The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-5577.htm

The influence of external factors

on routine ERP usage

ERP usage

Simona Sternad
Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia

1511

Miro Gradisar
Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia, and

Samo Bobek

Received 1 March 2011

Revised 7 June 2011
Accepted 10 June 2011

Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia

Abstract
Purpose Enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems have been implemented in most
organizations for a few years. ERP solutions go through three phases of lifecycle: selection,
implementation and operation phase; the operation phase consists of the stabilization stage and the
routine stage. To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of ERP system use in the operation phase,
organizations need to research the factors that have impact on users satisfaction. The literature shows
that few published studies have examined users adoption of ERP systems through a technological
acceptance model (TAM) or examined external factors that have influence the intention to use an ERP
system, or ERP use in the stabilization stage. The purpose of this paper is to expose and research
external factors which have influence on ERP users in the operation phase of ERP lifecycle and to
investigate the impact of those factors on ERP system use.
Design/methodology/approach The TAM proposed by Davis has been the most widely-used
model for researching user acceptance and usage of information technology/information systems.
Despite the existence of several additions to TAM connected with ERP use, the authors aim to make
further contribution in the area of external factors. Within this context the present research is focused
on the mature use of ERP system (more than one year of ERP use in an organization). A limited
number of external factors mentioned in already published papers connected with TAM regarding
ERP use has also been extended. The authors have researched the effect of external factors through the
second-order factors on the original TAM. The model has been empirically tested using the data
collected from a survey of 161 ERP users from a national telecom company, which has been using an
ERP system since 1999. The model has been analysed using PLS approach.
Findings The study shows that extended external factors observed through the second-order
factors have important influence on ERP usefulness and ERP ease of use; they also have a strong
influence on the attitude toward using ERP system by ERP users in the routine (maturity) stage.
Originality/value The paper researches the factors which have an impact on ERP solution use in
the routine (mature) stage of ERP lifecycle. The paper adds to the literature, in that few previous
studies have examined the users adoption of ERP systems through the TAM or examined external
factors that have influence on the intention to use an ERP system or ERP use in the stabilization stage.
Keywords Slovenia, Manufacturing resource planning, Resource management,
Enterprise resource planning, ERP, Technological acceptance model, TAM, Partial least squares, PLS,
Second-order factors
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems are integrated, all-encompassing, complex
mega packages designed to support key functional areas of organizations (Adam and
Sammon, 2004). They integrate information from various sources inside and outside

Industrial Management & Data

Systems
Vol. 111 No. 9, 2011
pp. 1511-1530
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0263-5577
DOI 10.1108/02635571111182818

IMDS
111,9

1512

the organization and can provide real-time data to employees and organizational
partners (Motiwalla and Thompson, 2009). ERP solutions have been adopted by many
large organizations (Momoh et al., 2010) and are a basic tool for enterprises seeking to
merge supply chain management systems and integrate inter-company and
international collaborative operations across entire industry processes (Yu, 2005).
ERP systems have been shown to reduce the time to complete business processes and
help organizations share information (Olhager and Selldin, 2003; Lee et al., 2010),
facilitating an integrated and coordinated work flow among supply chain stakeholders.
As with other information systems (IS), ERP system adoption typically follows three
lifecycle phases: selection, implementation and operation, the latter of which can be
divided into a stabilization stage and a routine stage. Most literature on ERP solutions is
focused on either evaluating the appropriateness of the ERP system vis-a`-vis software,
vendors, or consultants, or identifying critical successful factors (CSFs) affecting ERP
selection and implementation (Yu, 2005), but less effort is given to identifying
potential post-implementation impact (Gattiker and Goodhue, 2005). Several CSFs have
been identified in the selection and implementation phases, including: top management
support and involvement; clear goals, objectives, scope and planning; project team
competence and organization; user training and education; business process
reengineering; change management; effective communication; project management;
user involvement; data analysis and conversion; consultants; project sponsor;
architecture choice; and minimal customization (Welti, 1999; Al-Sehali, 2000; Parr and
Shanks, 2000; Skok and Legge, 2002; Zhang et al., 2002; Zhang et al., 2002; Akkermans
and Helden, 2002; Stratman, 2002; Gattiker and CFPIM, 2002; Umble et al., 2002;
Mabert et al., 2003; Al-Mashari et al., 2003; Bradford and Florin, 2003; Somers and
Nelson, 2003; Gargeya and Brady, 2005; Ngai et al., 2007; Finney and Corbett, 2007;
Wang et al., 2007; Bobek and Sternad, 2010). CSFs are not equally important in all phases
of the ERP lifecycle, however (Bobek and Sternad, 2010); some influence operational
effectiveness as well as implementation (Gattiker and Goodhue, 2005).
Much of the success of ERP implementation resides in the operational
phase (Bradford, 2008; Motiwalla and Thompson, 2009). In the stabilization stage,
ERP systems go through a post-implementation breaking-in period in which
performance may not be typical of the long-term effects an organization might
experience (Gattiker and Goodhue, 2005). In the routine stage, ERP systems might be
implemented successfully from a technical perspective, but success depends on ERP
users attitudes toward and actual use of the system (Boudreau, 2002; Kwahk and Lee,
2008). ERP systems benefit organizations only to the extent that users accept and utilize
them frequently and extensively. To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of ERP
systems in the operation phase, organizations need to research the factors that impact
user satisfaction. In this area, the technological acceptance model (TAM) is widely used
for explaining behavioural intent and usage; it can enhance understanding influences
that increase the efficiency and effectiveness of ERP system use (Shih and Huang, 2009).
Several researchers have applied TAM to examine ERP system use (Calisir et al., 2009;
Shih and Huang, 2009; Sun et al., 2009; Youngberg et al., 2009; Lee et al., 2010), but
few scholars have examined multiple external factors that influence intent to use an ERP
system or ERP system usage in the stabilization stage. Although a small number of
external factors fail to illuminate user opinions about specific systems

(Agarwal and Prasad, 1999; Lu et al., 2003; Sun et al., 2009), most studies address only a
small number of external factors.
The goal of the present study is to explore a large number of external factors which
potentially influence attitudes and behaviour regarding ERP use in the operational
phase of the ERP lifecycle. Because of the large sample size required to apply TAM to
multiple individual variables, we combine external factors into three groups: personal
characteristics and information literacy (PCIL); system and technological
characteristics (STC), and; organizational-process characteristics (OPC) (Figure 1).
To test these factors, we collected survey data from a national telecom company where
an ERP system has been in operation for several years, and we employed partial least
squares (PLS) to analyse the data.

