This paper addresses the persistent challenge of system-organisational misfits in off-the-shelf ERP implementations, where standardised system processes fail to align with diverse organisational structures, cultures, and workflows. Built on previously conducted literature review, the paper synthesises misfit typologies and identifies a gap in existing research: the lack of empirically validated, cross-contextual frameworks for resolving ERP misfits. In response, a practical, stage-based misfit resolution framework development model is proposed, integrating diagnostic classification, stakeholder engagement, and strategy selection. The proposed model incorporates critical factors such as organisational context, user perceptions, and system constraints, and is designed for adaptability across industries and ERP platforms. A preliminary set of effectiveness metrics and evaluation methods is outlined to guide future validation. The next phase of research will focus on developing the framework into an operational tool and testing it in real-world implementation settings to assess its utility, scalability, and contribution to improved ERP project outcomes.
With continuous digitalisation growth and a widespread adoption of off-the-shelf ERP systems,
reports consistently highlight high failure rates in ERP implementation projects. Although there are
no precise statistics on ERP implementations success and failure rates, most scholars continuously
agree on a high number of unsuccessful projects that exceed timeline, scope, or budget [
To improve implementation success rates, ERP systems providers aim to standardise system
processes using a “best practices” approach, claiming it significantly reduces implementation efforts
and simplifies further maintenance. While ERP systems designed based on “best practices” were
introduced a while ago, the approach has been criticised [
At the same time, the new organisation management philosophy builds a new paradigm based on a completely different approach. There is a major tendency to switch to self-managed organisations based on decentralised organisational processes. With different names and theories such as Management 3.0, holacracy, teal organisation or reinventing organisation, the idea is the same - a transition from a typical hierarchical management pyramid with well predefined processes to the flat organisation of self-organised teams and no standards for processes. The belief is that engaged, self-motivated employees make better, faster decisions with given autonomy.
This causes a natural problem where predefined system processes could not be easily mapped
against existing business processes in the organisation. This results in gaps between system standard
functionality and organisational operational processes. Numerous studies highlight that the gap
between system capabilities and organisational needs - commonly termed a system-organisational
misfit - is a key factor behind project delays, budget overruns, and unmet business objectives
[
Multiple studies analyse the empiric misfit resolution cases and try to propose a resolution
framework [
While this paper does not present a full empirical case study, it is grounded in practical ERP implementation experience and literature synthesis. The primary goal is to design a theoretically robust and practically applicable misfit resolution framework. As a next step, the framework is planned to be tested in a real-world SAP Public Cloud implementation project to enable empirical validation and iterative refinement.
Summarising, the main research question is the following: how can system-organisational misfits in off-the-shelf ERP implementations be systematically diagnosed, prioritised, and resolved through a framework that is adaptable across industries and stages of the ERP lifecycle? The goal of the research is “to develop and evaluate a practical, empirically grounded framework that supports the systematic identification, classification, and resolution of system - organisational misfits in off-theshelf ERP implementations across diverse organisational contexts and lifecycle phases”.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: Section 2 defines and classifies system– organisational misfits based on existing literature. Section 3 outlines the development of the proposed resolution framework, including classification and process flow models. Section 4 presents key contextual factors influencing misfit resolution. Section 5 discusses the framework’s evaluation criteria, followed by limitations in Section 6 and conclusions in Section 7.
While widely used, the concept of 'misfit' itself is inconsistently defined across studies. Mostly, a
system–organisational misfit refers to a gap or mismatch between the capabilities, assumptions,
or structures embedded in an ERP (or other enterprise system) and the processes, rules, norms,
or needs of the adopting organisation [
Based on accumulated empirical experience and academic research, the ERP misfit definition could be proposed as “a misalignment between the built-in structures of an ERP system (data, processes, outputs, roles, norms) and those of the adopting organisation”. The clear misfit categorisation and prioritisation is an absolute first step in the further misfit resolution process. Therefore, within the proposed misfit definition, and based on the accumulated misfit multidimensional basis, there is also a need to build a diagnostic decision-support tool that will help practitioners to categorise and prioritise misfits accurately across industries and ERP lifecycle phases. The further building process of the misfit classification model with key diagnostic dimensions (Object, Depth, Nature) and prioritisation logic is shown in Figure 1.
