was developed to examine the influence of PHFs on CSFs and project success. In the third stage, the quantitative research approach was chosen, and a survey questionnaire was developed based on the proposed model. We submitted the online questionnaire to three participants to review it, in order to avoid any ambiguity in understanding and completing the survey. As the positive responses proved the questionnaire was adequate, the invitation was sent to other participants, selected from the company's database, considering their experience and position within the ERP implementation project. In the final stage, the available data was collected, statistically analysed, and the results were interpreted. 2.2 Literature review Critical success factor (CSF) is a management term for an element that is necessary for an organization or project to achieve its mission. It is a critical factor or activity required for ensuring success (Rockart, 1979). The term was initially used in the world of data and business analysis by Ronald Daniel and refined into critical success factors by John F. Rockart. Authors addressed a wide range of CSFs in the past few years, the factors were mostly reused with identical 146 Organizacija, Volume 49 Research Papers Number 3, August 2016 names, sometimes with a different description but similar connotation and occasionally authors suggested some new ones. According to Shaul and Tauber (2013) who conducted a careful examination of the majority of the articles from the beginning of millennium, various authors suggested a total of 94 CSFs in ERP implementations. Tarhini et al. (2015) identified 51 CSFs and classified them according to a stakeholders group. The most listed and quoted CSFs in the past ten years according to several researchers, (Huang, 2010; Shaul and Tauber, 2013; Tarhini et al., 2015; Shirouyehzad et al.,2011; Ngai et al.,2008; Somers and Nelson, 2001) who made a comprehensive review of the CSFs used in the research articles are enclosed in Table 1. Some authors (Gupta et al., 2014; Ziemba and Oblak, 2013; Nasir and Sahibuddin, 2011; Huang, 2010) classified CSFs into 3 main groups: human (people-related), organisational (process- and company-related), and technical (software technology- and IT system-related) factor groups. Huang (2010) concluded that researchers pay more attention to human factors than to technical factors in an ERP implementation as more articles promote end-user training and involvement as a critical factor over technical skills or IT infrastructure. With the development of ERP software, it has become more mature and requires less attention to technical issues. Also, the communication among managers, end-users, ERP vendors, and project team members has become more important than before as it was found that an open and honest communication plays a vital role in ERP implementation. Many authors also emphasize the importance of knowledge and skills in a knowledge-intense project such as an ERP implementation. Over 60 research articles addressing solely human critical success factors (HCSFs) were therefore carefully examined to get a deeper insight. The addressed HCSFs were: Competence (Charland et al., 2015; Massini and Wassenhove, 2009; Santos Rodriguez and Dorrego, 2008), Knowledge transfer (Goyette et al., 2014; Lech, 2011, Xu and Ma, 2008, Wang et al., 2007), Tacit knowledge sharing (Irick, 2007; Sun, 2007; Vandaie, 2008; Scorta, 2008), Knowledge management and education (O'Leary, 2002; Mohamed and McLaren, 2009), Communication (Aubert et al., 2013; Wang and Chen, 2006), Motivation (Walsh and Schneider, 2002; Yatsuzuka et al., 2009), Team composition and transformation (Yeh and Chou, 2005; Hamani et al., 2012; Lui and Chan, 2008), Organizational and team learning cycle (Akkermans and Helden, 2002; Bologa and Lupu, 2014; Akgun et al., 2014 ), Team resilience (Amaral et al., 2015), Problem solving competence (Lin et al., 2015, Li et al., 2010), Conflict resolution (Wang and Chen, 2006; Chou and Yeh, 2007), Relationship bonding (Hung et al., 2012), Spiral continuous improvement (McGinnis and Huang, 2007; Scorta, 2008), Cognitive learning (Cronan et al., 2012), Collective intelligence (Yuan et al., 2007), Knowledge withholding intentions and social cognition (Tsay et al., 2014), Group cohesiveness and normative conformity (Tsay et al., 2014), and Personal interest in Agency theory (Walsh and Schneider, 2002). An overview analysis of the addressed topics revealed that beside individual human factors, researchers were mostly focused on team characteristics, which highlights the importance of an excellent team for achieving project success. Group development and Group dynamics address this field from a theoretical perspective and are supported a large number of theoretical models and different theories. After the examination of many research articles, the number of CSFs and HCSFs rapidly increased, as it became evident that a large number of factors does not simplify their management and this is not a transparent and straightforward solution. Many researchers namely confirmed the influence of many factors on project success and addressed these factors in detail in order to successfully manage them and solve the possible issues. But actually, treating CSFs from a top level is only a part of solving the entire problem, as it is evident that this problem is more complex and multi-layered. We require a comprehensive solution to cover all the underlying causes in a much wider context. While searching for some existing or related procedures to address causal structure in the available literature, only a few authors (Akkermans and Helden, 2002; Gandhi, 2015) addressed the causal aspect of CSFs and were researching the interdependence (causes and consequences) between critical factors and sub-factors, but only for selected CSFs and with a limited perspective. 2.3 The development of the research model In order to develop the research model, we used the following steps: First, the CSFs were grouped into three main factor groups: Human, Organisational, and Technical. Since there was no available explanation to be found in the literature to suggest how to logically group different CSFs, we merged them according to their relation to the human activities and those related to the system, which represents a much wider concept. Every single system is in fact conceived by human ingenuity and activities which are already embedded in the system and therefore cannot be influenced by human factors during the implementation project. Using this logic, the system-related factors were sorted further in two groups. The first group representing a system is the organisation, the other is the technical or information technology platform. We evaluated the meaning and connection of every single CSF and estimated the possible interrelated impact of other groups. The grouping was also checked with the other authors quoted in the previous chapter. In the second step, we analysed CSFs using the Root cause analysis. The purpose of this specific technique is 147 Organizacija, Volume 49 Research Papers Number 3, August 2016 Table 1: The most listed and quoted CSFs in the past ten years Primary human factors Authors Somers and Nelson (2001), Tarhini et al. (2015), Ngai et al. (2008), Candra (2009) COMPETENCE (2008), Shirouyehzad et al. (2011), Shaul and Tauber (2013), Candra (2012), Charland et al. (2015), Massini and Wassenhove RFHAVIOTIR Tarhini et al. (2015), Ngai et al. (2008), Shaul and Tauber (2013), BEHAVIOUR Walsh and Schneider (2002), Yatsuzuka et al. (2009) Tarhini et al. (2015), Ngai et al. (2008), Shirouyehzad et al. COMMUNICATION (2011), Shaul and Tauber (2013), Huang (2010), Wang (2006), Aubert et al. (2013) Tarhini et al. (2015), Ngai et al. (2008), Shirouyehzad et al. TEAM COMPOSITION (2011), Yeh and Chou (2005), Hamani et al. (2012), Lui and Chan (2008) Human CSFs Project team capability and team work Tarhini et al. (2015), Shirouyehzad et al. (2011), Ngai et al. (2008), Huang (2010) Knowledge transfer/management Ngai et al. (2008), Shaul and Tauber (2013), Goyette et al. (2014), Lech (2011), Xu