<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Using Rich Pictures to Represent Stakeholders' Role during Enterprise Systems Upgrade Decisions</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Gerald Feldman</string-name>
          <email>Gerald.Feldman@bcu.ac.uk</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Centre for Enterprise Systems -Faculty of Computing, Engineering and the Built Environment Birmingham City University</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Birmingham</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="UK">UK</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <fpage>59</fpage>
      <lpage>66</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>Upgrading Enterprise Systems (ES) is essential to supporting a system's continuous improvement and stability. However, the decision to upgrade is influenced by different stakeholders' needs and perceptions. This paper utilizes Rich Pictures to get a better understanding of the stakeholders' role in the upgrade decision-making process from an organisational perspective. A qualitative survey design is adopted, utilizing semi-structured interviews to collect data from ten large organisations. Data accumulated was qualitatively analysed, and Rich Pictures were used to represent the data in the pictorial form. Analysis of results reveals complex interrelations between the stakeholders; this highlights the need for a reconciliation system to combine the different stakeholder perceptions during the upgrade decision-making process. The use of Rich Pictures in the study demonstrated the importance of balancing various stakeholders' perceptions that influence ES upgrade decision-making. Further research is required to explore these influences in depth to produce a reconciliation system that creates a combined effect between all the stakeholders' interests.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>Enterprise Systems</kwd>
        <kwd>Upgrade decisions</kwd>
        <kwd>Rich Pictures</kwd>
        <kwd>Upgrade Stakeholders</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>
        Stakeholders’ involvement in Enterprise Systems (ES) implementation is regarded as
one of the most influential factors that lead to successful implementation [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ]. Beatty
and Williams [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ] recommend considering upgrade projects as an implementation
project, which is supported by different stakeholders with diverse roles, each having their
set of expertise to contribute to the upgrade project. Thus, the stakeholders’
involvement in upgrade is similar to implementation projects. In their study and based on previous
studies, Walker, Steinfort and Maqsood [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ] suggest four categories of stakeholders (i) clients; (ii)
project leaders; (iii) outside services; and (iv) invisible team members. Additionally Walker,
Steinfort and Maqsood [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ] identifies there is a need to balance these stakeholders’ interests to
support effective project development and management. Eskerod and Huemann [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ]
point out that typical stakeholders in projects include investors, suppliers, customers,
users, authorities, neighbors, and media. While this categorization of the stakeholders
is useful, when considering upgrade decisions from an organisational perspective it is
important to expand on the stakeholders’ categories. Based on Beatty and Williams [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ]
the upgrade project team will comprise technical and functional leads, end – users,
management, vendors, consultants, legal entities. According to Wang and Chen [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ],
vendors, legal entities and consultants are considered to be external stakeholders, and
top management, end-users, technical and functional personnel are regarded as internal
stakeholders. Alsulami, Rahim and Scheepers [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ] outline the different ways consultants
are engaged in the change process and resolve conflicts. For example, organisations are
dependent on consultants for knowledge, technical assistance, and expertise about the
system; however, sometimes in-correct advice could be offered to for financial gains.
Such contrasting influences highlight how external stakeholders’ affect upgrade
decisions.
      </p>
      <p>
        Due to this diversity, the upgrade decision-making process requires a thorough
understanding of these individual experiences in order to provide a more detailed
representation of each stakeholders’ needs and wants. Based on the different values that can
be leveraged by upgrading it is important to maximize the upgrade benefits, which
requires an inclusive approach that embraces all stakeholder opinions to enhance the
organisation’s strategic goal. According to Eskerod and Huemann [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ], in such a
situation stakeholder analysis plays a critical role to satisfy the different stakeholders
interests as this enables opportunities and challenges to be anticipated. Also,
stakeholder analysis will facilitate getting a better understanding of the stakeholders’
interests and concerns. However, the interaction between the different stakeholders
during upgrade projects is complex. Eskerod and Huemann [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ] suggest that the use of
Rich Pictures would enable the complexity to be addressed while attempting to prevent
stakeholders from being overwhelmed by it, as the enable the analysis of the situation
at hand by offering visual representation of the interactions to benefit the thinking
processes [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>Despite numerous studies on stakeholders’ engagement, little work has so far been
reported that explains the role of the stakeholders in ES upgrade decisions, indicating
that there is a need for more effort to explore the influences of the stakeholders on ES
upgrade decision-making. This study aims to understand the role of the different
stakeholders in upgrade decisions and utilises Rich Pictures to represent the interactions
of stakeholders during the upgrade decision-making process in order to to identify the
stakeholders’ worldviews.
