Therefore companies have to decide on the suitable ERP software package meeting their acquirements ... set multi-criteria method (IFS) for selecting the ERP software selection process. ..... [10] Brown, C., and Vessey, I. (1999, January). ERP.
Vol. 5, No. 5 May 2014
ISSN 2079-8407
Journal of Emerging Trends in Computing and Information Sciences ©2009-2014 CIS Journal. All rights reserved. http://www.cisjournal.org
ERP Software Selection using IFS and GRA Methods 1 1
Yucel Ozturkoglu, 2 Ebru Esendemir
International Logistics Management Department, Yasar University, İzmir, Turkey 2 International Trade and Finance Department, Yasar University, İzmir, Turkey
ABSTRACT Enterprise resource planning (ERP) is like a modular, generic software package integrating the flow of information between departments in all logistics company. Furthermore extended ERP applications provide web-based connections between interdependent organizations like supply chain partners. In order to meet ever-changing needs of the logistics companies competing in dynamic environments, ERP vendors, regularly offer new business solutions or make modifications to the existing ones. Therefore companies have to decide on the suitable ERP software package meeting their acquirements from a diverse range of choices in the ERP market. Due to the failures resulting from misfit problems, ERP package selection is considered to be a strategic decision which has a significant effect on the company performance throughout the implementation stage. In this paper, we combine grey relational analysis (GRA) with an intuitionistic fuzzy set multi-criteria method (IFS) for selecting the ERP software selection process. First we obtain the weights with using IFS method and then rank and select the alternatives with using GRA. The real case study shows that proposed model significantly increase the efficiency of decision making procedure for the decision makers. Keywords: ERP, Intuitionistic fuzzy set, Grey relational analysis, Decision models
1. INTRODUCTION ERP is a modular, standard software package integrating business functions while offering a variety of business solutions for companies competing in dynamic markets (Brown and Vessey 1999). The common theme in explaining the evolution of ERP systems is that they are derived from material requirements planning / MRP and manufacturing resources planning / MRP II (Klaus 2000, Başoğlu 2007, Kumar and Hillegersberg 2003, Umble et al 2003, Al Mashari et al 2003, Jacobs and Weston 2007, Muscatello et al, Ngai et al 2008) software packages designed to increase efficiency in production companies. Subsequently the development of computer integrated manufacturing (CIM) providing integration for manufacturing functions (Klaus 2000) is followed by the breakthrough of ERP designed to meet the organizationwide information system needs of the companies. The purpose of ERP implementations is to control the information within the whole enterprise and even in the whole supply chain to obtain a competitive advantage (Genoulaz et al 2005). To serve this purpose ERP allows an expeditious information flow between departments through one single database providing real time access and integration (Nah et al 2001). Due to the availability of timely and appropriate information (Gupta 2000), successful ERP implementations lead to improvements in managing financial and physical resources including inventories and assets while helping managers in decision making process (Davenport 1998, Hawking et al 2004). Some of the expected benefits resulting from automation and integration (Nah et al 2001) are reductions in cycle time, supply chain and order management as well as capacity and inventory planning (Davenport 1998). To illustrate the inventory levels are reduced from 15 to 35 percent (Gupta 2000). In addition the internet based technologies allow suppliers to provide the needs of customers effectively leading to satisfaction
and customer loyalty (Rao 2000). On the whole, ERP applications have an impact on productivity, quality of outputs and customer satisfaction which all contribute to organization’s competitiveness (Stefanou 2001). New versions of ERP packages are being introduced by vendors regularly due to the changing needs of the companies (Kumar 2000). For instance, the recent ERP packages offer web based integration with suppliers (supply chain management – SCM), customers (customer relationship management – CRM) and businesses (Business to Business – B2B) (Stefanou 2001, Gupta 2000, Başoğlu 2007). As the requirements of the companies and the solutions provided by vendors get more complex, the risk of mismatch increases due to the varying needs, limited resources of the organizations (Wei 2005) and the generic nature of ERP. Mismatches between ERP packages and companies require complicated adaptations at organization and system level (Kumar 2000). An increase in customization resulting from adaptations, yield to higher implementation costs and longer implementation periods (Bingi 1999). The 2013 ERP Report by Panorama Consulting concludes that approximately while 61% of ERP projects exceeded their forecasted time periods while 53% of respondent organizations have to overspend (Panorama Consulting Solutions 2013). For instance in 2011 New York City Time reported hundreds of millions of cost overruns in payroll system project implemented by SAIC. There are global (SAP, Oracle and Microsoft) and local vendors offering a variety of products with a number of modules. Every ERP package has different attributes. In this respect, for successful ERP implementations companies have to choose the one which provides the best solutions according to the needs of the company (Brown and Vessey 1999, Somers and Nelson 2003). The differences in the company size, industry, business processes, customer profile etc. have an