ERP usage

1513

2. TAM and ERP systems

Several theories have been used to explain the acceptance and use of information
technology (IT), including, reasoned action (TRA; Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975), planned
behaviour (TPB; Ajzen, 1991), and the TAM (Davis et al., 1989). Compared to other
theories, TAM is believed to be highly parsimonious, predicative and robust (Venkatesh
and Davis, 2000; Lu et al., 2003; Liu and Ma, 2006), thus, it is commonly employed by
IS/IT researchers (Davis, 1989; Davis et al., 1989; Amoako-Gyampah and Salam, 2004;
Lee et al., 2010). TAM posits that two beliefs 2 perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived
ease of use (PEOU) 2 are of primary relevance for acceptance behaviour (Davis et al.,
1989). PU is defined as the degree to which a person believes that using a particular
system would enhance his or her job performance (Davis, 1989, p. 320). PEOU refers to
the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be free of
effort (Davis, 1989, p. 320). The two central hypotheses in TAM state that PU and PEOU
positively influence an individuals attitude about a technology which in turn influences
his or her intent and actual use of the technology. TAM also predicts that PEOU
positively influences PU, as Davis et al. (1989, p. 987) put it: effort saved due to the
improved PEOU may be redeployed, enabling a person to accomplish more work for the
same effort. The key purpose of TAM is to provide a basis for measuring the impact of
external factors on internal beliefs, attitudes and intentions (Davis et al., 1989). The
original TAM is well established and tested and a variety of extensions regarding
external factors have been developed.
Several studies (Umble et al., 2002; Nah et al., 2004) suggest that ERP failure is related
to user attitudes toward ERP systems. Few studies, however, have investigated ERP
Organizational
Process
Characteristics

ERP Usefulness

Attitude to
ERP system

System and
Technological
Characteristics
Personal
Characteristics and
Information Literacy

ERP Ease of Use

TAM

Figure 1.
Research model

IMDS
111,9

user acceptance and usage utilizing TAM, and most of these investigate a small number
of external factors in the operational phase of the ERP lifecycle (Table I). Because ERP
systems are complex and complex systems decrease usefulness and ease of use
(Momoh et al., 2010), a better understanding of the factors influencing user acceptance of
ERP systems is necessary to facilitate successful ERP system usage (Nah et al., 2004).

1514

3. External factors of TAM related to ERP systems

Several researchers have examined the antecedents of PU and PEOU in IS and IT. As
noted by Venkatesh and Davis (2000), a better understanding of these factors would
enable more effective organizational interventions that lead to increased acceptance and
use of systems. Venkatesh and Davis (2000) proposed an extension of TAM TAM2
by identifying six determinants of PU: subjective norm, image, job relevance, output
quality, results demonstrability and PEOU. Venkatesh (2000) developed a model of the
determinants of PEOU, which include: computer self-efficacy, computer anxiety,
computer playfulness and perceptions of external control (or facilitating conditions).
Venkatesh and Bala (2008) combined TAM2 (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000) and the model
of the determinants of PEOU (Venkatesh, 2000) and developed an integrated model of
technology acceptance, which they labelled TAM3.
Even though TAM can be applied to a variety of technologies, the constructs of TAM
need to be extended by customizing factors for specific IS (Calisir et al., 2009). Schwarz
(2003) grouped the antecedents of PEOU and PU into three sets: individual variables
(e.g. computer experience, self-efficacy, prior experiences), organizational influences
(e.g. management and external support, perceived resources) and technology
characteristics (e.g. accessibility of the medium and interface type). Additionally, four
external factors appear to influence individual variables: computer experience,
computer self-efficiency, technological innovativeness and computer anxiety (Table II).
We name this group of individual factors PCIL.
Based on prior research regarding ERP systems we placed external factors into two
groups: one that represents STC and the one that represents OPC. External factors in the
STC group include: data quality, ERP system functionality, ERP system performance,
and user manual helpfulness. Included in the OPT group are: social influence, fit with
business processes, training and education in the ERP system, ERP support and ERP
communications. In these two groups, we are trying to capture a large number of CSF
which influence ERP users during the operational phase. Groups of external factors
mentioned by authors which impact IS use are shown in Table II.
4. Theoretical foundation for hypotheses development
TAM has been tested primarily on technologies that are relatively simple and
voluntary (e.g. e-mail, word processors). Several researchers (Nah et al., 2004) have
recommended that TAM be revised to address user attitude, intent and behaviour
when applied to complex IT in organizational settings where usage is generally
considered mandatory (Nah et al., 2004). Because ERP users impact others, they do not
have the choice to avoid the system, regardless of their attitudes about ERP systems.
A conceptual model extending TAM in these directions is shown in Figure 1.
The grey area within the dotted line denotes the original TAM. Because our
research is focused on groups of external factors which influence routine ERP usage,
there is no need to examine intent (Pijpers and Montfort, 2006; Simon and Paper, 2007).

Reference

Focus

Lifecycle phase

Nah et al. (2004)

The impact of four cognitive constructors (PU,

PEOU, perceived compatibility, and perceived fit)
on attitudes toward using ERP systems and
symbolic adoption
The impact of one belief construct (shared beliefs
in the benefits of a technology) and two
technology success factors (training and
communications) on PU and PEOU in one global
organization
Student readiness for change (through gender,
computer self-efficacy, and perceived benefits of
ERP) on behavioural intention regarding the ERP
implementation
The relationship between training satisfaction
and PEOU, PU, effectiveness and efficiency in
implementing an ERP system at a mid-sized
university
The impact of PU and PEOU on extended use

Post-implementation
(stabilization stage)

Amoako-Gyampah and
Salam (2004)

Shivers-Blackwell and
Charles (2006)

Bradley and Lee (2007)

Hsieh and Wang (2007)

Kwahk and Lee (2008)

Bueno and Salmeron

(2008)

Uzoka et al. (2008)

Sun et al. (2009)

Shih and Huang (2009)

Calisir et al. (2009)

Youngberg et al. (2009)

Lee et al. (2010)

Readiness for change (enhanced by two factors:

organizational commitment and perceived
personal competence) and its effect on the
perceived technological value of an ERP system
leading to its use
A research model based on TAM for testing the
influence of selected CSF (top management
support, communication, cooperation, training,
and technological complexity) on ERP
implementation
The application of TAM to the selection and use of
ERP systems in organizations using: impact of
system quality, information quality, service
quality and support quality as key determinants
of cognitive response
Impacts on IT usage such as the role of ERPs
perceived work compatibility with user intention,
usage and performance in work settings
Behavioural intention and actual use as impacted
by top management support, computer selfefficacy and computer anxiety
Factors (subjective norms, compatibility, gender,
experience, and education level) that affect
behavioural intention to use an ERP system based
on potential ERP users at one manufacturing
organization
The impact of PEOU, results demonstrability, and
subjective norms on PU and their impact on usage
behaviour
Factor organizational support (formal and
informal) on original TAM factors

Implementation

ERP usage

1515

Implementation

Implementation

Post-implementation
(routine stage)
Post-implementation
(stabilization stage)

Implementation

Selection

Post-implementation
(routine stage)
Post-implementation
(routine stage)
Implementation

Post-implementation
(stabilization stage)
Post-implementation

Table I.
ERP literature review
regarding TAM

IMDS
111,9

External
factors
PCIL
Computer
experience

1516

Table II.
External factors
mentioned by authors

Authors
Davis et al. (1989), Venkatesh et al. (2003),
Thompson et al. (2006), Venkatesh and Bala
(2008), Calisir et al. (2009)
Venkatesh and Davis (2000), Venkatesh et al.
(2003), Thompson et al. (2006), ShiversBlackwell and Charles (2006), Venkatesh and
Bala (2008), Shih and Huang (2009)