and Ma (2008), Sun (2007), Vandaie (2008), Scorta (2008), O'Leary (2002) Learning cycle (team and organisation) Akkermans and Helden (2002), Bologa and Lupu (2014), Akgun et al. (2014) Spiral continuous improvement McGinnis and Huang (2007), Scorta (2008) Top management support and commitment Somers and Nelson (2001), Tarhini et al. (2015), Shirouyehzad et al. (2011), Huang (2010) Clear goals and objectives Somers and Nelson (2001), Tarhini et al. (2015), Shirouyehzad et al. (2011), Ngai et al. (2008), Huang (2010) Interdepartmental cooperation/conflicts Somers and Nelson (2001), Tarhini et al. (2015), Shirouyehzad et al. (2011), Ngai et al. (2008), Shaul and Tauber (2013) Interdepartmental communication Somers and Nelson (2001), Tarhini et al. (2015), Ngai et al. (2008), Shaul and Tauber (2013) ERP implementation project management Somers and Nelson (2001), Tarhini et al. (2015), Ngai et al. (2008), Shaul and Tauber (2013), Huang (2010) Management of expectations Somers and Nelson (2001), Tarhini et al. (2015), Shirouyehzad et al. (2011), Ngai et al. (2008), Shaul and Tauber (2013) Adequate ERP package and consultant company selection Somers and Nelson (2001), Tarhini et al. (2015), Shirouyehzad et al. (2011), Ngai et al. (2008), Shaul and Tauber (2013), Huang (2010) Adequate project constraints planning Tarhini et al. (2015), Shirouyehzad et al. (2011), Ngai et al. (2008), Shaul and Tauber (2013), Huang (2010) End user involvement/support Tarhini et al. (2015), Shirouyehzad et al. (2011), Ngai et al. (2008), Shaul and Tauber (2013) Adequate end user training Somers and Nelson (2001), Tarhini et al. (2015), Shirouyehzad et al. (2011), Ngai et al. (2008), Shaul and Tauber (2013), Huang (2010) Adequate education on new business processes Somers and Nelson (2001), Tarhini et al. (2015), Ngai et al. (2008), Shaul and Tauber (2013), Huang (2010) ERP implementation quality management Ngai et al. (2008), Shaul and Tauber (2013) ERP implementation risk management Shaul and Tauber (2013) Adequate human resources Tarhini et al. (2015), Shirouyehzad et al. (2011) Recruit and retain human resources Shirouyehzad et al. (2011), Ngai et al. (2008), Shaul and Tauber (2013) 148 Organizacija, Volume 49 Research Papers Number 3, August 2016 Table 1: The most listed and quoted CSFs in the past ten years (continued) Empowered decision makers Tarhini et al. (2015), Ngai et al. (2008), Shaul and Tauber (2013) Reducing the user's resistance Tarhini et al. (2015) Focus on user requirements Tarhini et al. (2015), Shaul and Tauber (2013) Unclear development requirements Shirouyehzad et al. (2011) Capable project manager Tarhini et al. (2015) Senior project champion Somers and Nelson (2001), Tarhini et al. (2015), Ngai et al. (2008), Shaul and Tauber (2013), Huang (2010) Professional steering committee Somers and Nelson (2001), Tarhini et al. (2015), Ngai et al. (2008), Shaul and Tauber (2013) Minimal customization decision Somers and Nelson (2001), Tarhini et al. (2015), Ngai et al. (2008), Shaul and Tauber (2013) Use of consultants decision Somers and Nelson (2001), Tarhini et al. (2015), Shaul and Tauber (2013) Political structure/conflicts Shaul and Tauber (2013) National culture Ngai et al. (2008) Organisational CSFs Organizational culture Tarhini et al. (2015), Ngai et al. (2008), Shaul and Tauber (2013) Team members availability Somers and Nelson (2001), Tarhini et al. (2015), Ngai et al. (2008), Shaul and Tauber (2013) Sufficient human resources Shirouyehzad et al. (2011), Ngai et al. (2008) Formalised /effective project methodology Tarhini et al. (2015), Shirouyehzad et al. (2011) Formalised project plan/schedule Tarhini et al. (2015), Shaul and Tauber (2013) Organisational fit for ERP system (structure and processes) Tarhini et al. (2015), Shirouyehzad et al. (2011), Ngai et al. (2008), Shaul and Tauber (2013) Alignment between business and IT strategies Shaul and Tauber (2013) Adequate process of change management/commitment Somers and Nelson (2001), Tarhini et al. (2015), Shirouyehzad et al. (2011), Ngai et al. (2008), Shaul and Tauber (2013), Huang (2010) Adequate business process redesign Somers and Nelson (2001), Tarhini et al. (2015), Shirouyehzad et al. (2011), Ngai et al. (2008), Huang (2010) Integration of business planning with ERP planning Tarhini et al. (2015) Vendor/Consultant/Customer partnership Vendor support Tarhini et al. (2015), Ngai et al. (2008), Shaul and Tauber (2013) Somers and Nelson (2001), Tarhini et al. (2015), Ngai et al. (2008), Shaul and Tauber (2013) Technical CSFs IT infrastructure/stability Tarhini et al. (2015), Shirouyehzad et al. (2011) ERP architecture and quality Somers and Nelson (2001), Ngai et al. (2008), Shaul and Tauber (2013) ERP advanced technology Shirouyehzad et al. (2011), Shaul and Tauber (2013) ERP implementation strategy Ngai et al. (2008), Shaul and Tauber (2013) Data analysis and conversion Somers and Nelson (2001), Ngai et al. (2008), Shaul and Tauber (2013) Data and information quality Tarhini et al. (2015), Ngai et al. (2008), Shaul and Tauber (2013) Suitable IT legacy systems Tarhini et al. (2015) Integration between enterprise wide-systems Shirouyehzad et al. (2011) Software management methodology Shirouyehzad et al. (2011) Use of vendor's tools Somers and Nelson (2001), Ngai et al. (2008), Shaul and Tauber (2013) Ease of system's use Tarhini et al. (2015) 149 Organizacija, Volume 49 Research Papers Number 3, August 2016 to identify a problem, discover the underlying causes that lead to it, and develop preventive action (PMI, 2013). This analysis can therefore be used to analyse CSFs and find the root cause factors that possibly influence the main factors. A root cause is the main source of a problem and if removed, it will prevent the primary effect from occurring. A contributory cause contributes to the severity of the primary effect, but if removed will not prevent the primary effect from occurring (Young, 2008). The behaviour of a complex system emerges from its causal structure. This can only be understood by modelling a problem's essential causal structure, which must include the root causes, whereas the problem is too complex to solve without first decomposing it into sub-problems. We therefore decomposed the SCFs into sub-factors (causes) using a cause and effect diagram and then aggregated the identified causes into logical groups, which we named according to their content, to form the Primary human factors (PHFs). PHFs obviously have many sub-factors on a lower level, another set of independent variables that influence them. Therefore, four influential elements were identified as PHFs: Competence, Behaviour, Communication, and Team Composition. The first two factors can be primarily connected to a personal and the last two to a group (interpersonal) characteristic. The first two factors can secondarily also be connected to a group characteristic. PHFs represent soft factors that affect each other in a reinforcing manner and have an important influence on conventional hard factors (CSFs). We composed a two-level PHFs model with multiple variables obtained from the exploratory literature research. The model structure can be seen in Table 2. Due to its complexity, we decided to leave it only as a proposition for a subsequent research, so the basic PHFs research model was chosen to represent the PHFs' interconnection and their influence on CSFs. We can also conceptually check the proposed research model from one important aspect of the ERP implementation. It is known that the core process in ERP implementation that drives the project's progress is the ERP system software development process, which includes configuring and customizing the software package to the customers' needs and demands and is driven by the work groups of the key users, ERP consultants, and developers in the wider project team. It is clear that individuals have to cooperate within a group because of the projects' nature. The main parameters of a successful development process are an excellent individual competence of the participants and an effective and open communication between the participants