2</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>Rich Pictures</title>
      <p>
        The construction of Rich Pictures is one of the stages of the Soft Systems Methodology
[SSM] [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
        ], which is itself arguably one of the most well-known and enduring of a
number of socio-technical approaches for systems design. The drawing of Rich Pictures
is real-world activity, applied to situations, which are perceived to be problematic in
some way. The SSM analyst will spend time within the problem situation as an observer
and will articulate what they perceive to be the main tasks and issues of the situation in
pictorial form. It essentially serves as an aid for the facilitator to understand the
organisational context of worldviews. The technique of rich picturing can be used by
experienced users of the methodology throughout the application, that is, it can extend into
the systems modelling stages. In general, the purpose of the Rich Picture has changed
and broadened over the years of the development of the methodology, and it can be
used as an interactive communication technique. Thus, it can also be used
independently of the methodology, to enable systems designers to understand tasks and
issues inherent in the organisational environments in which systems operate. Rich
Pictures are therefore an ideal approach for capturing the stakeholders’ influence on
upgrade projects, as they encourage the exploration and representation of the complex
situation to offer a broader understating of the ‘hidden meaning’ about the concept
under discussion [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ]. Mayouf, Cox, and Boyd [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">14</xref>
        ] suggest Rich Pictures can be used to
represent the same situation differently, thus allowing exploration of the various
stakeholder’s perspectives. Further, a Rich Picture should reveal not only the complexity of
such perspectives but also the interacting relationships between them. It, therefore,
offers a conducive approach to represent the human aspects of the situation and helps to
gain a better understanding of the problem space by telling a detailed story that captures
the ‘soft’ aspects that are ‘human’ relatable and offer sufficient meaning [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ]. It is also
suggested that the use of Rich Pictures facilitates effective assessment of the problem
space and encourages communication as the pictorial representation helps break down
barriers and prompt the gaining of new insights of the problem space.
3
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>ES Upgrade Overview</title>
      <p>Organisations that have adopted Enterprise Systems (ES) are continuously faced with
decisions about upgrading their systems, as the process is complex. While strategies
and methodologies to minimize the risks of disruptions exist, the complexity is not
eased because stakeholders have different perceptions of what the upgrade process will
achieve. In this paper, Enterprise Systems (ES) is referred to as a comprehensive,
configurable, integrated suite of systems, information resources and technologies which
support organisation-wide operational and management processes.</p>
      <p>
        Upgrading is a process of replacing a current version entirely or partly with a newer
version or system, this is a continuous process recurring at least once every three years
and takes up to eight months on average to complete [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ]. Upgrading offers substantial
benefits such as lower operational costs, improved performance, new functionalities,
and technology features. However, Khoo, Chua and Robey [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ] suggest that no direct
business benefits are achieved, since vendors use high license fees and support pricing
schemes, along with completely removing support for older versions as a technique to
encourage organisations to upgrade their systems. Therefore, upgrading is an important
aspect in the system's lifespan since it ensures continuous improvement and stability of
the systems and aims to take advantage of the benefits such as new functionality
introduced by the new version. Thus, it is important to understand when it is appropriate to
upgrade. Claybaugh, Ramamurthy, and Haseman [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
        ] suggest that the timing should
offer the assurance of minimal disruption and downtime. Additionally, Kankaanpää and
Pekkola [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
        ] suggests this is usually influenced by the ‘availability of a suitable
version’, ‘the customer’s need for upgrade’ and ‘economics’. However, the need to
upgrade is also influenced by the different stakeholders’ view of the upgrade and their
roles [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        Organisations follow two upgrade strategies. Technical upgrade moves the existing
system to the latest technology platform, hence concentrating on technology changes
to leverage latest features and align systems within the product lifecycle. Undertaking
a technical upgrade involves analyzing the structure of data dictionary objects and
evaluating individual coding areas to confirm that changes do not disturb the existing
system [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ]. Functional upgrade concentrates on functionality extension and optimizing
business processes based on the organisation’s needs. Consolidation of different
systems is required to optimize processes by adopting generic functionality offered in the
new version. The selection between the two strategies is influenced by the various
reasons that affect organisations with regard to upgrading their systems; Feldman, Shah,
Chapman and Amini [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
        ] summarized these factors as:
 Technological: - The new version streamlines processes to improve the system’s
usability. Thus, upgrades support organisations to reduce the effort required for, and
costs of maintaining multiple versions of the system through standardizing and
improving functionality, which allows leveraging latest technology features to support
integration and merging with other systems.