363
Vol. 5, No. 5 May 2014
ISSN 2079-8407
Journal of Emerging Trends in Computing and Information Sciences ©2009-2014 CIS Journal. All rights reserved. http://www.cisjournal.org
influence on the characteristics of ERP packages. Company’s business needs and capabilities are evaluated in relation to ERP software specifications while the costs and benefits are estimated including both financial and non-financial measures for operational performance and strategic position of the organization (Stefanou 2001). For instance small and medium-sized organizations have different requirements than large companies (Buonanno et al 2005). While most ERP solutions have similarities they also have differences (Umble et al 2003). Every package has different strengths and weaknesses compared to individual business requirements. Some packages have more functional modules while some packages are specialised in certain industries so the optimal software and the modules is selected according to requirements and constraints of the company. (Stefanou 2001). Prior research activities related to critical success factors in ERP implementation include package selection as one of the key determinants (Al Mashari et al 2003, Somers and Nelson 2004, Brown and Vessey 1999, Somers and Nelson 2001- 2004, Finney and Corbett 2007, Ngai and Law 2008, Umble et al 2003, Dezdar and Sulaiman 2009, King and Burgess 2006). ERP implementation requires organization-wide process reengineering, change management and high resource commitment (Kumar 2003). The company applying ERP has to reengineer the business processes due to the standard nature of ERP. Therefore it is very difficult and expensive to undo the changes resulting from ERP applications (Bingi 1999). Hence selecting a suitable ERP package that fits with the needs of the company is an important strategic decision. For instance the respondents of a survey indicated that “best fit with current business procedures” is the most important criterion in selection of information technologies while “functionality” and “quality” are the most important criteria for vendor selection (Van Everdingen et al 2000). The failures in some companies show that ERP companies may not meet the companies’ requirements (Davenport 1998). According to the results of 2013 ERP Report 56 % of respondent organizations have received 50 % of the expected benefits from ERP implementations (Panorama Consulting, 2013). Hence, every year a number of companies file lawsuits against vendors due to failures in ERP Projects. A decision making model will help companies to choose the best alternative for their needs, will lower the misfit risks, save time and resources. This study proposes a systematic ERP selection model (decision making model) to gain from benefits of ERP. Stefanou (2001) classifies the factors that need to be considered in the evaluation process as strategic level factors and operational level factors. He proposes a conceptual framework of ERP software ex-ante evaluation. In addition, a thirteen step selection process is developed by Umble (2003). Baki and Çakar (2005) proposed a total of 17 main selection criteria through literature review and interviews with managers while Rao (2000) identified five criteria for selection of ERP for
SMEs. Further Mexas et al (2012) proposed five main criteria and 45 sub-criteria to support ERP system selection. Lien and Chen (2007) have chosen ISO 9126 software quality characteristics for ERP product aspect in their fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) model. Franch and Carvallo (2003) propose a structured quality model which relies on ISO 9126 quality standard. Kararslan and Gundogar (2009) used AHP method to select the appropriate ERP software while analysing the modules needed by the company. Perera et al (2008) proposed model based on AHP using seven key criteria and related sub-criteria to be considered in the selection of ERP software. Yazgan et al (2009) introduces applications of ANP and ANN methods in ERP selection. Ptak (2000) used scoring method for ERP selection. Badri and Davis (2001) adopted 0-1 goal programming for package system. Bernroider and Stix (2006) applied utility ranking and DEA methods. AHP is another commonly used method for ERP selection, Teltumbde (2000), Wei et. al (2005) used that method in a different perspective. Ravi et al (2005) developed ANP model and Ayag and Ozdemir (2007) adopted ANP with fuzzy sets. Karsak and Ozogul (2009) developed a novel decision framework for ERP software selection based on quality function deployment (QFD), fuzzy linear regression and zero-one goal programming. Up to now, researchers have applied various techniques to select ERP package. To best of our knowledge, this is the first study to combine IFS and GRA methods for ERP System selection. Proposed method is just used for personnel selection by Zhang and Liu (2011).
