erp systems evaluation from vendors point of view

ERP SYSTEMS EVALUATION

FROM

VENDORS POINT OF VIEW

Tsali Eleni

MSc Thesis

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the degree

of Master of Science

in Finance and Financial Information Systems

University of Greenwich

ABSTRACT

5

ABSTRACT

Introduction: ERP systems integrate organisation’s processes and

functions. For the realisation of benefits from the ERP as an organisational

investment, the effective use of information technology (IT) and the

satisfaction of the IT users are crucial.

Purpose of the study: This research is focused on the software companies’

environment and more specifically, to the Greek software vendors sector.

However, the main scope of this project is to examine the ‘user satisfaction’ as

success measure and more specifically, whether vendors believe that they

keep their customers/users satisfied or not from the use of their ERP

products.

Materials and methods: Three major Greek ERP vendors were selected in

order to investigate the critical success factors for implementing an ERP

system. The investigated vendor companies, which provide the proposed

Greek ERP systems for large and medium size companies are: LogicDIS,

Singular, and Altec.

For the purpose of this study, a questionnaire was designed for the persons

occupied in the ERP vendor companies in order to measure:

The quality of after sale ERP support that the Greek ERP vendor

companies provide to their customers/users.

What the Greek ERP vendor companies believe concerning the

quality of ERP systems/products that they provide to their

customers/users.

Data analysis: The results of employees’ responds are demonstrated

separately for its item of the questionnaire.

Conclusion: The questionnaire used for the purpose of this study proved

flexible. The Greek vendor companies believe that keep their customers/users

satisfied. However, future research is necessary.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank the staff from Altec and Singular vendor companies who

have participated to this study. I would like also to express my gratitude to my

supervisor, Chatzoglou Prodromos, for his support.

‘’ The contents of this thesis are entirely my own work. This work has not

previously been submitted, in part or in full, for a degree or diploma of this or

another University or examination board’’.