 Organisational: - The new version improves performance by automating the
processes or aligning business strategies with new functionality. Hence, upgrading
provides an opportunity to evaluate, consolidate, and restructure existing business
operations to ensure continuous improvement. High initial costs due to testing and
reapplication of modifications could sway organisations not to upgrade. However,
the potential of reducing the overall operational and maintenance costs such as
licensing fees can positively influence upgrade decisions.
 Environmental: - The threats of losing support or paying a high premium for support
are primary reasons why some organisations upgrade their ES. Another key factor is
compliance with legislation, standards, mode of operating, especially in highly
regulated environments such as the banking industry.
      </p>
      <p>
        Thus, it can be reasoned that different stakeholders such as vendors, legal entities,
consultants, top management, end-users, and technical and functional personnel play an
integral role in upgrade decision-making. The combination of various stakeholders’
tacit knowledge and interests is a strength but also problematic when individuals
perceive ES upgrade differently. For example, Khoo, Robey and Rao [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ] suggest that the
stakeholders’ experience will benefit the upgrade differently, citing that user experience
is dependent on the successful implementation of useful new features. Hence, exploring
these influence of the different stakeholders with the aid of Rich Pictures could help to
provide a better understanding of a complex problem, by highlight the role of these
stakeholders and identify their worldviews.
4
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>Research Approach</title>
      <p>
        Given the complexities of upgrade decision-making and interaction between the
various stakeholders’ involved, further research must unravel this difficult area of ES and
extend guidance for industry. This work follows a qualitative survey design which,
according to Jansen [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>
        ] and Lindgren and Münch [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref16">16</xref>
        ], is a useful approach that provides
a multidimensional and diverse outlook of the subject under investigation. Thus, it
facilitates correlating the information collected from the respondents’ to establish
common or different patterns, which supported gaining insights into complex issues
associated with stakeholder influence on ES upgrades projects. The semi-structured
interviews conducted allowed the in-depth investigation to elicit detailed insights about
stakeholders’ role and influence during ES upgrade. The participants for the study were
purposefully selected to include different stakeholder with diverse roles, such as
functional (business) users, technical leads and database managers, systems administrators,
chief information officers, project managers, end-users and consultants. Data gathered
was qualitatively analysed, the unit of analysis was the organisation. The qualitative
analysis followed three steps, firstly preparation of the data i.e. transcribing the
interview notes to facilitate cross-examination and gain a comprehensive picture of the
stakeholders’ interaction. Secondly, systematic coding was performed to give meaning
and eliminate repetition, along with identifying any significant relationships emerging
from the data. Two independent coders were used in order to enhance reliability of the
findings. Thirdly, inferences were drawn to formulate attributes based on similarity;
and a Rich Picture was developed to represent the data in pictorial form. This was later
used to formulate the stakeholders’ worldviews and articulate conclusions.
5
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>Results and Discussions</title>
      <p>Twelve respondents with six or more years’ experience and involved in two or more
upgrade projects were interviewed for an average of 45 minutes each. These
respondents represented ten different organisations, which were either currently upgrading, in
the process of upgrading in the next 6-12 months, or upgraded their ES systems, in the
previous six months. This comparison revealed different aspects to the upgrade
decision-making; however, the stakeholder’s interaction and their upgrade outcome
expectations did not significantly change despite when the upgrade decision-making
timeframe.</p>
      <p>The findings suggest that the stakeholders’ perceive the outcome of upgrade
differently, which influences the decision-making. The use of Rich Pictures allowed a
capturing of the complexity of upgrade projects and the different stakeholders’
requirements and needs. Thus, it provided an insight into understanding the stakeholders’
interaction and the messy situations resulting from these interactions. For example, Fig.1.
illustrates that from a technical view ES upgrade implies changing the technical aspects
of the underlying system, while business users think of upgrades as a mechanism for
incorporating new functionality and improving existing processes. On the other hand,
management perceives upgrades as an opportunity to plan and improve the overall
performance and direction of the organisation. These different expectations of upgrade
projects present a messy situation, which can lead to making unnecessary trade-offs
during the decision-making. This can result in the upgrade not achieving its objectives.