Description

Experience with computer has been found to

be an important factor for the acceptance of a
technology (Calisir et al., 2009)
Computer selfComputer self-efficiency is the degree to
efficiency
which an individual believes that he/she has
the ability to perform a specific task/job
using the computer (Venkatesh and Bala,
2008; Shih and Huang, 2009)
Technological Agarwal and Prasad (1999), Rogers (2003), Technological innovativeness represents the
innovativeness Yi et al. (2006), Thompson et al. (2006)
degree to which an individual is willing to try
out a new IT (Agarwal and Prasad, 1999)
Computer
Venkatesh et al. (2003), Liu and Ma (2006),
Computer anxiety represents the degree of an
anxiety
Venkatesh and Bala (2008), Shih and Huang individuals apprehension, or even fear, when
(2009)
she/he is faced with the possibility of using
computers (Venkatesh et al., 2003)
STC
ERP data
Venkatesh (1998), Venkatesh and Davis
Without accurate and relevant data, an
quality
(2000), Gattiker and Goodhue (2005),
organization is severely constrained in the
Kositanurit et al. (2006), Insiti (2007)
coordination and task efficiency benefits it
can achieve from its ERP system (Gattiker
and Goodhue, 2005)
ERP system
Musaji (2002), Somers et al. (2003), Lu et al. System functions are used to measure the
functionality
(2003), Kositanurit et al. (2006), Insiti (2007) rapid response, stability, easy usage and
flexibility of the system (Lu et al., 2003)
ERP system
Boudreau (2002), Musaji (2002), Venkatesh
ERP system performance refers to the degree
performance
et al. (2003), Somers et al. (2003), Kositanurit to which person believes that a system is
et al. (2006), Liu and Ma (2006), Insiti (2007) reliable and responsive during a normal
course of operations (Liu and Ma, 2006)
User manual
Kelley (2001), Boudreau (2002), Musaji (2002), The degree to which an individual views
helpfulness
Kositanurit et al. (2006), Bradford (2008)
inadequate user manuals as the reason for
unsuccessful ERP performance (Kelley, 2001)
OPC
Social
Venkatesh (1998), Venkatesh et al. (2003),
Social influence joins two factors: subjective
influence
Thompson et al. (2006), Bradford (2008),
norms and social factors. Subjective norms
Calisir et al. (2009)
are defined as a persons perception that
most people who are important to him/her
think that he/she should or should not
perform the behaviour in question
(Venkatesh, 1998). Social factors are an
individuals internalization of the reference
groups subjective culture, and specific
interpersonal agreements that the individual
has made with others in specific social
situations (Venkatesh et al., 2003)
Fit with
Amoako-Gyampah and Salam (2004), Nah
Fit with business processes from an endbusiness
et al. (2004), Bradley and Lee (2007), Bradford users perspective is the degree to which the
processes
(2008), Bobek and Sternad (2010)
ERP system perceived by a user meets his/
her organizations needs (Nah et al., 2004)
ERP training
Amonko-Gyampah and Salam (2004),
ERP training and education is defined as the
and education Bradley and Lee (2007), Bueno and Salmeron degree to which a user thinks that he/she has
(2008), Bobek and Sternad (2010)
had enough formal and informal training
after ERP implementation
(continued)

ERP usage

External
factors

Authors

ERP support

Boudreau (2002), Lee et al. (2010)

Description

We define ERP support as the degree to

which an individual views adequate ERP
support as the reason for ones successful
ERP usage
ERP
Kelley (2001), Musaji (2002), Boudreau (2002), ERP communication problems refer to the
communication Amoako-Gyampah and Salam (2004), Bueno lack of communication regarding the ERP
and Salmeron (2008), Bobek and Sternad
applications and their modifications (Kelley,
(2010)
2001)

Researchers have found support for TAM in ERP settings in the routine stage (Hsieh
and Wang, 2007; Shih and Huang, 2009; Sun et al., 2009; Lee et al., 2010) but they do not
all support the hypothesis that PEOU influences PU. According to Davis (1989) and
Davis et al. (1989), PEOU influences PU, and PU and PEOU influence attitudes about
using IS. TAM research suggests strong empirical support of PEOU influencing PU
(Davis, 1989; Heijden, 2001). Specifically, with ERP systems, some research supports
this relationship (Amoako-Gyampah and Salam, 2004; Hsieh and Wang, 2007; Bueno
and Salmeron, 2008; Calisir et al., 2009; Lee et al., 2010) while other studies do not
(Shivers-Blackwell and Charles, 2006; Shih and Huang, 2009). Because we surveyed
routine ERP users, we cannot measure PU and PEOU, but only ERP usefulness and
ERP ease of use. Based on this literature, our hypotheses are:
H1. ERP ease of use positively and directly affects ERP usefulness.
H2. ERP ease of use positively and directly affects attitude toward the ERP
system.
H3. ERP usefulness positively and directly affects attitude toward the ERP
system.
One problem with TAM research is that most researchers investigate a small
number of external factors assumed to influence user acceptance and usage. In the case
of ERP systems, several external factors may influence user acceptance. Thus, the
conceptualisation of multiple, higher-order factors (in our case, second-order factors)
must be investigated to understand user behaviour. Ease of use has been theorized to be
closely associated with individual self-efficacy and procedural knowledge, requiring
hands-on experience and skills (Davis et al., 1989; Venkatesh, 2000; Venkatesh and Bala,
2008). On this basis, we can propose that a generic factor named PCIL be constituted by
four components experience with computer, computer self-efficiency, technological
innovativeness and computer anxiety and be related to ERP ease of use. Venkatesh
(2000) adds that the determinants of ease of use are primarily individual difference
variables and general beliefs about computers and computer use. Venkatesh and Bala
(2008) suggest that system-related characteristics also will influence PEOU. Combining
these perspectives, we believe that the external factors of data quality, ERP system
functionality, ERP system performance and user manual helpfulness influence ERP ease
of use via a composite variable named STC. Stated as hypotheses:

1517
Table II.

IMDS
111,9

1518

H4. ERP ease of use is affected by PCIL.