Tsali Eleni

December 2005

CONTENTS

1

CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES 3

LIST OF FIGURES 3

ABSTRACT 5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 6

CHAPTER ONE - LITERATURE REVIEW

1. LITERATURE REVIEW 8

1.1. INTRODUCTION 8

1.2. ERP 10

1.2.1. ERP- Definition 10

1.2.2. Literature on ERP Implementations 11

1.2.3. Implementation Strategies 14

1.2.4. ERP Cases: Failures 15

1.2.5. ERP Cases: Successes 17

1.2.6. Critical Success Factors for ERP Implementations 18

1.2.7. Vendor Quality 20

1.2.8. ERP systems customisation 20

1.3. USER SATISFACTION 21

1.3.1. User Satisfaction and ERP 21

1.3.2. Factors Affecting User Satisfaction 23

1.3.3. Theories and Models Affecting User Satisfaction 24

CHAPTER TWO – MATERIALS AND METHODS

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS 27

2.1. MATERIALS 27

2.1.1. Singular 27

2.1.1.1. The Company Profile of Singular 27

2.1.1.2. Manpower of Singular 27

2.1.1.3. ERP Products of Singular 27

2.1.2. Altec 28

2.1.2.1. The Company Profile of Altec 28

2.1.2.2. ERP Products of Altec 29

2.1.3. LogicDIS Group 30

CONTENTS

2

2.1.3.1. The Company Profile of LogicDIS 30

2.1.3.2. Manpower of LogicDIS 30

2.1.3.3. ERP Products of LogicDIS 30

2.1.4. Participation 32

2.1.5. Questionnaire Structure 33

2.1.6. Filling in the Questionnaire 33

2.2. METHODS 34

2.2.1. Data Collection 34

2.2.2. Data Protection 34

2.2.3. Contact with the Respondents 34

2.2.4. Confidentiality 34

2.2.5. Consent Form and Information Sheet 34

2.2.6. Selection Criteria 35

2.2.7. Statistical Methods 35

CHAPTER THREE – DATA ANALYSIS

3. DATA ANALYSIS 37

3.1. Statistics for Each Item 37

3.1.1. Age and Years of Occupation 37

3.1.1.1. Age of the Respondents 37

3.1.1.2. Years of Occupation in the Vendor Companies 37

3.1.2. Support Quality of ERP Systems 38

3.1.2.1. Trust and Security 38

3.1.2.2. Sincere Interest to Solve Problems 38

3.1.2.3. The Vendor Company is Dependable 40

3.1.2.4. The Company Provides Prompt Services 40

3.1.3. Quality of ERP Systems 41

3.1.3.1. ERP Systems are Easy to be Used by the Users. 41

3.1.3.2. The ERP is not Cumbersome to be Used by the Users 41

3.1.3.3. ERP Functions’ Integration 43

3.1.3.4. The ERP system is easy to be learned how to use it 43

3.1.3.5. ERP Systems Perform Problems Rarely 45

3.1.3.6. The User has to Learn a Lot of Things to Use the ERP 45

3.1.3.7. ERP Systems Provide Easy Information Transmission 46

CONTENTS

3

3.1.3.8. ERP Systems Provide Information Accuracy 46

3.1.3.9. ERP Systems Provide Information On Time 48

3.1.3.10. The ERP Systems Increases User’s Productivity 48

3.1.3.11. ERP Systems and User’s Timesaving At Work 48

3.2. Correlations 50

3.3. Crosstabulations 52

CHAPTER 4 – DISCUSSION

4. Discussion 54

4.1. General Considerations 54

4.2. Correlations 55

4.3. User Satisfaction: The ERP Evaluation Mechanism 57

4.4. Conclusions 58

REFERENCES 60

APPENDICES

1. Questionnaire: ERP Systems’ Evaluation from Vendors’ Point of View A1

2. Information Sheet A2

3. Consent Form A3

4. SPSS Statistics A4

List of Tables

Table 1.1: Critical success factors for ERP implementation 19

Table 2.1: ERP products of Singular 28

Table 2.2: ERP products of Altec 29

Table 2.3: LogicDis ERP products 30

Table 3.1: Correlations- Quality of ERP System 50

Table 3.2: Correlations- Quality Support to Customers/Users 51

List of Figures

Fig. 1.1: The five-stage implementation process 12

Fig. 1.2: ERP Implementation framework 13

Fig. 3.1: Percentages concerning the age of the respondents working

in the vendor companies. 37

CONTENTS

4

Fig. 3.2: Years of participants’ occupation in the companies (in percentages). 38

Fig. 3.3: Percentages of the respondents concerning the opinion that the

company in which they are occupied inspires or not trust and

security to the customers. 39

Fig. 3.4: Percentages presenting whether the respondents believe that the vendor

companies are truly concerned to solve possible after sale problems in

ERPs or not. 39

Fig. 3.5: The company is dependable. Respondents’ beliefs in percentages. 40

Fig. 3.6: The company provides prompt services to the customers.

The beliefs of the respondents in percentages. 41

Fig. 3.7: The respondents’ beliefs as far as if the ERP is easy to be used by

the users (in percentages). 42

Fig. 3.8: The ERP is not cumbersome to be used by the users.

Respondents’ beliefs in percentages. 42

Fig. 3.9: The respondents’ beliefs in percentages as far as concerns the

integrity of ERPs’ functions. 43

Fig. 3.10: The beliefs of the respondents concerning the easiness of the

ERP systems to be learned (in percentages). 44

Fig. 3.11: The beliefs of respondents as far as the frequency of performing

problems in ERP systems. 44

Fig. 3.12: The user has to learn a lot of things to use the ERP.

The beliefs of the respondents in percentages. 45

Fig. 3.13: Respondents’ opinion in percentages as far as for the

easy information transmission that ERP systems provide. 46

Fig. 3.14: Subjects’ opinions in percentages as far as for information

accuracy provided by the ERP systems. 47

Fig. 3.15: The ERP systems provide information at the moment that

the user needs it. Respondents’ opinions in percentages. 47

Fig. 3.16: ERP systems increase user’s productivity.

Presentation of subjects’ opinions in percentages. 49

Fig. 3.17: The opinions of respondents concerning users’ timesaving

in their work using the ERP systems. 49

Fig. 4.1.: Correlations related to ERP system’s quality. 56

Fig. 4.2.: Correlations related to quality support to customers/users. 57

Fig. 4.3.: Links among user satisfaction, usage, usefulness and ease of use. 58

7

CHAPTER I

LITERATURE REVIEW

INTRODUCTION

8

1. LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1. INTRODUCTION

The fact that business environment is dramatically changing pressures the

companies “to lower total costs in the entire supply chain, shorten throughput

times, drastically reduce inventories, expand product choice, provide more

reliable delivery dates and better customer service, improve quality, and

efficiently coordinate global demand, supply, and production” (Umble et al.,

2003, p. 241). Nowadays, Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems are