Based on the rich picture annotations regarding the different perspectives of an upgrade
process, a number of different worldviews may be suggested:
 Technical Leads: A systems upgrade should ensure an integrated and stable system
which is technically supported and will eliminate the expensive maintenance of
unconnected legacy systems
 End – Users (i.e. Business Users): We need a system with user-friendly functionality
which is easy to use and requires minimal training
 Management: We need a system which enables us to improve organisational
efficiency and effectiveness
 Functional Leads: We need a system which removes wasteful processes and reduces
manual workload
 Vendors: We need to increase license fees to maintain profitability and eliminate
non-cost effective support for outdated systems
 Consultants: A systems upgrade will enable us to demonstrate our value to the
organisation as technical experts and ensure future projects with the company
 Legal Entities: A systems upgrade is necessary to enable compliance with regulatory
requirements and to adhere to the relevant standards
These views suggest that upgrade decisions are a result of the interplay between
different stakeholders’ perceptions, and thus for an upgrade to happen, it is important to
establish a common ground that ensures consensus between the stakeholders’ interests.
The different worldviews highlight the stakeholders’ requirements and the manner in
which they perceive the upgrade project. The aim of this paper was to highlight the
importance of performing a stakeholder analysis to provide a holistic perspective of
stakeholder’s needs, issues, challenges, and requirements. Further, research is required
to explore these influences in depth to design a conceptual reconciliation system, which
combines all stakeholder interests.
6</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>Conclusion</title>
      <p>Upgrade decision-making is a complex undertaking, which is not eased by the different
expectations of the upgrade outcome which may be held by stakeholders. Exploring
stakeholder involvement would enable a better understanding of how best to align the
various upgrade expectations to support the organisational goals for an upgrade project.
The paper gives a brief account of how the different stakeholders affect the decision to
upgrade and suggest that interested parties play a critical role in upgrade projects,
especially during the decision-making. Despite the data accrued from a limited set of
organisations based in the UK and Ireland, the paper highlights that the use of Rich
Pictures can provide much needed insights. These can inform the development of a
conceptual system model to support, upgrade decision-making by incorporating
stakeholder perceptions and requirements. Also, it is suggested that Rich Pictures can
be used to communicate and represent complex projects to provide a new approach of
understanding the situation explored. From an organisational perspective, the study
highlights the different interested parties and their worldviews; additionally, it provides
insights on the importance of understanding the role of the stakeholders in the decision
to upgrade ES and selection of an upgrade strategy. From a theoretical standpoint, the
Rich Picture and the suggested worldviews form a basis for future work, which aims to
design a reconciliation system that takes into account all stakeholder views to provide
a synergy between them. Hence, this work opens up an avenue for discussion on how
to incorporate stakeholder perceptions in upgrade decisions, which have received little
attention to date.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Alsulami</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Rahim</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Scheepers</surname>
          </string-name>
          , H.:
          <article-title>'Development of a Model to Understand How Consultants Manage Conflicts during ERP Post-implementation Change Process: A Dialectic Perspective'</article-title>
          .
          <source>Proc. 24th Australasian Conference on Information Systems</source>
          , Melbourne, Australia, (
          <year>2013</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Beatty</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Williams</surname>
          </string-name>
          , C.D.:
          <article-title>'ERP II: Best practices for successfully implementing an ERP upgrade'</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Communications of the Acm</source>
          ,
          <year>2006</year>
          ,
          <volume>49</volume>
          , (
          <issue>3</issue>
          ), pp.
          <fpage>105</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>109</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Walker</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Steinfort</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Maqsood</surname>
          </string-name>
          , T.:
          <article-title>'Stakeholder voices through rich pictures'</article-title>
          ,
          <source>International Journal of Managing Projects in Business</source>
          ,
          <year>2014</year>
          ,
          <volume>7</volume>
          , (
          <issue>3</issue>
          ), pp.