H5. ERP ease of use is affected by STC.
PU is impacted by social influence processes (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000). Usefulness is
an instrumental belief that is conceptually similar to extrinsic motivation and consists of
beliefs about the benefits of using IS or IT. Venkatesh and Bala (2008) suggest that
information-related system characteristics influence PU. OPC capture external factors
such as social influence, fit with business processes, training and education on ERP
systems, ERP support and ERP communication, which impact user beliefs regarding the
benefits of using a system. The sixth hypothesis, therefore, is:
H6. ERP usefulness is affected by OPC.
5. Method
5.1 Questionnaire design
The components of the proposed model are ERP usefulness, ERP ease of use, and attitude
toward ERP use, each influenced by various external factors. The external factors are
distributed among three second-order constructs which are: information literacy and
personal characteristics (ILPC), STC and OPC. Second-order factors are composed by
specifying a latent variable which represents all the manifest variables of the underlying
lower-order factors. ILPC includes: computer experience, computer self-efficiency,
technological innovativeness and computer anxiety. STC is composed of: ERP data
quality, ERP system functionality, ERP system performance and user manual helpfulness.
OPC includes: social influence, fit with business processes, ERP training and education,
ERP support and ERP communication. Our model includes 16 first-order factors and three
second-order factors. All factor items were measured on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging
from strongly disagree to strongly agree, taken from relevant prior research and
adapted to ERP usage (Table IV). Demographic information was collected as well.
Following Straub (1989), the questionnaire was developed in multiple stages. Based
on an extensive literature review, an initial instrument was developed. The drafted
instrument was evaluated by ERP system experts and modified according to their
suggestions. The original questionnaire was designed in English and translated into the
local language and then reverse translated to insure wording accuracy. A high degree of
correspondence existed between the original English questionnaire and its
reverse-translated version. Although survey items had been validated by past
research, the adopted instrument was examined for content, construct validity and
reliability within the ERP context. As Amoako-Gyampah and Salam (2004) point out,
instrument validation or re-validation is necessary because the validity of the
instrument may not be persistent across different technologies and user groups.
The instrument was pilot tested with a group of 30 ERP users in a manufacturing
organization. The instruments reliability was evaluated, the Cronbachs a values
ranged from 0.58 to 0.91, indicating a satisfactory level of reliability exceeding a 0.5 value
(Hinton et al., 2004). Item wording feedback from the pilot was used to make final
modifications. The final survey items are reproduced in Table IV.
5.2 Sampling
We distributed our electronic questionnaire within a large national telecom company
which has utilized SAP solutions since 1999. The company has approximately 1,100 SAP

licences but only about 500 ERP users use SAP on a daily basis. We distributed our
survey to these users. A total of 176 surveys were returned and 161 were valid for
analysis (valid return rate 32.2 per cent). Of the respondents, 57.1 per cent were male
and 42.9 per cent were female; most (79.5 per cent) had at least a high school education;
56.9 per cent identified themselves as non-management employees (professional and
technical workers), 35.8 per cent were lower-level managers (e.g. manager of a group or
organization unit) and 7.3 per cent identified as mid-level managers (e.g. CIO). The
average total working years was 19.9 years (min. 1, max. 43), and the average
number of working years in each workplace was 7.5 years. The average respondent had
used SAP for 6.5 years (min. 1, max. 18).
Respondents estimated their intensity of ERP usage via the following statement:
I would rate the intensity of my job-related ERP system use to be [. . .] on a seven-point
Likert scale, ranging from not important to very important. Most respondents
selected 4, or average intensity. Further, respondents estimated their frequency of
ERP use via three statements proposed by Schwarz (2003), also on seven-point Likert
scale. Responses to these questions are presented in Table III. For all three statements,
an average value is around 3.4, which represents a moderate degree of use.

ERP usage

1519

6. Analysis and results

Covariance-based structural equation modelling (SEM), component-based SEM or a PLS
approach can be employed to estimate the parameters of a hierarchical model. According
to Chin (1998), PLS offers several strengths: it is suitable for situations with little theory
development; it places minimal demands on measurement scales; it avoids factor
indeterminacy problems and inadmissible solutions; it avoids identification problems of
recursive models; it makes no assumptions about the data; it requires no specific
distributions for measured variables; it assumes the errors are uncorrelated; it works
well with small samples; and it is better suited for analysing complex relationships and
models. Models, which include the second-order factors, consist of higher-order factors
that are modelled as causally impacting a number of the first-order factors (i.e. standard
factors with measured indicators; Chin, 1998). Therefore, these second-order factors are
not directly connected to any measurement items. PLS allows the conceptualisation of
higher-order factors through the repeated use of manifest variables (Tenenhaus et al.,
2005). A higher-order factor can thus be created by specifying a latent variable which
represents all the manifest variables of the underlying lower-order factors. We employed
a PLS approach because of the relatively small number of samples of valid data and our
desire to analyse second-order factors. Data were analysed in two stages involving a PLS
technique using SmartPLS 2.0 M3 (Ringle and Will, 2005). All measurement scales
were examined for their psychometric properties prior to testing hypotheses.

In a typical one-month period, what is the likelihood of you [. . .]

Average

Mediana

[. . .] using most of features of the ERP solution?

[. . .] using more features than other users of the ERP solutions?
[. . .] using more obscure aspects of the ERP solutions?

3.45
3.44
3.34

4
4
3

Note: aScale 1-7, not important to very important

Table III.
Degree of use

IMDS
111,9

1520

6.1 Measurement model

Although all scale items were derived from previously developed and validated
measures and the instruments reliability was evaluated through pilot testing, each scale
was assessed for reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. For external
factors, a second-order factor procedure was employed. The method of repeated
indicators known as the hierarchical component model suggested by Wold (1982) was
the easiest to implement. The second-order factor is directly measured by observed
variables for all the first-order factors that are measured with reflective indicators. While
this approach repeats the number of manifest variables used, the model can be estimated
by the standard PLS algorithm (Henseler et al., 2009). We excluded external factors from
further analysis if they did not contribute significantly to the measurement model. The
factors which were excluded were: computer self-efficacy and computer experience
(PCIL group), ERP functionality (STC group), and ERP support, ERP communication
and ERP training and education (OPC group).
We examined two measures of reliability: Cronbachs a and composite reliability
(CR). As shown in Table IV each of our ten sub-scales had Cronbachs as exceeding 0.70,
and CR exceeding 0.8, indicating adequate reliability. Fornell and Larckers (1981)
assessment criteria were used to test for convergent validity: specifically, all item factor
loadings should be significant and exceed 0.7 and the average variance extracted (AVE)
for each construct should exceed 0.5. Table IV lists item factor loadings, all of which were
significant at p , 0.01 and exceeded the recommended minimum level of 0.70. All values
of AVE exceeded 0.5. Thus, the measurement scales demonstrate convergent validity.
Table VI shows the factor loadings and CR and AVE of the second-order model
measures.
Discriminant validity between constructs were assessed following Fornell and
Larckers (1981) recommendation that the square root of AVE for each construct should
exceed the bivariate correlations between that construct and all other constructs.
The inter-construct correlation matrix (Table V) shows that the principal diagonal
elements (square root AVE) exceed non-diagonal elements in the same row or columns
(bivariate correlations), demonstrating that the discriminant validity of all scales is
adequate. Overall, the measurement results are satisfactory and suggest that it is
appropriate to proceed with the evaluation of the structural model.
6.2 Structural model and hypotheses testing
The next step in the analysis is to examine the path significance and magnitude of each
of our hypothesized effects and the overall explanatory power of the proposed model.
The hypothesis testing results utilize bootstrapping (with 500 subsamples) to test the
statistical significance of each path coefficient using t-tests, as recommended by Chin
(1998). Results of this analysis are shown in Figure 2.
As given in Table VI, the loadings of the first-order factors on the second-order
factors exceed 0.7 and the second-order factors have a significant positive impact on
ERP usefulness and on ERP ease of use (Figure 2).
The structural model demonstrates predictive power via the variance explained
(R 2) of endogenous constructs. Specifically, the model resulted in 0.46 for ERP
usefulness, 0.31 for ERP ease of use, and 0.60 for attitude toward the ERP system. All
R 2 results can be described as moderate according to Chin (1998). The findings show
that our model explains a large portion of the variance in the endogenous variables,