that depends on good interpersonal relations, which again depends on a suitable team composition and behaviour of individuals. This illustration of the causal structure illustrates the long chain of dependent influences of PHFs that impact process effectiveness and ultimately its suc- Table 2: The proposed two-levelled Primary human CSFs model COMPETENCE BEHAVIOUR TEAM COMPOSITION COMMUNICATION Knowledge Motivation Interaction Open and honest Skills Trust Involvement Efficient Experience Leadership Cooperation Capability Reliability Efficiency Efficiency Responsibility Resilience Perseverance Conflict resolution Initiative Relationship bonding Devotion Collective intelligence Empathy Cohesiveness Expectation Group Conformity Satisfaction Normative conformity Social cognition Risk propensity Conflict propensity Partiality (bias) Personal interest Ability to establish relations Willingness to work in a team Knowledge concealing 150 Organizacija, Volume 49 Research Papers Number 3, August 2016 Primary human factors [competence [behaviour [team composition] [communication critical success factors project success Figure 1: The primary human CSFs research model cess. Akkermans and Helden (2002) also noted that ERP systems are meant to integrate different business functions and different organisational departments, so it is logical that communication and collaboration across the project team members from different departments are at the core of the implementation process. These two factors not only go hand in hand but they also seem to reinforce each other. As one goes up and the quality of collaboration increases, the other will increase as a result as well. People that work together more often communicate more often. Vice versa, better communication will lead to better collaboration. This is what system dynamics terms call a reinforcing loop. Left to its own, this loop will either continue to increase in an upward spiral of ever-higher performance, or become caught in a never-ending downward spiral of ever-lower performance. All the previously mentioned characteristics are addressed in a concept named High-performance teams within organization development theory. A high-performance team can be defined as a group of people with specific roles and complementary talents and skills, aligned with and committed to a common purpose, who consistently show high levels of collaboration and innovation that produces superior results. The high-performance team is focused on their goal and have supportive processes that will enable any team member to surmount any barriers in achieving the team's goals. Therefore it outperforms all other similar teams and also expectations given to their composition (Bard, 2015). Hereafter we reveal the characteristics of PHFs and the related sub-factors. Competence Competence is by definition the ability to do something successfully or efficiently (Oxford Dictionaries, 2016). It is a cluster of related abilities that enable an individual or an organisation to act effectively in a job or situation. Competence indicates a sufficiency of knowledge, skills, and experience that enable someone to act in a wide variety of situations (Business dictionary, 2016). In the context of ERP implementation success, knowledge has been suggested as its critical factor by many authors (Sedera and Gable, 2010; Deng and Bian, 2007; Gable et al., 1998; Grant, 1996). Managing an ERP System is a knowledge intensive task that necessarily draws upon the experience and involvement of a wide range of stakeholders with diverse knowledge capabilities. Building on a resource-based view of the firm, the knowledge based theory of the firm considers knowledge as unique, the most strategically significant resource by focusing on knowledge (Grant, 1996). It has become a very important concept in the business world in the last decade. Knowledge is acquired with the process of theoretical learning and systematic study. Polanyi (1962) classifies knowledge into two categories: explicit and tacit knowledge. Explicit knowledge can be codified and shared in the form of hard data, manuals, codified procedures or universal principles, while tacit knowledge results from an individual's experience and is only revealed through its application. Spender (1996) proposes that knowledge can be held by individuals or collectively. Collective knowledge comes from knowledge integration: it is the combination of the coordinated efforts of several individuals who hold different but complementary skills (Grant, 1996). Knowledge capability is the systematic process of understanding, assimilating, and applying an organization to make the best use of knowledge to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage and high performance. Knowledge capability provides an opportunity for achieving substantial savings, significant improvements in human performance, and enhanced competitiveness. Knowledge capability is multidisciplinary by nature and integrates concepts used in strategic management, organization theory, and information systems management (Candra, 2012). Experience is familiarity with a skill or field of knowledge acquired over months or years of actual practice and which, presumably, has resulted in a superior understanding or mastery (Business dictionary, 2016). Experience is acquired with the process of practical learning. A person with considerable experience in a specific field can gain a reputation as an expert. Learning, knowledge and experience are important on a personal and organisational level. Organisational learning is the process of creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge within an organisation, which improves over time as it gains experience and from 151 Organizacija, Volume 49 Research Papers Number 3, August 2016 this experience it is able to create new knowledge. Knowledge is created at four different units, individual, group, organisational, and inter-organizational (Argote, 2013). To get a quick insight of the competence needed for different roles (Key users, Project manager, IT and general management personnel, External consultants, developers, system engineers), lists of knowledge and skills were drafted from the available literature. The lists show the complexity and wide array of the required expertise to successfully manage the knowledge intensive software development project of an ERP implementation. Knowledge list: Strategic, Requirements, ERP evaluation and selection, Project management, Business processes knowledge, Change management, Crisis management, Time management, Knowledge management, Technology management, Risk management, Stress management, ERP technical knowledge, Solution designing knowledge, Evaluating knowledge, and Continuous improvement knowledge (Zhong et al., 2007). Skill list: Personal, Team, System, Organizing, Decision making, Problem solving, Strategic planning, Analytical, Communication, Leadership, General, Information literacy, Conflict solving, Negotiation, Teaching, Training, Programming (Mahdavian and Mostejeran, 2013). Behaviour Behaviour is the way one acts or conducts oneself, especially towards others (Oxford Dictionaries, 2016). We distinguish between individual and group behaviour. The behaviour of one individual has a strong impact on the behaviour of other individuals inside a group or organisation. Organisational behaviour is a field of study that investigates the impact that individuals, groups, and a structure have on the behaviour within organisations and it studies many factors that have an impact on how individuals and groups respond to and act in organisations and how organisations manage their environments. Under this name we therefore have an important group of psychological factors that influence other primary human factors. The main influence factors derived from the quoted HCSFs research articles and behaviour theory are: Motivation (personal and collective), Commitment, Responsibility, Trust, Empathy (understanding the needs of customers and interpersonal in a team), Expectation, Satisfaction (fulfilling personal needs and preferences), Satis-ficing (typical behaviour of decision makers), Propensity to take risk, Propensity to conflicts, Personal interest (principal-agent or agency theory), Knowledge withholding intentions, and Normal conformity. Communication Communication is the imparting or exchanging of information and it is the successful conveying or sharing of ideas and feelings (Oxford Dictionaries, 2016). It is a two-way process of reaching a mutual understanding in which participants not only exchange information, news, ideas, and feelings but also create and share meaning. (Business dictionary, 2016). Communication is also a competence (skill), but in this context it means efficient exchanging of information to use individual competence at its maximum and to have an effective knowledge sharing, spiral continuous improvement, and a learning cycle. Therefore an open and honest communication and communication effectiveness plays a significant role in implementation projects (Wang and Chen, 2006). Aubert et al. (2013) notes that some research results also show that, for the dimensions of project success that are influenced by communication quality, the form of the communication efforts might be as important and will likely have as much impact as the content of the communication process. The results also specially emphasized the importance of openness in communication. Team composition Team composition refers to the overall mix of characteristics among people in a team, which is a unit of two or more individuals who interact interdependently to achieve a common objective (Hackman and Wageman, 2005). It is based on the attributes among the individuals that comprise a team in addition to their main objective. Team composition is usually either homogenous in which all members have similar personal qualities, or heterogeneous in which the team members contain significant differences. It has also been identified as a key factor that influences team performance (Senior and Swailes, 2004). The fashion in which a team is configured has a strong influence on team processes and the outcomes that the team achieves (Bell, 2007). It factors in the individual attributes of the team members (skills, experience, and ability) and how these contributors can potentially combine to dictate the overall performance outcomes for the team (Pieper et al., 2008) Composing a successful cross-functional team is also an important skill but in this context it is a much wider and important factor so it is exposed individually. An appropriate team composition unites and upgrades the abilities that the individuals hold, so in that manner it has a strong potential influence on the team's performance. The abilities that a good team possesses are: Interaction and Cooperation between individuals, Group cohesiveness and conformity, Social cognition, Relationship bonding, Group resilience, and Conflict management. It influences Knowledge transfer, Spiral Continuous improvement, and Organizational learning cycle. The organizational factors influencing the team outcome are: Availability of team members and personal contact, Retention of experts, and a suitable Organizational culture (Al-Alawi et al., 2007). 152 Organizacija, Volume 49 Research Papers Number 3, August 2016 Based on the research questions and reviewed literature, the two following hypothesis are eventually offered: H1: Human critical success factors have the most influence on the implementation project success. H2: Among the primary human factors, competence has the most influence on the project success. 2.4 Empirical research To understand the impact of the Primary human factors and to measure their potential influence on success in a real environment and in actual ERP implementations, we conducted a post-implementation empirical research in various Slovenian companies. The research was limited to companies that previously implemented and currently run on an ERP system SAP. A quantitative approach was chosen to conduct this empirical study as it enables a quick and uniform processing of the research information. A structured survey questionnaire was developed with mostly predefined closed questions. The questionnaire contained 30 questions divided into four groups; participant data, project success, critical success factors, and risk management. The list of contacts was obtained from an internal company's database with a careful selection of participants, based on the project roles and their experience. The survey was published on a public internet survey portal and a request was emailed to 58 participants (project managers, key users, IT support, and general managers) from 35 large or medium-sized Slovenian organisations, operating in different branches from the public sector, utilities, to the production sector. To obtain a greater number and also more sincere responses, the survey was anonymous. It was successfully completed with 21 responses obtained from 18 different business entities with a 36% response rate. Most respondents were project managers (38%), followed by key users (33%), IT support managers (19%), and general management representatives (10%), in a representative sample, as 91% of participants were professionals with over ten years of experience with ERP systems and imple- mentations. The collected data gave us a pragmatic insight view into ERP implementation projects. 2.5 Methodological tools To obtain an overview of the linear dependence between the dependent variable—Project success and independent variables—CSFs and PHFs in our research model, the Pearson bivariate correlation coefficients were calculated. A multiple regression analysis was used to test the research hypothesis and research model, , an F-test to verify the statistical significance of the regression model, and a T-test to verify the statistical significances of the regression variables. 3 Results In the first key measurement, the actual level of the ERP implementation project success was measured with a Lik-ert scale from 1 - very unsuccessful to 5 - very successful with the research statement, "Evaluate the actual level of success of the ERP implementation with the offered variables". The objective was to measure different essential variables that define project success in order to observe the different aspects of success. The first three belong to the hard or business-oriented iron triangle, with project success regarding time (deadlines), funds (budget), and scope (functionality). We added some additional, soft or personal-oriented variables from numbers four to six: fulfilment of project goals, general user's expectations, and user's satisfaction. The seventh variable was intended for participants to evaluate the project success in total, by considering all the previously listed variables. In the statistical analysis of the collected data, the variables were united into three evaluation groups to compare different aspects and verify the evaluation process. The first group represented the classical triangle project success evaluation, which contained the cumulated means of variables 1-3, the second group represented the expanded project success evaluation, which contained the cumulated means of variables 1-6, and the third group represented the participants' overall assessment of the project success, Table 3: Project success evaluation factors n=21 Descriptive statistics Project success Mean Std. dev. Min. Max. Factor 1_V1-V3 3,22 0,745 2 5 Factor 2 _V1-V6 3,24 0,751 2 5 Factor 3 _ 1/7 3,33 0,983 2 5 153 Organizacija, Volume 49 Research Papers Number 3, August 2016 so it contained only variable 7. By comparing the summed mean values of these three factors presented in Table 3, we can see an insignificant difference. This shows the coherence of the participant's evaluation of the implementation project success. Factor 2 was selected for further calculation. In general, the results show a satisfactory implementation project success. In the second key measurement, the participants were requested to evaluate the actual level (quality) of the three CSFs groups: Human, Organisational, and Technical group in an ERP implementation project, which