          <fpage>342</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>361</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Eskerod</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Huemann</surname>
          </string-name>
          , M.:
          <article-title>'Advancing project stakeholder analysis by standing on the shoulders of giants', Paper for the PMI® Research</article-title>
          and Education Conference, Portland, Oregon, USA (
          <year>2014</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Wang</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>E.T.G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Chen</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.H.F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>'Effects of internal support and consultant quality on the consulting process and ERP system quality'</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Decision Support Systems</source>
          ,
          <year>2006</year>
          ,
          <volume>42</volume>
          , (
          <issue>2</issue>
          ), pp.
          <fpage>1029</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>1041</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          6.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bell</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Morse</surname>
          </string-name>
          , S.: '
          <article-title>Rich pictures: a means to explore the 'sustainable mind'?'</article-title>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Sustainable</given-names>
            <surname>Development</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <year>2013</year>
          ,
          <volume>21</volume>
          , (
          <issue>1</issue>
          ), pp.
          <fpage>30</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>47</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          7.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Olson</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Zhao</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>'CIOs' perspectives of critical success factors in ERP upgrade projects'</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Enterprise Information Systems</source>
          ,
          <year>2007</year>
          ,
          <volume>1</volume>
          , (
          <issue>1</issue>
          ), pp.
          <fpage>129</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>138</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          8.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Khoo</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>H.M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Chua</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.E.H.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Robey</surname>
          </string-name>
          , D.: '
          <article-title>How organizations motivate users to participate in support upgrades of customized packaged software'</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Information &amp; Management</source>
          ,
          <year>2011</year>
          ,
          <volume>48</volume>
          , (
          <issue>8</issue>
          ), pp.
          <fpage>328</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>335</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          9.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Claybaugh</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ramamurthy</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Haseman</surname>
          </string-name>
          , W.D.:
          <article-title>'Assimilation of enterprise technology upgrades: a factor-based study'</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Enterprise Information Systems</source>
          ,
          <year>2017</year>
          ,
          <volume>11</volume>
          , (
          <issue>2</issue>
          ), pp.
          <fpage>250</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>283</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          10.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kankaanpää</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>I.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Pekkola</surname>
          </string-name>
          , S.:
          <article-title>'Timing the Information Systems Upgrade'</article-title>
          .
          <source>Proc. of the 18th European Conference on Information Systems</source>
          , Pretoria, South Africa (
          <year>2010</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          11.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Feldman</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Shah</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Chapman</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Amini</surname>
          </string-name>
          , A.: 'Technological, Organisational, and
          <article-title>Environmental drivers for enterprise systems upgrade'</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Industrial Management &amp; Data Systems</source>
          ,
          <year>2016</year>
          ,
          <volume>116</volume>
          , (
          <issue>8</issue>
          ), pp.
          <fpage>1636</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>1655</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          12.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Khoo</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>H.M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Robey</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Rao</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.V.: '</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>An exploratory study of the impacts of upgrading packaged software: a stakeholder perspective'</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Journal of Information Technology</source>
          ,
          <year>2011</year>
          ,
          <volume>26</volume>
          , (
          <issue>3</issue>
          ), pp.
          <fpage>153</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>169</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          13.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Checkland</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Scholes</surname>
          </string-name>
          , J.:
          <source>'Soft systems methodology: a 30-year retrospective'</source>
          (John Wiley Chichester,
          <year>1999</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          14.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Mayouf</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Cox</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Boyd</surname>
          </string-name>
          , D.: '
          <article-title>Exploring different information needs in Building Information Modelling (BIM) using Soft Systems'</article-title>
          .
          <source>Proc. Proceedings of International Data and Information Management Conference</source>
          (
          <year>2014</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref15">
        <mixed-citation>
          15.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Jansen</surname>
          </string-name>
          , H.:
          <article-title>'The Logic of Qualitative Survey Research and its Position in the Field of Social Research Methods'</article-title>
          ,
          <source>Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research</source>
          ,
          <year>2010</year>
          ,
          <volume>11</volume>
          , (
          <issue>2</issue>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref16">
        <mixed-citation>
          16.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Lindgren</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Münch</surname>
          </string-name>
          , J.:
          <article-title>'Software Development as an Experiment System: A Qualitative Survey on the State of the Practice': 'Agile Processes</article-title>
          , in Software Engineering, and Extreme Programming' (Springer,
          <year>2015</year>
          ), pp.
          <fpage>117</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>128</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>