Construct (source)

Item Item
Mean SD Load. a

Technological innovativeness (Yi et al., 2006; Thompson et al., 2006)

If I hear about a new IT, I will look for ways to experiment 5.43 1.44 0.88 0.88
with it
Among my peers I am usually the first to try out new IT
4.42 1.75 0.88
I like to experiment with new IT
5.09 1.64 0.93
Computer anxiety (Venkatesh, 1998; Venkatesh et al., 2003)
Working with a computer makes me nervousa
1.63 1.10 0.91 0.81
I get a sinking feeling when I think of trying to use a
1.53 1.08 0.92
a
computer
I feel comfortable working with a computer
6.33 1.17 0.73
Data quality (Gattiker and Goodhue, 2005; Venkatesh, 1998; Kositanurit et al., 2006)
The ERP system provides the precise information I need
5.36 1.08 0.78 0.88
The information contents provided by the ERP system meet 5.39 1.24 0.87
my needs
The ERP system provides reports that seem to be exactly
5.08 1.40 0.81
what I need
The ERP system provides sufficient information to my needs 5.33 1.35 0.89
The ERP system provides complete features I need
4.94 1.57 0.78
System performance (Venkatesh et al., 2003; Kositanurit et al., 2006; Liu and Ma, 2006)
It is fast to search data in the ERP system
4.90 1.61 0.81 0.86
I was able to retrieve data quickly
5.26 1.41 0.92
It is fast to use this ERP system
5.09 1.35 0.92
User manual helpfulness (Kelley, 2001)
The content and index of the user manuals are useful
5.23 1.66 0.86 0.85
The user manuals are current (up-to-date)
5.35 1.72 0.88
The user manuals are complete
4.97 1.94 0.90
Business processes fit (Amoako-Gyampah and Salam, 2004; Nah et al., 2004)
The ERP solution fits well with the business needs of me
5.47 1.35 0.95 0.89
The ERP solution fits well with the business need of my
5.36 1.46 0.86
department
All in the ERP system is satisfactory
5.33 1.32 0.90
in meeting my needs
Social influence (Venkatesh et al., 2003; Venkatesh, 1998)
My supervisor is very supportive of the use of the ERP
5.99 1.44 0.77 0.75
system for my job
In general, the organization has supported the use of the ERP 5.94 1.30 0.70
system
People who influence my behaviour think that I should use 5.84 1.45 0.82
the ERP system
People who are important to me think that I should use the 6.14 1.58 0.73
ERP system
ERP usefulness (Davis, 1989)
Using ERP solution in my job enables me to accomplish
5.45 1.38 0.93 0.96
tasks more quickly
Using ERP solution improves my job performance
5.36 1.42 0.96
Using ERP solution enhances my effectiveness on the job
5.43 1.40 0.96
Using ERP solution makes it easier to do my job
5.35 1.43 0.93
ERP ease of use (Davis, 1989)
My interaction with the ERP solution is clear and
5.07 1.41 0.93 0.81
understandable

ERP usage
CR
0.93

AVE
0.81

1521
0.89

0.74

0.92

0.69

0.92

0.79

0.91

0.77

0.93

0.82

0.84

0.57

0.97

0.90

0.91

0.84

(continued)

Table IV.
Psychometric properties
of the instrument

IMDS
111,9

1522
Table IV.

Table V.
Intercorrelations of the
latent variables

Item Item
Mean SD Load. a

Construct (source)
I find the ERP solution is easy to use
Attitude toward ERP system (Venkatesh et al., 2003;
Nah et al., 2004)
Using the ERP system is a good idea
I like the idea of using the ERP system to perform my job

4.79

1.43

0.91

5.94
5.47

1.31
1.48

0.86
0.92

CR

0.75

AVE

0.89

0.80

Notes: n 161; aItems have been inverted for processing statistical data in SmartPLS

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Technological innovativeness
Computer anxiety
ERP data quality
ERP system performance
User manual helpfulness
Business processes fit
Social influence
ERP usefulness
ERP ease of use
ERP attitude

10

0.90
0.42
0.15
0.03
0.20
0.22
2 0.01
0.11
0.19
0.03

0.86
0.22
0.13
0.12
0.26
0.02
0.25
0.21
0.21

0.83
0.53
0.55
0.68
0.31
0.49
0.41
0.37

0.89
0.44
0.60
0.27
0.54
0.54
0.52

0.88
0.58
0.24
0.37
0.41
0.29

0.91
0.52
0.66
0.40
0.52

0.76
0.35
0.01
0.19

0.95
0.46
0.74

0.92
0.55

0.89

with an average R 2 of 0.45. Communality and redundancy coefficients are also

presented in Table VII. They can be used essentially in the same way as the R 2 since
they reflect the relative amount of explained variance for latent and manifest variables.
An important part of model evaluation is the examination of the fit indexes
reflecting the predictive power of estimated inner and outer model relationships
measured by evaluating the goodness-of-fit (GoF) coefficient (Tenenhaus et al., 2005).
According to the results in Table VII, GoF is 0.52, which is considered satisfactory.
7. Discussion
The aim of our research was to identify factors which influence ERP usage in the
operational phase of the ERP lifecycle. In doing so, we observed multiple, external
influences through second-order factors. Based on the results of our PLS analysis
(Figure 2), ERP ease of use is positively related to ERP usefulness and attitudes about
using ERP systems (H1 and H2 are supported). Additionally, ERP usefulness directly
influences ERP attitude (H3 is supported). The results also show that the indirect effect of
ERP ease of use on ERP attitude (through ERP usefulness, H1 and H3) is greater than the
direct effect of the ERP ease of use on ERP attitude (H2). The results of the current study
support prior research finding a relationship between the PEOU and PU of ERP systems
(Amoako-Gyampah and Salam, 2004; Hsieh and Wang, 2007; Bueno and Salmeron, 2008;
Sun et al., 2009; Youngberg et al., 2009; Calisir et al., 2009; Lee et al., 2010), PEOU and
attitude toward ERP systems (Nah et al., 2004; Bueno and Salmeron, 2008) and the link
between PU and attitudes about ERP systems (Amoako-Gyampah and Salam, 2004;
Nah et al., 2004; Shivers-Blackwell and Charles, 2006, Bueno and Salmeron, 2008;

ERP usage

Business
processes fit

0.90
(38.12**)

Social influence

0.84
(21.44**)

ERP support

OPC

ERP
communication

ERP usefulness
R 2 = 0.46

0.90
(29.33**)

Data quality
System
performance

1523

0.51
(8.57**)

ERP training

0.78
(15.33**)

User manuals

0.52
(6.45**)

ERP functionality

Technological
innovativeness
Computer anxiety

0.86
(39.19**)
0.82
(19.83**)

0.33
(3.34**)

STC

0.78
(14.41**)

0.61
(7.55**)

Attitude
R 2 = 0.60

0.27
(3.39**)