were measured with a Likert scale from 1 - very inappropriate to 5 - very appropriate. The reliability test of the sample data showed that Crombach's Alpha is 0.792, by which the internal consistency was described as acceptable. We calculated the descriptive statistics and the Pearson correlation coefficients; the results are presented in Table 4. We can see that the Human CSFs group is in a strong positive correlation with Project success, followed by Technical and Organisational CSFs groups with a significant correlation. There is also a significant correlation between Human CSFs towards the Organisational and Technical CSFs group. To test the CSFs group model and verify Hypothesis 1, we conducted a multiple regression analysis; the results are presented in Table 5. The value of the adjusted R coefficient of determination indicates that 54.3% of the variance of the Project success may be explained by three predictors in the model. The model is significant at a 5% significance level and a good fit is present between the model and the data, so we can confirm that the model describes the data well. All the regression coefficients are positive as expected, but only the Human CSFs group is statistically significant at a 5% significance level and therefore makes a significant contribution in this model in predicting Project success. Since the Human CSFs group is a significant linear predictor of Project success, Hypothesis 1 is confirmed. In the third key measurement, the participants were requested to evaluate the actual level (quality) of the 15 selected CSFs in an ERP implementation project, for which we assume they play a vital role in the implementation success, regarding the facts mentioned in the literature preview chapter. We therefore selected the most important HCSFs, among them observed PHFs from our research model (factors 7-10 in Table 6) and some CSFs that are most likely influenced by PHFs. The factors were evaluated with the Likert 1-5 scale, 1 meaning very inappropriate and 5 very appropriate. The reliability test of the sample data showed that Crombach's Alpha is 0.917, by which the internal consistency was described as excellent. We calculated the descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation coefficients; the results are shown in Table 6. We can see that all four PHFs are in a significant positive correlation with project success, especially Competence with a strong correlation, which suggests it has a high potential impact on project success. Other CSFs that are in a significant positive correlation with project success are Right selection of ERP system, Risk management activities, Business process reengineering, and Working conditions in organisation. Project management activities and Availability of team members have an insignificant correlation with project success. When observing interrelations of the PHFs, we can see the significant positive correlation between Composition Table 4: Descriptive statistics and the Pearson correlation of the CSFs groups Descriptive statistics Pearson correlation coefficients n=21 Mean Std. dev. Project Success Human CSF Org. CSF Human CSFs 2,95 0,865 0,7446 1 Org. CSFs 3,38 0,590 0,4368 0,5278 1 Tech. CSFs 3,85 0,727 0,5434 0,4659 0,1333 Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (l-tailed) Table 5: Multiple regression analysis of the CSFs groups 95% Confidence Interval Relationship Cosff Std. err. t stat p-value lower upper Human CSFs -> PS 0,533 0,190 2,811 0,012 0,133 0,934 Org. CSFs -> PS 0,141 0,249 0,567 0,578 -0,383 0,665 Tech. CSFs -> PS 0,297 0,193 1,537 0,143 -0,111 0,705 Model R squ — 0,611, Adj. R squ = 0,543, p-value = 0,0009 < 0,05 154 Organizacija, Volume 49 Research Papers Number 3, August 2016 and Competence, and Behaviour (motivation and trust) towards Competence and Communication. This indicates that individual PHFs are in a significant interconnection and most likely have a combined impact on CSFs and project success. To test the adequacy of the PHFs research model and verify Hypothesis 2, we conducted a multiple regression analysis; the results are presented in Table 7. The value of the adjusted R coefficient of determination indicates that 63.3% of the variance of the Project success may be explained by four predictors in the model. The model is significant at a 5% significance level and a good fit is present between the model and the data, so we can confirm that model describes the data well. All the regression coefficients are positive as expected, but only the first independent variable (factor), Competence, is statistically significant at a 5% significance level when the other three variables are present in the model and therefore makes a significant contribution in predicting Project success. As the Competence factor is a significant linear predictor of Project success, Hypothesis 2 is confirmed. Subsequently, we conducted a stepwise regression with a backward elimination of the independent variables (factors) with the lowest t-values while observing the remaining factors' statistical significance. This method eventually eliminated two initially statistically insignificant factors, leaving the last two factors, Competence and Team composition as significant linear predictors in the adapted regression model, which is also statistically significant at a 5% significance level. The results are seen in Table 8. 4 Discussion In this research paper, we conducted two statistical analyses to observe the impact of CSFs and to test the two stated hypotheses. In the first analysis, we evaluated the influence of the previously grouped CSFs into a Human, Organisa- tional, and Technical group, towards the implementation project success and verified Hypothesis 1, which claimed that human CSFs have the most influence on the implementation project success. With the second analysis, we evaluated the influence of the selected CSFs, including the four observed PHFs from the research model, towards the implementation project success and verified Hypothesis 2, which claimed that among the primary human factors, competence has the most influence on project success. With the use of statistical tools, we confirmed both hypotheses. The four elements of the proposed research model: Competence, Behaviour, Team composition, and Communication referred to as the Primary human factors were specially observed in this study, beside other influenced CSFs. The Pearson correlation coefficients reveal that all PHFs are significantly positively correlated to project success, exposing Competence with a strong correlation, which has on average the most important impact on project success. The regression analysis reveals that all PHFs coefficients are positive as expected and the regression model is a significantly good fit, but only one primary human factor, Competence, is statistically significant and makes a significant contribution in the proposed research model in predicting project success. Other independent variables (factors) provide an insignificant direct contribution to the project success. We therefore used a stepwise regression analysis with backward elimination of the insignificant variables, which finally revealed a corrected model with only two remaining PHFs, Competence and Team composition. Both are statistically significant and make a significant contribution in the corrected research model in predicting project success. One of the possible interpretations of such results is that participants were asked to evaluate many CSFs, of which some were classified as primary factors and others as secondary or related factors. We should have increased Table 6: Pearson bivariate correlation between project success and CSFs N=21 Mean Std. Dev. Project Howl Row 2 Row 3 Row 4 Row S Row 6 Row 7 Row 8 Row 9 Row 10 Row 11 Row 12 Row 13 Row 14 1 Clear goal and objectives 3,52 0,814 0,4353 1 2 Right selection of ERP system 3,76 0,831 0,6938 0,5635 1 3 Realistic project constraints planning 3,00 0,775 0,3967 0,3174 0,5438 1 4 Top management support 3,57 0,746 0,4352 0,6352 0,7140 0,5189 1 5 Project management activities 3,33 0,658 0,1556 0,3112 0,1523 