2. METHODOLOGY Zadeh (1965) introduced fuzzy sets concepts in the research area. After this date, many researchers have focused on this issue. One of the most important developments of the concept, Intuitionistic fuzzy set (IFS), Atanassov (1986) found by generalizing the concept of fuzzy set. Deschrijver and Kerre (2003) defined that fuzzy sets give the degree of membership of an element in a given set; IFS’s give both a degree of membership and a degree of non-membership. Deng (1989) developed grey relational analysis (GRA) method to solve multi criteria decision problems. Zhang and Liu (2011) mentioned that GRA method can measured the degree of similarity and difference between two sequences based on the relation. So GRA method has applied different type of multiple attribute decision making (MADM) problems such as supplier selection, personnel section, warehouse location selection and ERP package selection. In this paper we combine two methods for taking into account a number of criteria; the selection will be the best ERP package system among multiple alternatives.
364
Vol. 5, No. 5 May 2014
ISSN 2079-8407
Journal of Emerging Trends in Computing and Information Sciences ©2009-2014 CIS Journal. All rights reserved. http://www.cisjournal.org
2.1 Basic Definitions We first define the basic concept of fuzzy sets and some properties of the IFSs measures. Definition 1: Let X be a universe of discourse, then assign each element x in the interval [0, 1]. Definition 2: A triangular fuzzy number can be defined by a triplet ( ). denotes the degree of membership of the element x to the set A, denotes the degree of non-membership of the element x to the set A and called the degree of indeterminacy of x to A. Definition 3: A fuzzy set A defined in space X is a set of pairs;
Table1: Linguistic Variables and IFNs for the importance of Decision Maker Linguistic Variables
IFNs
Extreme low
(0.05, 0.95, 0.00)
Very low
(0.15, 0.80, 0.05)
Low
(0.25, 0.65, 0.10)
Medium low
(0.35, 0.55, 0.10)
Medium
(0.50, 0.40, 0.10)
High
(0.75, 0.15, 0.10)
Very high
(0.85, 0.10, 0.05)
Extreme high
(0.95, 0.05, 0.00)
The second stage begins with the appointment of the importance levels of the each decision makers. To translate the importance with the linguistic variables, Table 2 can be used. Table2: Linguistic Variables for the importance of Decision Maker
Definition 4: For each fuzzy set, A in X if;
Definition 5: Let
Linguistic Variables IFNs
and be two IFNs, then distance
between
and
is defined as follows;
very importance
(0.90, 0.05, 0.05)
Importance
(0.75, 0.20, 0.05)
Medium
(0.50, 0.40, 0.10)
Unimportance
(0.25, 0.60, 0.15)
Very unimportance (0.10, 0.80, 0.10)
After using Table 2 to convert the linguistic variables into IFNs, determine the weights of each decision makers with using equation which is proposed by Boran et. al (2009);
2.2 Steps of the Proposed Method Wei (2010) applied the same method to select best investment option for their company. But in mentioned study, they ignored the entropy weights of the criteria. In proposed method, we also include entropy weights of the each criterion. The stepwise representation of the proposed method is given below; In the first stage intuitionistic fuzzy decision making matrix is built. All kind of decision problems can be expressed in matrix form which columns represent criteria (n) and the rows represent decision alternatives (m). In that step, each decision makers use Table 1 to rate the each alternative with respect to criteria.