The goal is to make the developed model easy to use; the assigned priority score has to be transparent. Next, the assigned priority score is to be used for further misfit resolution strategy as a part of a resolution framework.
In this context, the term “framework” refers to a structured, repeatable set of concepts, classifications, and steps that guide the identification and resolution of ERP misfits. The misfit classification model (Figure 1) provides the diagnostic foundation, while the resolution process flow (Figure 2) outlines the operational steps for addressing each misfit in context. Together, these artifacts form the core components of the proposed misfit resolution framework. The misfit resolution framework process flow, showing phases, checkpoints, and feedback loops throughout the ERP lifecycle is shown in Figure 2.
The process flow model presented above follows a linear yet feedback-enabled logic that mirrors the ERP lifecycle, beginning with misfit identification (fit-gap phase) and classification and advancing through stakeholder alignment, misfit solution design, implementation planning, deployment, and post-resolution review. Each step is verified both with topic-related academic literature and practical experience. Critical decision points (e.g., "Is the misfit clearly defined?") are integrated to ensure that premature or poorly informed actions are avoided. The model also incorporates escalation paths and adaptive loops, allowing teams to revisit earlier phases in response to implementation challenges or emergent insights. This makes the model especially suitable for dynamic and pluralistic environments where misfit resolution requires both strategic alignment and operational flexibility.
The model is designed in the attempts to avoid abstract misfit typologies, but to offer to practitioners a clear, pragmatic, decision-support tool that links specific misfit profiles with contextsensitive responses, such as organisational change, system reconfiguration, or workaround formalisation. The inclusion of checkpoints for stakeholder engagement, feasibility assessment, and training readiness reflects an awareness of change management factors empirically learnt during dozens of projects. Furthermore, the important feedback loop from deployment back to misfit rediagnosis enables ongoing refinement; it is designed with a purpose to strength the organisation’s ability to accept and adapt to future misalignments. The model is designed to be scalable across industries and ERP platforms and can be adapted to suit different governance structures. In sum, it is designed as a structured, stage-based process to guide organisations in diagnosing and resolving system–organisational misfits during ERP implementations.
The proposed misfit resolution framework was developed through a combination of structured
literature synthesis and reflective practitioner experience, aligned with principles of design science
research. First, a systematic literature review was conducted to identify and synthesise misfit
typologies, resolution strategies, and existing frameworks. Second, findings were validated against
empirical insights gathered from the author’s involvement in multiple ERP implementation projects,
with a focus on SAP products. This dual-source approach ensured both academic rigour and practical
relevance. The result is a conceptual framework that serves as a prototype to be validated in
subsequent real-world ERP projects, following a design–evaluate–refine logic as proposed in design
science research methodology [
Section 4 introduces key contextual factors that influence the success of misfit resolution in ERP implementations. Understanding these factors, ranging from organisational structure and system constraints to user perceptions and stakeholder roles, is essential for designing and applying resolution strategies that are both feasible and effective in real-world settings.
The organisational structure and culture significantly influence how misfits are perceived and
addressed [
Additionally, organisational business readiness to adopt is a subject of additional analysis and was continuously investigated by many researches along with suggestions on business readiness measurement methodologies [19,20]. It is also essential to understand the key factors related to an organisation's ability to adjust business processes and workflows, such as organisational hierarchy, previous ERP experience, industry regulations, etc.
The degree of flexibility allowed by the off-the-shelf ERP vendors or system architecture directly
affects the range of feasible resolution strategies. Product development roadmap provided by
vendors should always be considered [
Keywords should be separated by commas. Users’ perceptions of the system’s relevance and
fairness, often shaped by their roles, workloads, and previous experiences, play an important
role in misfit recognition and resolution [
The successful resolution of misfits depends on clearly defined stakeholder roles (business owners) [21]. Change management practices can facilitate discussions between users and technical teams, while IT ensures feasibility and compliance. Business owners provide strategic direction and validate process alignment. Without this coordinated engagement, resolution efforts may stall, lack ownership, or misalign with broader organisational goals.