viewed as technological advances that make organisations active in the

competitive business environment by standarising processes, integrating

systems, reducing workforce, and increasing productivity (Dillard and Yuthas,

2006). Firms adopt or develop ERP systems in order to organise all processes

throughout the organisation (Benders et al., 2006). The ERP systems

influence company’s internal and external operations and, therefore, their

successful implementation is decisive for the organisational performance in

the business environment (Boonstra, 2006). Although a number of studies

regarding the success factors in information systems’ implementation projects

have been presented (DeLone and McLean, 1992), there was not

consideration on enabling practitioners with effective interventions in ERPs

and customer relationship management (CRM) (King and Burgess, 2006).

ERP systems assist organisations to reduce costs and improve efficiency

(Jones et al., 2006). However, many implementation projects have resulted

negative economical outcomes (Davenport, 2000). Although these expensive,

large and time-consuming projects dominated the IT industry (Wu and Wang,

2005; Zhang et al., 2005), sufficient research into how to implement such

systems effectively should be established. It is, however, worth-mentioning

that companies focus on “the optimisation of information systems”, which is

based on the ERP systems, in order to use efficiently the available technical,

human and organisational resources and reach their performance targets

(Botta-Genoulaz and Millet, 2005).

Software companies in Greece are continuously improved providing to

organisations/companies better IT infrastructure as technological aid in order

these organisations/companies to expand their performance. Botta-Genoulaz

and Millet (2006) stated that “ERP systems are expected to reduce costs by

INTRODUCTION

9

improving efficiencies through computerisation, and enhance decision-making

by providing accurate and timely enterprise-wide information”.

Three major Greek ERP vendors were selected in order to investigate the

critical success factors for implementing an ERP system. Such a research site

is interesting as represents the project implementation team, which

implements the system, management, consultants and generally the ERP

vendor.

The investigated vendor companies, which provide the proposed Greek

ERP systems for large and medium size companies are:

LogicDIS,

Singular and

Altec.

This project involves the critical factors for implementing an ERP system

and issues regarding the software vendor sector. It is worth mentioning that

no current research is addressed to critical success factors for implementing

an ERP system from vendors’ point of view. This research is focused on the

software companies’ environment and more specifically, to the Greek software

vendor’s sector. However, the main scope of this project is to examine the

‘user satisfaction’ as success measure and more specifically, whether vendors

believe that they keep their customers/users satisfied or not from the use of

their ERP products. This scope was selected due to the fact that customers’

satisfaction is one of the main business drivers resulting from the ERP

implementation (Somers and Nelson, 2004).

On the other hand, ERP implementation cases and critical success factors

have been studied targeting on implementations occurring from customers’

perspective, but few studies have been performed involving implementations

from vendors’ point of view. This project will therefore attempt to focus on the

combination of ERP implementations and critical success factors for ERP

implementations, in accordance with ERP vendors’ perception.

LITERATURE REVIEW

10

1.2. ERP

1.2.1. ERP- Definition

Aladwani (2001, p. 266) defined that an ERP system is “an integrated set of

programs that provides support for core organisational activities such as

manufacturing and logistics, finance and accounting, sales and marketing,

and human resources”. ERP systems assist organisations in managing

effectively money, staff, products, customers and suppliers (King and

Burgess, 2006). An ERP system is an integrated software solution allowing

companies to achieve a holistic view of the business enterprise (Ehie and

Madsen, 2005).

The ERP systems derived from the Material Requirements Planning (MRP)

and Manufacturing Resource Planning (MRPII) systems, which were used by

large enterprises for planning and scheduling (Koh and Saad, 2006). The ERP

system is a software application, which is installed in a company in order to

meet the needs of people and optimise workflows in different core processes

such as warehousing, finance, manufacturing, sales and marketing, human

resources management (Davenport 1998; Xue et al., 2005). ERP systems are

seen as an enterprise wide integrated information system for wide enterprises

(Koh and Saad, 2006), which use a sole central database allowing the inter-

organisational exchange of information to be convenient and effective

(Dechow and Mouritsen, 2005). ERP are thought to be theoretically related

with almost each IS’s research area (Markus and Tanis, 2000) representing

“the most ambitious application of administrative and computer-based

technologies in developing management information systems” (Dillard and

Yuthas, 2006, p. 202).