The third stage is constructing an aggregated intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix according to the opinions of decision makers. Xu (2007) presented an equation to obtain the matrix;
The following stage is determining the entropy weights of the criteria. Firstly, calculate the intuitionistic fuzzy entropy with using Vlachos and Sergiadis (2007)’s equation;
365
Vol. 5, No. 5 May 2014
ISSN 2079-8407
Journal of Emerging Trends in Computing and Information Sciences ©2009-2014 CIS Journal. All rights reserved. http://www.cisjournal.org
= and then obtain the weights of the each criteria by using given equation; = To calculate the grey relational coefficient, the reference sequence is needed. The reference sequence is defined as , so the maximum value should be used as the reference value. Afterward, entire grey relational coefficient of each alternative can be calculated by using the following equation;
The priorities of the alternatives can be determined based on the grey relational grade which is given below;
custom services to their customers. A firm wants to select suitable ERP package for the organization. The firm teaming up with four decision makers (d1, d2, d3, d4) to select the most appropriate ERP package. Decision makers obtained five criteria from Mexas et al. (2012) study’s; financial (c1), business (c2), software (c3 ), technological (c4) and vendor (c5 ). This is a kind of multi criteria decision making problem and we applied proposed method which is given in the previous section. At the first stage of problem, each decision maker uses the Table 1 variables and determines rate the each alternative with respect to criteria. ERP package selection is related with lots of department. So decision makers composed of employees of different positions of the company. The severity ratings are as follows according to their position; d1: very important, d2: important, d3: important, d4: medium. We translated this information into linguistic variables with using Table 2. Afterward, we calculated the decision maker’s weights as listed in Table 3. Table 3: Weights of decision makers weights of decision makers
In the last stage, rank all the alternatives; the highest value of grey relational grades is the most important alternative.
3. CASE STUDY In this section, we face with the real industrial application to select the ERP software system in a logistics company. The logistics service provider is located in the biggest city of the Turkey, Istanbul. The firm offers transportation, warehousing, packaging and
λ1
0,3074
λ2
0,2561
λ3
0,2561
λ4
0,1802
To bring close together all individuals’ opinion, we used Xu (2007) equation’s to obtain the group opinion decision matrix as listed in Table 4.
Table 4: Aggregated decision Matrix 1 Alter.
Criteria 3
2
4
5
0,735
0,544
0,079
0,729
0,552
0,072
0,900
0,089
0,039
0,711
0,294
0,085
0,899
0,279
0,032
0,580
0,351
0,100
0,497
0,391
0,083
0,591
0,268
0,100
0,789
0,273
0,075
0,639
0,649
0,091
0,607
0,578
0,045
0,294
0,846
0,050
0,802
0,184
0,075
0,541
0,368
0,100
0,588
0,328
0,087
0,428
0,704
0,070
0,662
0,533
0,100
0,813
0,176
0,072
0,624
0,249
0,070
0,744
0,607
0,045
Assuming that all of the criteria set by the decision-makers might not be of equal importance, thus we found the weights of each criterion which is given by in Table 5 & 6.
Table 5: Intuitionistic fuzzy entropy intuitionistic fuzzy entropy H1
0,690
H2
0,664
H3
0,537
H4
0,692
H5
0,704
366
Vol. 5, No. 5 May 2014
ISSN 2079-8407
Journal of Emerging Trends in Computing and Information Sciences ©2009-2014 CIS Journal. All rights reserved. http://www.cisjournal.org
The values of the grey relational coefficient are given in Table 7
Table 6: Weights of each criterion entropy weights of the criteria w1
0,181
w2
0,196
w3
0,271
w4
0,180
w5
0,173
Table 7: Grey relational coefficient
ξ =
1
2
3
4
5
0,444
0,448
0,114
0,334
0,206
0,435
0,488
0,388
0,280
0,550
0,508
0,801
0,228
0,463
0,414
0,673
0,486
0,218
0,348
0,454
The relative relational degree of each alternative is given in Table 8. Table 8: Grey relational grade grey relational grade ɣ1
0,181
ɣ2
0,196
ɣ3
0,271
ɣ4
0,180
ɣ5
0,173
Figure1: Ranking the alternatives based on relational degree In the illustrative example, there are five different ERP packages alternatives. After the calculations, based on the grey relational grades,
alternative 3 is the best ERP software system for the company.
367
Vol. 5, No. 5 May 2014
ISSN 2079-8407
Journal of Emerging Trends in Computing and Information Sciences ©2009-2014 CIS Journal. All rights reserved. http://www.cisjournal.org
on ERP systems. Computers in Industry, 56(6), 510-522.