To ensure a robust assessment of the framework’s utility, a combination of qualitative and
quantitative evaluation methods is planned, following guidance from established design science
research evaluation literature [
• • • •
The degree of process alignment, measured through pre- and post-implementation gap analysis to identify how well the ERP system supports actual business processes User satisfaction, reflecting the system’s perceived utility, usability, and acceptance across functional areas A reduction in workaround frequency, tracked through user feedback, operational tickets analysis, or audit trails, can signal improved fit between system design and operational needs Compliance to organisational IT KPI standards and governance protocols, as well as tangible benefits such as decreased resolution time, lower support costs, or fewer escalation cases
Methodologically, a combination of qualitative and quantitative techniques should be developed to ensure an assessment of framework performance. Pre- and post-resolution evaluations can involve structured interviews, stakeholder workshops, and analysis of operational tickets and related KPIs. Surveys could be administered to assess stakeholder perceptions of system fit, shared understanding of misfits, and confidence in the resolution process. In more complex or high-risk environments, longitudinal studies are particularly useful to track whether misfit resolutions hold over time or require further refinement. By implementing these data sources, organisations can develop a comprehensive understanding of resolution outcomes and continuously improve the effectiveness of the framework in various ERP lifecycle stages.
While the proposed model for misfit resolution framework offers a structured and adaptable approach to diagnosing and addressing ERP misalignments, it also contains limitations. First, its effectiveness relies heavily on the quality and consistency of stakeholder input, which can be influenced by organisational culture, power dynamics, and varying levels of ERP literacy. Second, although the framework is designed to be cross-industry, certain misfit types or resolution strategies may not easily applicable and might require adjustments, especially in highly specific regulated environments. Additionally, the framework assumes a degree of organisational maturity in terms of change management and cross-functional collaboration, which may not always be obvious. Finally, while it incorporates a feedback loop for continuous improvement, empirical validation across diverse ERP platforms and lifecycle phases is still needed to fully assess its scalability and generalisability. These limitations underscore the need for ongoing refinement and adjustments tailored to specific implementation environments.
This paper has addressed the critical and growing challenge of system - organisational misfits in offthe-shelf ERP implementations, where standardised system designs often conflict with the complex realities of modern organisations. Through the analysis of existing literature and empirical insights, the research has highlighted the fragmented nature of current resolution approaches and the need for a structured, cross-contextual framework. In response, a stage-based misfit resolution model draft has been proposed, integrating diagnostic classification, stakeholder involvement, and contextsensitive strategy selection.
The framework is designed to be practical, scalable, and applicable across ERP lifecycle phases and industry settings. It takes into account key influencing factors, such as organisational structure, system constraints, user perceptions, and governance roles, to enable more effective and sustainable resolution outcomes. The next step in this research is to operationalise the framework and apply it in real-world ERP implementation environments. This will enable empirical validation, iterative refinement, and assessment of its impact on alignment, system adaptability, and project success.
The scientific contribution of this paper refers to the ERP implementation literature by proposing a novel, multidimensional misfit resolution framework tailored for off-the-shelf systems such as SAP Public Cloud. It builds on existing misfit typologies and resolution strategies, integrating them into a structured, scalable decision-support model. Unlike previous studies that focus on isolated misfits or context-specific solutions, this framework offers a cross-contextual, phase-aware tool designed for both diagnostic and strategic use. It lays the foundation for future empirical validation and practical application.
During the preparation of this work, the author used GPT-4 and Grammarly in order to: Grammar and spelling check. After using these services, the author reviewed and edited the content as needed and takes full responsibility for the publication’s content. [19] K. Govindan, G. Arampatzis, A framework to measure readiness and barriers for the implementation of Industry 4.0: a case approach, electronic commerce research and applications 59 (2023). doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2023.101249. [20] Y. Xie, C. Allen, and M. Ali, Critical success factor based resource allocation in ERP implementation: a nonlinear programming model, Heliyon 8 (2022). doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10044. [21] W. Koning, The Main Cause of Problematic ERP Implementations: bad management or functional mismatches?, SSRN electronic journal 11 (2006). doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1676948.