ERP ease of use

R 2 = 0.31

0.13
n.s.
(1.38 )
PCIL

Computer
self-efficacy
Computer
experience

Figure 2.
Results of structural
model analysis

Note: Path significance at: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 and n.s. not significant
(shapes are marked dotted)

First-order external
factors
Technological
innovativeness
Computer anxiety
Business process fit
Social influence
ERP data quality
ERP system
performance
ERP user manual
helpfulness

PCIL
(a 0.83; CR 0.88;
AVE 0.55)

STC
(a 0.90; CR 0.92;
AVE 0.50)

OPC
(a 0.84; CR 0.88;
AVE 0.51)

0.86 (t 39.19)
0.82 (t 19.83)
0.90 (t 38.12)
0.84 (t 21.44)
0.90 (t 29.33)
0.78 (t 15.33)
0.78 (t 14.41)

Note: All t-values are significant at p , 0.01

Calisir et al., 2009). The findings suggest that ERP usefulness serves a mediating role
enhancing the positive effect of PEOU and attitudes about ERP systems.
Research shows that PCIL is not positively related to ERP ease of use (b 0.11,
p . 0.05); consistent with previous research, hypothesis H4 was not supported. STC has

Table VI.
Path coefficients
external variables in
second-order model

IMDS
111,9

1524
Table VII.
Explained variance (R 2),
communality and
redundancy

OPC
STC
PCIL
ERP usefulness
ERP ease of use
ERP attitude
Average

R2

Communality

Redundancy

0.46
0.31
0.60
0.45

0.51
0.50
0.55
0.90
0.84
0.80
0.60a

0.31
0.25
0.41
0.32

Note: aComputed as a weighted average of the different communalities with the weights being the
number of manifest variables per construct
Source: Tenenhaus et al. (2005)

a strong positive effect on ease of use (b 0.61, p , 0.01) and OPC has a strong positive
effect on PU (b 0.45, p , 0.01). These findings provide empirical support for
H5 and H6. No other relationships among PCIL, STC and OPC on PEOU and PU were
significant. Among the four components of PCIL (computer experience, computer
self-efficiency, technological innovativeness and computer anxiety), only technological
innovativeness and computer anxiety appear to be important to ERP users. Although
these factors are important during the implementation phase (Davis et al., 1989;
Venkatesh et al., 2003; Thompson et al., 2006; Shivers-Blackwell and Charles, 2006;
Venkatesh and Bala, 2008; Calisir et al., 2009; Shih and Huang, 2009), our findings
suggest they become less so during routine ERP operations. This is consistent with the
arguments of Venkatesh and Davis (2000) and Thompson et al. (2006) who suggest that
through experience, PEOU becomes more connected with specific features of the
software and is less influenced by general factors.
Our findings also suggest that STC (b 0.54, p , 0.01) factors (data quality, system
performance and user manual helpfulness) are significant in determining ease of use
(explaining 31 per cent variance), while ERP functionality has not been found to be a
statistically significant component of STC. Data quality has been cited as an important
factor in successful ERP implementations (Gattiker and CFPIM, 2002; Ngai et al., 2007).
Our research supports this finding suggesting that for ERP users, data quality is the
most important external factor of STC (b 0.90, p , 0.01). Our findings are consistent
with previously literature which suggests that ERP users value timely access to helpful
and accurate data (Venkatesh, 1998; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000; Gattiker and Goodhue,
2005; Kositanurit et al., 2006). System performance is concerned with ERP system
reliability, flexibility and response time, and is an important critical success factor in the
operational phase of an ERP solution (Bobek and Sternad, 2010). System performance
was found to be an important factor (b 0.78, p , 0.01) of STC in the routine stage in
our study as well. Our study also identified that complete and up-to-date user manual
helpfulness is an important contributor to STC (b 0.78, p , 0.01) during the routine
stage.
The third group of external factors researched was OPC. The results of the current
study support that notion that business process fit and social influence (b 0.5,
p , 0.01) significantly influence perceived ERP usefulness, a finding consistent with
prior studies (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008). Business process

fit (b 0.90; p , 0.01) is the largest contributing element to OPC. Bancroft et al. (2001)
and Somers and Nelson (2003), pointed out that business process reengineering plays a
particularly crucial role in the early stages of implementation. It is moderately important
in the acceptance stage and tends to be less important once the technology reaches the
routine stage. Our study confirms the argument that business process fit and
reengineering is a continuous process, extending into the post-implementation phase of
the ERP lifecycle (Welti, 1999; Bradford, 2008). Social influence is affected by top
management support and sponsorship, suggesting that these are critical in all phases of
the ERP lifecycle a finding widely recognized in ERP research literature (Umble et al.,
2002; Gattiker and CFPIM, 2002; Stratman, 2002; Somers and Nelson, 2003). Sponsorship
plays a critical role in the acceptance of technology. Management sponsors are usually at
the senior management level so they have the authority to implement substantial
organizational changes (Akkermans and Helden, 2002; Ngai et al., 2007; Finney and
Corbett, 2007). Despite the fact that support (Boudreau, 2002; Lee et al., 2010),
communication (Al-Sehali, 2000; Al-Mashari et al., 2003; Somers and Nelson, 2003) and
training and education (Bancroft et al., 2001; Boudreau, 2002; Akkermans and Helden,
2002; Umble et al., 2002; Al-Mashari et al., 2003; Bradford and Florin, 2003; Gargeya and
Brady, 2005; Motiwalla and Thompson, 2009) are often mentioned as CSF, none were
statistically significant in our study.
In the routine stage, organizations should emphasize people and
process improvements (Bradford, 2008). Many people who work with the system only
master their particular path and do not attempt to understand the entire system
(Boudreau, 2002). In this stage, ERP users should accept the system and the usage
should become a regular activity. It often takes many months or even years for
experienced users to get comfortable with an ERP system, however. Eventually, users
begin to see the advantages of the ERP system and they begin to explore its functions,
gradually reaching success. This shows that ERP users have accepted the ERP system
and are putting it into extended use. In the national telecom company, SAP has been in
place for over ten years, but according to the results about the intensity of use and the
degree of use, ERP use is moderate. Boudreau (2002) defines limited use as existing when
individuals used ERP systems because they had to but had not assimilated much of its
functionality. The aim of each organization implementing an ERP system (including the
national telecom firm) should be that ERP users fully utilize systems. Our findings
suggest that organizations should attend to external factors which impact ERP
acceptance and usage indirectly. In our case the national telecom company should put
more effort into the adjustment of business processes of ERP solutions to ERP users
business needs and into a more positive organization thinking regarding ERP system
use if it wants to increase ERP usefulness. On the other hand, the company should put
more effort into right and up-to-date data, put more emphasis on ERP system reliability,
flexibility and response time (system performance) and on a complete and up-to-date
user manual helpfulness if it wants to increase ERP ease of use. For more detailed
interventions, further research (e.g. interviews of key ERP users) is needed.
8. Conclusion
The most important contributions of ERP systems are that they significantly reduce the
time to complete business processes and they facilitate information sharing (Olhager
and Selldin, 2003; Lee et al., 2010). Organizations offer a better work environment for