4. CONCLUSION ERP package selection is considered to be a strategic decision which has a significant effect on the company performance throughout the implementation stage. For successful ERP implementations companies have to choose the one which provides the best solutions according to the needs of the company. Companies have to take into account a number of criteria in this important decision. Having regard to the selection criteria is quite difficult to choose among many alternatives. In this paper we combine GRA method with IFN set to select the ERP software selection process. The real case study shows that proposed model significantly increase the efficiency of decision making procedure for the decision makers. This research can be useful in the decision making area. The managers and all kind of decision makers are the likely users. In the future study, proposed method can be used for other multi criteria decision problems.
[10]
Brown, C., and Vessey, I. (1999, January). ERP implementation approaches: toward a contingency framework. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference on Information Systems (pp. 411-416). Association for Information Systems.
[11]
Buonanno, G., Faverio, P., Pigni, F., Ravarini, A., Sciuto, D., and Tagliavini, M. (2005). Factors affecting ERP system adoption: A comparative analysis between SMEs and large companies. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 18(4), 384-426.
[12]
Davenport, T. H. (1998). Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system. Harvard business review, 76(4).
[13]
Deng, J. L. (1989). Introduction to grey system theory. The Journal of Grey System, 1(1), 1–24.
[14]
Deschrijver, G. and Kerre, E.E. (2003). On the relationship between some extensions of fuzzy set theory, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 133(2), 227-236.
[15]
Dezdar, S., and Sulaiman, A. (2009). Successful enterprise resource planning implementation: taxonomy of critical factors. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 109(8), 1037-1052.
[16]
Finney, S., and Corbett, M. (2007). ERP implementation: a compilation and analysis of critical success factors. Business Process Management Journal, 13(3), 329-347.
[17]
Franch, X., and Carvallo, J. P. (2003). Using quality models in software package selection. Software, IEEE, 20(1), 34-41.
[18]
Basoglu, N., Daim, T., & Kerimoglu, O. (2007). Organizational adoption of enterprise resource planning systems: A conceptual framework. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 18(1), 73-97.
Gupta, A. (2000). Enterprise resource planning: the emerging organizational value systems. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 100(3), 114-118.
[19]
Bernroider, W. N., and Stix, V. (2006). Profile distance method-A multi-attribute decision making approach for information system investments. Decision Support Systems, 42(2), 988–998.
Hawking, P., Stein, A., and Foster, S. (2004). Revisiting ERP systems: benefit realization. In System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 8pp). IEEE.
[20]
Robert Jacobs, F., and Ted-Weston, F. C. (2007). Enterprise resource planning (ERP)—A brief history. Journal of Operations Management, 25(2), 357-363.
[21]
Karaarslan, N., and Gundogar, E. (2009). An application for modular capability-based ERP software selection using AHP method. The
REFERENCES [1]
[2]
Al-Mashari M.A., Al-Mudimigh A., Zairi M. (2003). Enterprise resource planning: taxonomy of critical factors. European Journal of Operational Research, 146 352-364. Atanassov,K. (1986) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 20 87–96.
[3]
Ayag, Z. and Ozdemir, R.G. (2007). An intelligent approach to ERP software selection through fuzzy ANP, International Journal of Production Research, 45 (10), 2169-2194.
[4]
Badri, M.A. and Davis, D. (2001). A comprehensive 0-1 goal programming model for project selection, International Journal of Project Management, 19(4), 243-252.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
Baki, B., & Cakar, K. (2005). Determining the ERP package-selecting criteria: the case of Turkish manufacturing companies. Business Process Management Journal, 11(1), 75-86.
Bingi, P., Sharma, M. K., and Godla, J. K. (1999). Critical issues affecting an ERP implementation. Information systems management, 16(3), 7-14. Botta-Genoulaz, V., Millet, P. A., and Grabot, B. (2005). A survey on the recent research literature
368
Vol. 5, No. 5 May 2014
ISSN 2079-8407
Journal of Emerging Trends in Computing and Information Sciences ©2009-2014 CIS Journal. All rights reserved. http://www.cisjournal.org
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 42(9), 1025-1033. [22]
[23]
Karsak, E.E. and Ozogul, C.O. (2009). An integrated decision making approach for ERP system selection, Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 660-667. King, S. F., and Burgess, T. F. (2006). Beyond critical success factors: A dynamic model of enterprise system innovation. International Journal of Information Management, 26(1), 59-69.