0,4903 0,1018 1 6 Risk management activities 2,29 0,717 0,6121 0,1592 0,7072 0,2700 0,4270 -0,1059 1 7 Composition of project team 3,05 0,865 0,6769 0,2471 0,7125 0,4479 0,4206 -0,0293 0,5414 1 8 Competence of project team 3,33 0,966 0,8058 0,4665 0,6644 0,5345 0,5547 0,2883 0,4330 0,7582 1 9 Effective communication 3,14 0,727 0,5555 0,3744 0,5557 0,2664 0,2106 0,1045 0,5891 0,4659 0,4983 1 10 Motivation and trust 3,48 0,814 0,6978 0,5863 0,4719 0,2380 0,3529 0,2490 0,2693 0,5348 0,6786 0,6400 1 11 Knowledge transfer 3,29 0,644 0,5865 0,3683 0,5075 0,2006 0,2676 0,2360 0,4642 0,3337 0,4825 0,6564 0,5865 1 12 Cooperation between team members 3,29 0,784 0,6385 0,3024 0,6471 0,2471 0,4762 0,1938 0,5592 0,5692 0,5943 0,6268 0,5601 0,8212 1 13 A va il ability of team members 3,48 0,814 -0,1331 -0,0935 -0,1937 0,3174 0,1059 0,2490 -0,2449 0,0372 0,1060 -0,2053 0,0180 -0,1773 -0,0672 1 14 Business process reengineering 3,14 0,854 0,6171 0,3189 0,6143 0,3781 0,4933 0,1780 0,5018 0,6678 0,7276 0,3683 0,4011 0,2860 0,5339 -0,2469 1 15 Working conditions in organisation 3,24 0,700 0,7563 0,5599 0,7896 0,3687 0,4919 0,1446 0,4551 0,5583 0,6158 0,5191 0,5808 0,6180 0,6897 -0,2089 0,6094 Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed) 155 Organizacija, Volume 49 Research Papers Number 3, August 2016 Table 7: Multiple regression analysis of the research model 9S% Confidence Interval Relationship Coeff Std. err. t stat p-value lower upper Competence => PS 0,432 0,202 2,144 0,048 0,005 0,859 Behavior => PS 0,218 0,210 1,039 0,314 -0,227 0,662 Communication => PS 0,115 0,201 0,573 0,575 -0,311 0,541 Composition => PS 0,116 0,198 0,587 0,566 -0,304 0,536 Model R squ - 0,706, Adj. R squ = 0,633, p-value = 0,00037 < 0,05 Table 8: Stepwise regression analysis of the adapted model 95% Confidence Interval Relationship Coeff Std. err. t stat p-value lower upper Competence => PS 0,673 0,135 4,976 0,0001 -0,326 1,330 Composition -> PS 0,238 0,136 1,626 0,0344 -0,078 0,495 Model R squ 0,772, Adj. R squ = 0,747, p-value = 0,0000017 <0,05 the focus of the participants' evaluation only on the primary factors and subsequently evaluate the relations to other related CSFs. In that case, we believe we could obtain much more accurate results. With this interpretation, we are able to answer our key research questions: Human CSFs are the most important group of CSFs as they have the strongest impact on project success. The adapted PHFs model consists of two verified primary human factors, Competence and Team composition with a significant statistical contribution to project success. We nevertheless suggest the use of the complete model with the other two unverified PHFs, Behaviour and Communication, included to cover the complete causal structure and to provide a comprehensive analysis of the primary human factors that are critical for project success. The findings of this research are consistent with the research carried out by the following researchers. Ram and Corkindale (2014) have come to the conclusion that merely identifying possible CSFs is not sufficient in helping with the ERP success. Williams and Ramaprasad (1996) also noted that although CSFs are widely used by academic researchers and practitioners, it is important to distinguish between different levels of their criticality. Many researchers confirmed the strong impact of the human factors to the implementation project success (Al-Hadid et al., 2015; Huang, 2010; Lin et al., 2009; Vilpola et al., 2005; Wang et al., 2007). Many authors also confirmed a significant correlation between Competences and the ERP implementation project success (Charland et al., 2015; Massini and Wassenhove, 2009), especially knowledge has been suggested as the most important CSFs (Sedera and Gable, 2010; Deng and Bian, 2007; Gable et al., 1998; Grant, 156 1996). A few authors (Akkermans and Helden, 2002; Gandhi, 2015) researched the causal aspect of CSFs and their interdependence (causes and consequences), which suggests this was the right direction for our study. Due to the lack of an appropriate existing model or at least some additional in-depth literature addressing the true causes behind CSFs from a human factors perspective, we independently developed an interesting new model with a completely different approach. A further research possibility would be to test the proposed two-levelled research model and measure the influence of the independent variables on PHFs and consequently on project success. Another interesting task would be to study the individual cases of unsuccessful implementation projects and analyse them precisely with the Root cause analysis to identify the true causes of project failure and afterwards compare it with the proposed theoretical model to verify it. 5 Conclusion The lack of a simple, yet comprehensive model to address the true causes behind CSFs from a human factors perspective therefore motivated us to identify the influencing primary human factors and develop the PHFs model as we believe it is a significant contribution to this important and widely researched topic. The proposed primary human factors model can be useful for project managers and HR specialists to assess the risk of PHFs when evaluating the human resources quality level in order to recognize their required potential needed in implementation projects. If appropriate PHFs are provided, individuals and teams can Organizacija, Volume 49 Research Papers Number 3, August 2016 increase their excellence and efficiency of the implementation and thus the possibility of project success. The PHFs model can therefore be used as a tool to help us understand the importance and influence of the primary human factors and to successfully predict any possible risks. If we are better in predicting potential risks, we are also better in preventing them. The proposed model suggests a new approach to address CSFs from a human factors perspective, for which we undoubtedly assert that they have an important influence on project success and are leading the way to human oriented ERP implementation approach. Literature Akgun, A., Lynn, G., Keskin, H., & Dogan, D. (2014). Team learning in IT implementation projects: Antecedents and consequences, International Journal of Information Management, 34(1), 37-47, http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.09.007 Akkermans, H., & Helden, K. (2002). Vicious and virtuous cycles in ERP implementation: A case study of interrelations between critical success factors, European Journal of Information Systems, 11, 35-46, http://dx. doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000418 Al-Alawi, A., Al-Marzooqi, N., & Mohammed, F. (2007). Organizational culture and knowledge sharing: critical success factors, Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(2), 22-42, http://dx.doi. org/10.1108/13673270710738898 Al-Hadid, I., Afaneh, S., & Almalahmeh, H. (2015). Relationship between human factors and ERP System implementation, International Journal of Managing Information Technology, 7(1), 1-16, http://dx.doi. org/10.5121/ijmit.2015.7101 Amaral, A., Fernandes, G., & Varajao, J. (2015). Identifying useful actions to improve team resilience in information systems projects, Procedia Computer Science, 64, 1182-1189, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/). procs.2015.08.549 AMR - Allied Market Research (2015). Global ERP software market. Retrieved from http://www.alliedmarket-research.com/ERP-market. Argote, L. (2013). Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining and Transferring Knowledge, New York: Springer US. Aubert, B., Hooper, V., & Schnepel, A. (2013). Revisiting the role of communication quality in ERP project success, American Journal of Business, 28(1), 64-85, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/19355181311314770 Bard, R. (2015). Strategies to achieve high performance in hybrid project teams: Addressing the relationship between Swedish project managers and Indian specialists at IBM Global Services, Master thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg Bell, S. (2007). Deep level composition variables as pre- dictors of team performance: A meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 595-615, http://dx.doi. org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.595 Bologa, R., & Lupu, A. (2014). Organizational learning networks that can increase the productivity of IT consulting companies: A case study for ERP consultants, Expert Systems with Applications, 41(1), 126-136, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.07.016 Business Dictionary (2016). Retrieved April 12, 2016 from http://www.businessdictionary.com Candra, S. (2012). ERP implementation success and knowledge capability, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 65(3), 141-149, http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.10300 Charland, P., Cronan, T., Leger, P., & Robert, J. (2015). Developing and assessing ERP competencies: Basic and complex knowledge, Journal of Computer Information Systems, 56(1), 31-39, http://dx.doi.org/10.108 0/08874417.2015.11645798 Chou, H., & Yeh, Y. (2007). Conflict, Conflict management, and performance in ERP teams, Social behaviour and personality, 35(8), 1035-1047. http://dx.doi. org/10.2224/sbp.2007.35.8.1035 Cronan, T., Leger, P., Charland, P., Robert, J., & Babin, G. (2012). Comparing Objective Measures and Perceptions of Cognitive Learning in an ERP Simulation Game: A Research Note, Simulation and Gaming, 43(4), 461480, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046878111433783 Deng, J., & Bian, Y. (2007). Constructing the knowledge model in ERP implementation, IFIP International Federation for Information Processing, 254, http://dx. doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-75902-9_50 Gandhi, A. (2015). Critical Success Factors in ERP Implementation and their interrelationship using TISM and MICMAC analysis, Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 8(S6), 138-150, http://dx.doi. org/10.17485/ijst/2015/v8iS6/71298 Gable, G., Scott, J., & Davenport, T. (1998). Cooperative ERP Life-cycle Knowledge Management, Proceedings of the Ninth Australasian Conference in Information Systems, Sydney, Australia, 227-240. Goyette, S., Cassivi, L., Courchesne, M., & Elia, E. (2014). Knowledge transfer mechanisms in an ERP post-implementation stage, Procedia Technology, 16, 430439, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2014.10.109 Grant, R., (1996). Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm, Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109-122. Gupta, H., Balakrishnan, R., Rajagopal, S., & Nguwi, Y. (2014). A Study of Key Critical Success Factors (CSFs) for ERP systems, International Journal of Computer and Information Technology, 3(4), 813-818. Hackman, J., & Wageman, R. (2005). When and how team leaders matter, Research in Organizational Behavior, 26, 37-74, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0191-3085(04)26002-6 157 Organizacija, Volume 49 Research Papers Number 3, August 2016 Hamani, N., Mouawad, P., Kermad, L., & Mhamedi, A. (2012). Working team composition in ERP implementation project, 2012 2nd International Conference on Communications, Computing and Control Applications, 1-6, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ CCCA.2012.6417859 Harrison, J. (2004). Motivations for enterprise resource planning (ERP) system implementation in public versus private sector organizations, University of Central Florida Press, ProQuest. Huang Z. (2010). A compilation research of ERP implementation critical success factors, Issues in Information systems, 11(1), 507-512. Hung, W., Ho, C., Jou, J., & Kung, K. (2012). Relationship bonding for a better knowledge transfer climate: An ERP implementation research, Decision Support Systems, 52(2), 406-414, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/). dss.2011.09.007 Irick, M.L. (2007). Managing Tacit Knowledge in Organisations, Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, 8(3), 1-5. Lech, P. (2011). Knowledge transfer procedures from consultants to users in ERP implementations, The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(4), 318327. Li, Y., Yang, M., Klein, G., & Chen, H. (2011). The role of team problem solving competency in information system development pro)ects, International Journal of Project Management, 29(7), 911-922, http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.09.004 Lin, C.J., Yang, C.W., Lin, S.B., & Lin, S.F. (2009). A Human Factors Model for ERP System Implementation, Human Interface and the Management of Information: Designing Information Environments, 5617, 123-130, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02556-3_14 Lin, T., Chen, C., Hsu, J., & Fu, T. (2015). The impact of team knowledge on problem solving competence in information systems development team, International Journal of Project Management, 33(8), 1692-1703, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.07.007 Lui, K., & Chan, K. (2008). Rescuing troubled software projects by team transformation: A case study with an ERP project, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(1), 171-184, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ TEM.2007.912933 Mahdavian, M., & Mostejeran, F. (2013). Studying key users' skills of ERP system through a comprehensive skill measurement model, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 69(9), 1981-1999, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-013-5144-1 Massini, A.,& Wassenhove, L. (2009). ERP competence-building mechanisms: An exploratory investigation of configurations of ERP adopters in the European and U.S. manufacturing sectors,Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 11(2), 274-298, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1287/msom.1080.0215 McGinnis, T., & Huang, Z. (2007). Rethinking ERP success: A new perspective from knowledge management and continuous improvement, Information & Management, 44(7), 626-634, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. im.2007.05.006 Mohamed, S., & McLaren, T.S. (2009). Probing the Gaps between ERP education and ERP implementation success factors, AIS Transactions on Enterprise Systems, 1, 8-14. Nasir, M.H.N., & Sahibuddin, S. (2011). Critical success factors for software projects: A comparative study, Scientific Research and Essays, 6(10), 2174-2186, http:// dx.doi.org/10.5897/SRE10.1171 Ngai, E.W.T., Law, C.C.H., & Wat, F.K.T. (2008). Examining the critical success factors in the adoption of enterprise resource planning, Computers in Industry, 59(6), 548-564, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. compind.2007.12.001 O'Leary, D. (2002). Knowledge management across the enterprise resource planning systems life cycle, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 3(2), 99-110, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1467-0895(02)00038-6 Oxford Dictionaries (2016). Retrieved April 12, 2016, from http://www. oxforddictionaries.com. Pieper, T., Klein, S., & Jaskiewicz, P. (2008). The impact of goal alignment on board existence and top management team composition: Evidence from family influenced businesses, Journal of Small Business Management, 46(3), 372-394, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.1540-627x.2008.00249.x Polanyi, M., (1962). Personal Knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy, Chicago, Chicago University Press. PMI (2013). PMBOK guide - A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, Newtown Square, Project Management Institute, 5th Ed. Ram, J., & Corkindale, D. (2014). How critical are the critical success factors (CSFs): Examining the role of CSFs for ERP, Business Process Management Journal, 20(1), 151-174, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-11-2012-0127 Ravnikar, F. (2010). The impact of Managers on Successful ERP Implementation, Organizacija, 43(4), 186196, http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/v10051-010-0018-x Rockart, J. (1979). Chief executives define their own data needs, Harward Business Review, 57(2), 81-93. Santos Rodriguez, H., & Dorrego, P. (2008). Critical Success Factors and Core Competencies, Encyclopedia of Networked and Virtual Organisations, IGI