ERP systems are highly integrated large software packages (Gefen, 2000;

Dechow and Mouritsen, 2005). It is well documented in the literature that ERP

systems incorporate organisation’s processes and functions in order to

integrate business’s operations (Brown and Vessey, 1999; Boonstra, 2006).

Nowadays, Systems, Applications and Product (SAP), Oracle, PeopleSoft,

J.D. Edwards, and BAAN embody the 60% of the ERP market (Stensrud,

2001; Botta-Genoulaz and Millet, 2006; Dillard and Yuthas, 2006).

LITERATURE REVIEW

11

1.2.2. Literature on ERP Implementations

ERP systems provide to companies competitive advantage through cross-

functional integration by improving productivity and customer service while

lowering costs and inventory (Xue et al., 2005). The ERP implementation

impacts on the planning, the scheduling, and the control systems of

business’s operations (Yen and Sheu, 2004). Nevertheless, due to the

successful ERP implementation, organisational issues are more difficult to be

determined rather than technical ones (Ward et al., 2005). It is, however,

worth-mentioning that the ERP implementation should be associated with

firm's competitive strategy (Yen and Sheu, 2004). The tangible and intangible

benefits resulted from the ERP implementations are “information quality,

system integration, real-time accessibility, inventory reduction, productivity

improvement, logistics/order management improvement, cash flow and

forecasts improvement” (Botta-Genoulaz and Millet, 2006, p. 205).

Ehie and Madsen (2005) presented the five-stage implementation process,

which is presented at the Fig. 1.1. and is represented as follows:

The phase of project preparation includes the determination of the

leadership roles, the budget targets and the project plan to be followed.

The phase of the business blueprint provides the analysis of current

business processes and the system selection.

During the realisation phase the technical foundation is established and

each process design is piloted.

In the phase of final preparation the entire process design is tested

under full data load and extreme situations. The prevalent education and

training of people intended to use the system and those influenced by it, is

mandatory on this stage in order the project team to comprehend the data

flow operated by the system.

Finally, the go live and support phase underlines options for expansion

of the system in order to gain competitive advantage.

As far as the five steps in implementation process it is important to be sure

that the outcomes of each step have been achieved before moving to the next

LITERATURE REVIEW

12

step. Otherwise, the cost to go back and correct mistakes is extremely

excessive (Ehie and Madsen, 2005).

Shang and Seddon (2002) presented a detailed list of benefits through

ERP systems implementation. This list of benefits combines five dimensions:

Operational (such as cost reduction, productivity, service and quality

enhancement)

Managerial (for better decision making, planning and performance),

Strategic (options for growth, innovation, product differentiation and

other strategic advantages),

Organisational (offering capable work patterns and easy organisational

learning, as well as structuring powerful organisational visions) and

IT infrastructure (cost reduction, flexibility, better IT infrastructure for

beneficial organisational change).

STAGE 1: PROJECT PREPARATION

Project Organisation

Vision and Target Definition- Based Performance

Detailed Project Plan Creation

STAGE 2: BUSINESS BLUEPRINT

1) Current Business Processes Analysis 2) ERP System Selection

STAGE 3: REALISATION

1) Technical Development 2) Conference Room Pilot

STAGE 4: FINAL PREPARATION

1) Tuning and Testing 2) Educate and Train Project Team

STAGE 5: GO LIVE AND SUPPORT

Bring ERP Modules

Improve and Expand ERP system continually

Fig. 1. 1: The five-stage implementation process. Modified from Ehie

and Madsen, 2005.

Fig.1. 1.: The five-stage implementation process. Modified from Ehie and Madsen

(2005).

LITERATURE REVIEW

13

Motwani et al. (2005) highlighted the critical issues that should be taken

into account during the pre-implementation, implementation, and post-

implementation phases, and are presented at Fig. 1.2..

ERP implementation may help firms to improve their performance. Hunton

et al. (2003) signified that return on assets (ROA), return on investment (ROI),

and asset turnover were significantly better in firms that adopted ERP

systems, helping them to gain a competitive advantage over non-adopters. On

the other hand, Botta-Genoulaz and Millet (2005) supported that operational

Strategic goals identification

Top management support

Cultural and structural issues management

Pre-Implementation Stage (Setting Up)

Careful project administration

ERP package selection in accordance with the current organisation’s processes

Open information and communication policy

Detailed analysis of current business processes

Data accuracy assurance

Capable implementation team

Performance measures’ selection

Post Implementation Stage (Evaluation)

Post-implementation audit

ERP success documentation (regarding correspondence, processes, interaction and expectations)

Benchmarking

Fig.1. 2.: ERP Implementation framework. Modified from Motwani et al. (2005).