[24]
Klaus, H., Rosemann, M., & Gable, G. G. (2000). What is ERP? Information Systems Frontiers, 2(2), 141-162.
[25]
Kumar, K., & Van Hillegersberg, J. (2000). ERP experiences and evolution. Communications of the ACM, 43(4), 23-26.
[26]
Kumar, V., Maheshwari, B., and Kumar, U. (2003). An investigation of critical management issues in ERP implementation: empirical evidence from Canadian organizations. Technovation, 23(10), 793-807.
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
Lien, C. T., and Chan, H. L. (2007). A selection model for ERP system by applying fuzzy AHP approach. International Journal of the Computer, The Internet and Management, 15(3), 58-72. Méxas, M. P., Quelhas, O. L. G., and Costa, H. G. (2012). Prioritization of enterprise resource planning systems criteria: Focusing on construction industry. International Journal of Production Economics. Muscatello, J. R., Small, M. H., and Chen, I. J. (2003). Implementing enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems in small and midsize manufacturing firms. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 23(8), 850-871. Nah, F. F. H., Lau, J. L. S., and Kuang, J. (2001). Critical factors for successful implementation of enterprise systems. Business process management journal, 7(3), 285-296. Ngai, E. W., Law, C. C., and Wat, F. K. (2008). Examining the critical success factors in the adoption of enterprise resource planning. Computers in Industry, 59(6), 548-564. Perera, H. S. C., and Costa, W. K. R. (2008). Analytic hierarchy process for selection of ERP software for manufacturing companies. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective, 12(4), 1-11.
[33]
Ptak, C. A. (2000). ERP tools, techniques, and applications for integrating the supply chain. New York: St Lucie Press.
[34]
Ravi, V., Shankar, R., and Tiwari, M. K. (2005). Analyzing alternatives in reserve logistics for endof-life computers: ANP and balanced scorecard approach. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 48, 327–356.
[35]
Somers, T. M., and Nelson, K. (2001, January). The impact of critical success factors across the stages of enterprise resource planning implementations. In System Sciences, 2001. Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 10-pp). IEEE.
[36]
Somers, T. M., and Nelson, K. G. (2004). A taxonomy of players and activities across the ERP project life cycle. Information & Management, 41(3), 257-278.
[37]
Stefanou, C. J. (2001). A framework for the ex-ante evaluation of ERP software. European Journal of Information Systems, 10(4), 204-215.
[38]
Teltumbde, A. (2000). A framework for evaluating ERP projects, International Journal of Production Research, 38, 4507–4520.
[39]
Umble, E. J., Haft, R. R., & Umble, M. M. (2003). Enterprise resource planning: Implementation procedures and critical success factors. European journal of operational research, 146(2), 241-257.
[40]
Van Everdingen, Y., Van Hillegersberg, J., & Waarts, E. (2000). Enterprise resource planning: ERP adoption by European midsize companies. Communications of the ACM, 43(4), 27-31.
[41]
Wei, C.-C., Chien, C.-F., and Wang, M.-J. J. (2005). An AHP based approach to ERP system selection. International Journal of Production Economics, 96, 47–62.
[42]
Wei, G.W. (2010) GRA method for multiple attribute decision making with incomplete weight information in intuitionistic fuzzy setting, Knowledge-Based Systems, 23, 243-247.
[43]
Zadeh L.A(1965). Fuzzy sets, Information and Control 8, pp. 338–353.
[44]
Zhang, S.F and Liu, S.Y. (2011), A GRA based intuitionistic fuzzy multi-criteria group decision making method for personnel selection, Expert Systems with Application, 38, 11401-11405.
369
Vol. 5, No. 5 May 2014
ISSN 2079-8407
Journal of Emerging Trends in Computing and Information Sciences ©2009-2014 CIS Journal. All rights reserved. http://www.cisjournal.org
[45]
Yazgan, H. R., Boran, S., & Goztepe, K. (2009). An ERP software selection process with using artificial neural network based on analytic network process approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(5), 9214-9222.
370