ERP usage

1525

IMDS
111,9

1526

their employees as they provide more efficient systems. In the routine phase of the ERP
lifecycle, ERP systems may be implemented successfully from a technical perspective,
but full success depends on ERP users being willing to use the delivered system
(Boudreau, 2002; Kwahk and Lee, 2008).
Most studies employing TAM on ERP systems focus on the selection and
implementation phases. Studies focused in the post-implementation phase are scarce
and only recently published (Sun et al., 2009; Shih and Huang, 2009; Lee et al., 2010).
Most of these studies consider a limited number of factors which influence the
acceptance and use of ERP systems. The aim of our paper was to extend the number of
observed factors which influence user acceptance and use in the routine or mature
stage of the lifecycle. Because we observed a large number of external factors, we
employed the concept of second-order factors. The use of second-order factors, together
with the use of a PLS approach to test our model, allowed us to test multiple influences
with a relatively small dataset. TAM was used because it is the most widely used and
empirically tested model for explaining actual IS use (Davis, 1989; Davis et al., 1989;
Amoako-Gyampah and Salam, 2004; Lee et al., 2010). We focused on external factors
and their influence on the actual use of ERP systems based on published research
about this issue (Table II).
The present study enhances our understanding of how multiple external
factors can impact attitudes about ERP systems in the routine stage by incorporating
three groups of external factors: PCIL, STC and OPC. The PCIL group includes:
technological innovativeness, computer anxiety, computer self-efficacy and computer
experience. Data quality, system performance, user manual helpfulness and ERP
functionality were included in STC. Business processes fit, social influence, ERP support,
ERP communication and ERP training were included in OPC. PCIL, STC and OPC have
been addressed in several studies of external factors impacting IS acceptance (some
authors related their research to TAM, but not all). The present research, however, shows
that PCIL does not impact ERP system usage significantly in the routine operation stage
despite its being mentioned in other studies unrelated to ERP systems (Venkatesh et al.,
2003; Venkatesh and Bala, 2008). STC and OPC are similarly important but they impact
different variables of TAM in ERP usage. STC components of data quality, system
performance and user manual helpfulness are significant in determining ERP ease of use,
while business process fit and social influence (OPC) influence the PU of ERP systems.
One important contribution of the paper is the identification of the external factors for
the improvement of the efficiency and effectiveness of ERP use and the presentation
of the impact of OPL and STC on attitude towards using ERP system in the organization.
The implications for researchers and practitioners are that external factors of TAM
through second-order factors appear to improve ERP usage. The managerial
implications of this study are that if the organization wants to improve business
performance and increase ERP user satisfaction, it should take into account the external
factors confirmed in this study.
The limitations of the present study present opportunities for further research. Many
studies have discovered that language, culture, nation and politics influence ERP
implementation (Yu, 2005). Since the respondents to the survey were limited to one
organization, this study could be replicated in organizations varying by industry
(manufacturing, retail, etc.), size (small, medium, large), market (local, regional, national
or international) or across other potentially important differences. Further research

is needed to explore the importance of external factors in different phases of the ERP
lifecycle. Because ERP solutions are implemented by different methodologies and
approaches, the importance of external factors on ERP solutions could also be explored.
Researching the impact of external factors on work compatibility (Nah et al., 2004;
Sun et al., 2009) and the impact of work compatibility on TAM likewise could be
promising.
References
Adam, F. and Sammon, D. (2004), The Enterprise Resource Planning Decade: Lesson Learned and
Issues for the Future, Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA.
Agarwal, R. and Prasad, J. (1999), Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new
information technologies, Decision Sciences, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 361-91.
Ajzen, I. (1991), The theory of planned behavior, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50, pp. 179-211.
Akkermans, H. and Helden, K. (2002), Vicious and virtuous cycles in ERP implementation:
a case study of interrelations between CSF, European Journal of Information Systems,
Vol. II, pp. 35-46.
Al-Mashari, M., Al-Mudimigh, A. and Zairi, M. (2003), Enterprise resource planning: taxonomy
of critical factors, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 146 No. 2, pp. 352-64.
Al-Sehali, S. (2000), The factors that affect the implementation of enterprise resource planning
(ERP) in the international Arab Gulf states and United States organizations with special
emphasis on SAP software, doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Iowa,
Cedar Falls, IA.
Amoako-Gyampah, K. and Salam, A.F. (2004), An extension of the technology acceptance model
in an ERP implementation environment, Information & Management, Vol. 41, pp. 731-45.
Bancroft, N., Seip, H. and Sprengel, A. (2001), Implementing SAP R/3, 2nd ed., Manning
Publications, Greenwich, CO.
Bobek, S. and Sternad, S. (2010), Management of ERP solutions, in Vaish, A. (Ed.), Recent
Advances in Management and Information Security, Shree Publishers and Distributors,
New Delhi, pp. 31-47.
Boudreau, M.C. (2002), Learning to use ERP technology: a causal model, paper presented at the
36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, available at: http://csdl2.
computer.org/comp/proceedings/hicss/2003/1874/08/187480235b.pdf (accessed 7 July 2008).
Bradford, M. (2008), Modern ERP Select, Implement and Use Todays Advanced Business
Systems, College of Management, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Bradford, M. and Florin, J. (2003), Examining the role of innovation diffusion factors on the
implementation success of enterprise resource planning systems, International Journal of
Accounting Information Systems, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 205-25.
Bradley, J. and Lee, C.C. (2007), ERP training and user satisfaction: a case study, International
Journal of Enterprise Information Systems, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 33-55.
Bueno, S. and Salmeron, J.L. (2008), TAM-based success modelling in ERP, Interacting with
Computers, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 515-23.
Calisir, F., Gumussoy, C.A. and Bayram, A. (2009), Predicting the behavioural intention to use
enterprise resource planning systems an exploratory extension of the technology
acceptance model, Management Research News, Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 597-613.
Chin, W.W. (1998), Issues and opinion on structural equation modelling, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 22,
pp. 7-16.