Global, 364-368. Scorta, I. (2008.) The Role of Tacit Knowledge Management in ERP Systems Implementation, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference Knowledge Man- 1SS Organizacija, Volume 49 Research Papers Number 3, August 2016 agement - Projects, Systems and Technologies, http:// dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1288628 Sedera, D., & Gable, G. (2010). Knowledge Management Competence for Enterprise System Success, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 19(4), 296-306, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/jjsis.2010.10.001 Senior, B., & Swailes, S. (2004). The dimensions of management team performance: A repertory grid study, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 53(4), 317-333, http://dx.doi. org/10.1108/17410400410533908 Shaul, L., & Tauber, D. (2013). Critical Success Factors in ERP Systems: Review of the last decade, ACM Computing Surveys, 45(4), 55, http://dx.doi. org/10.1145/2501654.2501669 Shirouyehzad, H., Dabestani, R., & Badakhshian, M. (2011). The FMEA Approach to Identification of Critical Failure Factors in ERP implementation, International Business Research, 4(3), 254-263, http://dx.doi. org/10.5539/ibr.v4n3p254 Somers, T.M., & Nelson, K. (2001). The impact of Critical Success Factors across the Stages of ERP Implementations, Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, http://dx.doi. org/10.1109/HICSS.2001.927129 Spender, J. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm, Strategic Management Journal, 17, 45-62. Sumner, M. (2000). Risk factors in enterprise-wide ERP projects, Journal of Information Technology, 15, 317327. Standish Group (2013). Chaos manifesto 2013: Think Big, Act Small, Standish Group, Retrieved April 01, 2016, from http://athena.ecs.csus.edu/~buckley/CSc231_ files/Standish_2013_Report.pdf Sun, B. (2007). A study on tacit knowledge sharing in ERP enterprises, IFIP International Federation for Information Processing, 254, 763-770, http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/978-0-387-75902-9_86 Tarhini, A., Ammar, H., Tarhini, T., & Masa'deh, R. (2015). Analysis of the Critical Success Factors for ERP implementation from stakeholders perspective: A systematic review, International Business Research, 8(4), 25-40, http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v8n4p25 Tsay, C., Lin, T., Yoon J., & Huang C. (2014). Knowledge withholding intentions in teams: The roles of normative conformity, affective bonding, rational choice and social cognition, Decision Support Systems, 67, 53-65, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2014.08.003 Vandaie, R. (2008). The role of organizational knowledge management in successful ERP implementation projects, Knowledge-Based Systems, 21(8), 920-926. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2008.04.001 Vilpola, I., Vaananen-Vainio-Mattila K., & Salmimaa T. (2005). Evaluating Human Factors in ERP Implementations, In the proc. of the 12th European Conference in Information Technology Evaluation (ECITE2005), 511-520. Xu, Q., & Ma, Q. (2008). Determinants of ERP implementation knowledge transfer, Information & Management, 45(8), 528-539, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. im.2008.08.004 Yatsuzuka, D., Taguchi, Y., & Tabe, T. (2009). A Study on a Method of Support for Improving the Motivation of Employees, Human Interface and the Management of Information: Designing Information Environments, 5617, 197-204, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02556-3_23 Yeh, Y., & Chou, H. (2005). Team composition and learning behaviors in cross-functional teams, Social behaviour and Personality, 33(4), 391-402. http://dx.doi. org/10.2224/sbp.2005.33.4.391 Young, R.K., (2008). Root Cause Failure Analysis, Ft. Myers, Reliabilityweb.com, 6th Ed. Yuan, W., Chen, Y., Wang, R., Du, Z. (2007) Collective intelligence in knowledge management, IFIP International Federation for Information Processing, 254, 651-655, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-75902-9_72 Walsh, K., & Schneider H. (2002). The role of motivation and risk behaviour in software development success, Information Research, 7(3), 21-25. Wang E., & Chen J. (2006). Effects of internal support and consultant quality on the consulting process and ERP system quality, Decision support systems, 42(2), 10291041, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2005.08.005 Wang, E., Lin, C., Jiang, J., Klein, & G. (2007). Improving ERP fit to organizational process through knowledge transfer, International Journal of Information Management, 27(3), 200-212,. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ijinfomgt.2007.02.002 Williams, J.J., & Ramaprasad, A. (1996). A taxonomy of critical success factors, European Journal of Information Systems, 5, 250-260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/ ejis.1996.30 Zhong, J., Li, H., Chen, Y., Wu, Y. (2007). On bill of knowledge resources during ERP implementation, IFIP International Federation for Information Processing, 254, 153-161, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-75902-9_15 Ziemba, E., & Oblak, I. (2013). Critical Success Factors for ERP Systems Implementation in Public Administration, Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge and Management, 8, 1-19. 159 Organizacija, Volume 49 Research Papers Number 3, August 2016 Aleksander Jenko is a SAP consultant in a SAP consulting services company Sapphir d.o.o. He has over ten years of experience with implementing SAP ERP solutions in various Slovenian companies. His professional interest covers Materials management, Production planning, Quality management SAP modules, and Industry specific solutions for the Utilities Industry. He is currently a MSc student at the University of Maribor -Faculty of Organisational Sciences. Matjaž Roblek, Ph.D., is assistant professor at University of Maribor, Faculty of Organizational Sciences, where he gives lectures from Enterprise Resource Planning, Supply Chain Management and Production planning and control. His field of research are Business and Production models and their information support. He is a member of LIPPS laboratory and American association APICS. In his career he finished more than 60 projects in partnership with industry. Model primarnih človeških kritičnih dejavnikov uspeha za implementacijo ERP sistema Ozadje in namen: Mnogo raziskovalcev je preiskovalo najrazličnejše Kritične dejavnike uspeha (KDU) in različne vzroke za neuspeh projektov ERP implementacij. Kljub podrobnemu pregledu razpoložljive literature nismo našli ustrezne raziskave s celovitim pregledom dejanskih vzrokov, ki se skrivajo za KDU, z vidika človeških dejavnikov. Cilj raziskave je bil razviti in ovrednotiti model Primarnih človeških dejavnikov (PČD) in potrditi njihov pomemben vpliv na tradicionalne KDU ter uspešnost projekta implementacije. Zasnova/Metodologija/Pristop: S pomočjo zbrane literature in uporabe vzročno-posledične analize je bil razvit celovit raziskovalni model PČD, ki smo ga preverili z empirično raziskavo. Izvedena je bila anketa s sodelujočimi iz različnih slovenskih podjetjih, ki delujejo v različnih branžah in ki so v preteklosti implementirala ERP sistem SAP Model je bil preverjen na vzorcu 21 strokovnjakov iz 18 organizacij. Rezultati: Rezultati so pokazali, da imajo PČD pomemben pozitiven vpliv na uspešnost projektov ERP implementacij, vendar sta samo dva dejavnika, Kompetence in Sestava projektnega tima, značilna linearna napovedovalca v prilagojenem regresijskem modelu in značilno prispevata k napovedovanju uspešnosti projekta. Rezultati tako potrdijo obe predlagani hipotezi in prilagojen regresijski model. Zaključek: Raziskava izboljšuje razumevanje PČD ter potrjuje njihov pomemben vpliv na tradicionalne KDU in uspešnost projektov ERP implementacij. Predlagan model PČD omogoča projektnim vodjem in ostalim sodelujočim na projektu učinkovito oceniti tveganja posameznih KDU in nakazuje pot k človeku usmerjenemu modelu ERP implementacij. Ključne besede: Projekt ERP implementacije, Kritični dejavniki uspeha, Model primarnih človeških dejavnikov 160