ERP usage

1527

IMDS
111,9

1528

Davis, F.D. (1989), Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 319-40.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1989), User acceptance of computer technology:
a comparison of two theoretical models, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 982-1003.
Finney, S. and Corbett, M. (2007), ERP implementation: a compilation and analysis of critical
success factors, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 329-47.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to
Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Gargeya, V.B. and Brady, C. (2005), Success and failure factors of adopting SAP in ERP system
implementation, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 501-16.
Gattiker, T.F. and CFPIM (2002), Anatomy of an ERP implementation gone awry, Production
& Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 43, pp. 96-105.
Gattiker, T.F. and Goodhue, D.L. (2005), What happens after ERP implementation:
understanding the impact of interdependence and differentiation on plant-level
outcomes, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 559-85.
Heijden, H. (2001), Factors influencing the usage of websites: the case of a generic portal in The
Netherland, paper presented at e-Everything: e-Commerce, e-Government, e-Household,
e-Democracy in 14th Bled Electronic Commerce Conference, Bled.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sinkovics, R. (2009), The use of partial least squares path
modelling in international marketing, Advances in International Marketing, Vol. 20,
pp. 277-319.
Hinton, P.R., Brownlow, C., Mcmurray, I. and Cozens, B. (2004), SPSS Explained, Routledge,
London.
Hsieh, J.J.P.A. and Wang, W. (2007), Explaining employees extended use of complex
information systems, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 216-27.
Insiti, M. (2007), ERP end-users business productivity: a field study of SAP and Microsoft, Keystone
Strategy Research, available at: http://download.microsoft.com (accessed 12 June 2010).
Kelley, H. (2001), Attributional analysis of computer self-efficacy, doctoral dissertation,
Richard Ivey School of Business, University of Western Ontario, London.
Kositanurit, B., Nqwenyama, O. and Osei-Bryson, K.M. (2006), An exploration of factors that
impact individual performance in an ERP environment: an analysis using multiple
analytical techniques, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 15, pp. 556-68.
Kwahk, K.Y. and Lee, J.N. (2008), The role of readiness for change in ERP implementation:
theoretical bases and empirical validation, Information & Management, Vol. 45 No. 7,
pp. 474-81.
Lee, D.H., Lee, S.M., Olson, D.L. and Chung, S.H. (2010), The effect of organizational support on
ERP implementation, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 110 Nos 1/2,
pp. 269-83.
Liu, L. and Ma, Q. (2006), Perceived system performance: a test of an extended technology
acceptance model, Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 1-24.
Lu, J., Chun-Sheng, Y., Liu, C. and Yao, J.E. (2003), Technology acceptance model for wireless
internet, Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 206-22.
Mabert, V.A., Soni, A. and Venkataramanan, M.A. (2003), Enterprise resource planning:
managing the implementation process, European Journal of Operational Research,
Vol. 146 No. 2, pp. 302-14.

Momoh, A., Roy, R. and Shehab, E. (2010), Challenges in enterprise resource planning
implementation: state-of-the-art, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 537-65.
Motiwalla, L.F. and Thompson, J. (2009), Enterprise Systems for Management,
Pearson/Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Musaji, Y.F. (2002), Integrated Auditing of ERP Systems, Wiley, New York, NY.
Nah, F.F., Tan, X. and Teh, S.H. (2004), An empirical investigation on end-users acceptance of
enterprise systems, Information Resources Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 32-53.
Ngai, E.W.T., Law, C.C.H. and Wat, F.K.T. (2007), Examining the critical success factors in the
adoption of enterprise resource planning, Computers in Industry, Vol. 59, pp. 548-64.
Olhager, J. and Selldin, E. (2003), Enterprise resource planning survey of Swedish
manufacturing firms, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 146, pp. 365-73.
Parr, A. and Shanks, G. (2000), A model of ERP project implementation, Journal of Information
Technology, Vol. 15, pp. 289-303.
Pijpers, G.G.M. and Montfort, K. (2006), An investigation of factors that influence senior
executives to accept innovations in information technology, International Journal of
Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 11-23.
Ringle, C.M. and Will, A. (2005), SmartPLS 2.0 M3, available at: www.smartpls.de (accessed
1 June 2009).
Rogers, E.V. (2003), Diffusion of Innovation, 4th ed., The Free Press, New York, NY.
Schwarz, A. (2003), Defining information technology acceptance: a human-centred,
management-oriented perspective, doctoral dissertation, University of Huston,
Huston, TX.
Shih, Y.Y. and Huang, S.S. (2009), The actual usage of ERP systems: an extended technology
acceptance perspective, Journal of Research and Practice in Information Technology,
Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 263-76.
Shivers-Blackwell, S.L. and Charles, A.C. (2006), Ready, set, go: examining student readiness to
use ERP technology, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 795-805.
Simon, S.J. and Paper, D. (2007), User acceptance of voice recognition technology: an empirical
extension of the technology acceptance model, Journal of Organizational and End User
Computing, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 24-50.
Skok, W. and Legge, M. (2002), Evaluating enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems using an
interpretive approach, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 72-82.
Somers, M.T., Nelson, K. and Karimi, J. (2003), Confirmatory factor analysis of the end-user
computing satisfaction instrument: replication within an ERP domain, Decision Sciences,
Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 595-621.
Somers, T.M. and Nelson, K.G. (2003), A taxonomy of players and activities across the ERP
project life cycle, Information & Management, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 257-78.
Stratman, J.K. (2002), Enterprise resource planning (ERP) competence constructs: two-stage
multi-item scale development and validation, Decision Sciences, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 601-28.
Straub, D. (1989), Validating instruments in MIS research, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 147-69.
Sun, Y., Bhattacherjee, A. and Ma, Q. (2009), Extending technology usage to work settings:
the role of perceived work compatibility in ERP implementation, Information &
Management, Vol. 46, pp. 351-6.

ERP usage

1529

IMDS
111,9

1530

Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V.E., Chatelin, Y.M. and Lauro, C. (2005), PLS path modelling,
Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, Vol. 48, pp. 159-205.
Thompson, R., Compeau, D. and Higgins, C. (2006), Intentions to use information technologies:
an integrative model, Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 25-46.
Umble, E.J., Haft, R.R. and Umble, M.M. (2002), Enterprise resource planning: implementation
procedures and CSF, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 146 No. 2, pp. 241-57.
Uzoka, F.M.E., Abiola, R.O. and Nyangeresi, R. (2008), Influence of product and organizational
constructs on ERP acquisition using an extended technology acceptance model,
International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 67-83.
Venkatesh, V. (1998), User acceptance of information technology: a unified view, doctoral
dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Venkatesh, V. (2000), Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating perceived behavioural
control, computer anxiety and enjoyment into the technology acceptance model,
Information Systems Research, Vol. 11, pp. 342-65.
Venkatesh, V. and Bala, H. (2008), Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on
interventions, Decision Sciences, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 273-315.
Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D. (2000), A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance
model: four longitudinal field studies, Management Science, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 186-205.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D. (2003), User acceptance of information
technology: toward a unified view, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 425-79.
Wang, E.T.G., Shih, S.-P., Jiang, J.J. and Klein, G. (2007), The consistency among facilitating
factors and ERP implementation success: a holistic view of fit, Journal of Systems and
Software, Vol. 81, pp. 1609-21.
Welti, N. (1999), Successful SAP R/3 Implementation Practical Management of ERP Project,
Addison-Wesley, Harlow.
Wold, H. (1982), Soft modelling: the basic design and some extensions, Systems Under Indirect
Observations, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp. 1-52.
Yi, Y.M., Fiedler, K.D. and Park, J.S. (2006), Understanding the role of individual innovativeness
in the acceptance of IT-based innovativeness: comparative analyses of models and
measures, Decision Sciences, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 393-426.
Youngberg, E., Olsen, D. and Hauser, K. (2009), Determinants of professionally autonomous end
user acceptance in an enterprise resource planning system environment, International
Journal of Information Management, Vol. 29, pp. 138-44.
Yu, C.S. (2005), Causes influencing the effectiveness of the post-implementation ERP system,
Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 105 Nos 1/2, pp. 115-32.
Zhang, L., Lee, M.K.O., Zhang, Z. and Banerjee, P. (2002), Critical success factors of enterprise
resource planning systems implementation success in China, paper presented at Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii.
Corresponding author
Simona Sternad can be contacted at: simona.sternad@uni-mb.si

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.