Implementation Stage

LITERATURE REVIEW

14

results did not meet managers expectations as 70% of the companies

expected no more than 25% of ROI and 50% did not even try to estimate the

ROI. However, the ERP implementation should be accompanied with valid

ROI expectations and metrics and the ERP should continually be improved in

order to result these ROI expectations (Donovan, 2000).

The ERP implementation is complex to be carried out, as it is affected by

social, technical and political factors/issues (Boonstra, 2006). Yen and Sheu

(2004) in their study underlined the following:

Firms that want to become more flexible and consistent should pay

attention on centralisation, software customisation, information sharing, type

and effort of adaptation, and data accessibility and the competitive priorities

that affect these aspects.

Managers should become more effective in planning and

implementation in order to gain competitive advantage through the ERP

implementation.

1.2.3. Implementation Strategies

The decision to install an ERP system must be combined with the

mechanisms’ selection for deciding whether the ERP is needed (Wu et al.,

2002; Wu and Wang, 2005). Markus et al. (2000) stated that the appropriate

implementation strategy should be selected according to the organisational

structure, the complexity of the organisation, economical issues, strategic

partners, time constraints and geographical locations of the organisation.

According to Al-Mudimigh et al. (2001) the ERP implementation should be

based on behavioural processes and actions as macro-implementation

involved at the strategic level, and micro-implementation at the operational

level.

Recently, the three most common methods for ERP installation, as have

been described from Koch (2005), are:

The Big Bang approach. This approach requires simultaneous

implementation of multiple modules of an ERP package, while

“companies cast off all their legacy systems at once and install a

single ERP system across the entire company”. However, this

LITERATURE REVIEW

15

approach is very ambitious and complicated, due to the difficulty that

everyone should cooperate and accept a new software system at

the same time in lack of supporters.

The Franchising Strategy. This is the most common way of

implementing an ERP. According to this strategy, independent ERP

systems are installed in each unit, while linking common processes

across the enterprise.

The Slam Dunk. The focus of this approach is on just a few key

processes of the ERP. The slam-dunk is generally for smaller

companies expecting to grow into ERP.

It is also worth noting that simulation can help in terms of cost, schedule,

and achievement to accomplish an organisational schedule with lower

implementation cost (Sun et al., 2005).

1.2.4. ERP Cases: Failures

One of the main topics regarding the ERP systems is the possibility of ERP

implementation failure (Davenport, 1998). According to Umble et al. (2003),

the main factors reasons for ERP systems’ implementation failure are:

The poor planning or poor management,

Changing the business goals during the project, and

The lack of business management support.

Many researchers define the failure as an implementation that does not

reach the ROI that was selected as target during the project approval phase

(Umble et al., 2003). ERP systems are expensive and time-consuming to be

installed and once they are implemented, the evaluation whether they are

successful or not is needed (Wu et al., 2002; Wu and Wang, 2005; Zhang et

al., 2005).

The effects of failures in ERP implementation projects are economically

negative for the organisations in which these systems were applied and may

lead to bankruptcy (Davenport, 1998; Markus et al., 2000; Boonstra, 2006).

Most of the ERP implementation failures happened due to companies failures

in matching the true organisational needs and systems in order to solve the

business problems (Ehie and Madsen, 2005).

LITERATURE REVIEW

16

When an ERP system is implemented correctly the success to the

organisation is guaranteed (Scheer and Haberman, 2000). ERP systems due

to their generality and complexity are prone to problems and low performance

and they are difficult to be maintained and implemented (Vogt, 2002).

However, the implementation process through a balanced perspective-

according to which, socio-technical considerations are taken into account and

the strategic, tactical and operational steps are clearly defined- will assist to

the failure prevention (Al-Mudimigh et al., 2001).

There are many cases of ERP software failures due to the fact that

companies did not spend enough time or money to training and to managing

culture matters (Motwani et al., 2005). On the other hand, an ERP system in

order to avoid failure should be usable. A usable ERP system can be defined

as a comprehensive software package supporting tasks effectively and

efficiently in a given work context (Calisir and Calisir, 2004).

On the other hand, cultural issues must be taken into account for the

successful ERP implementation. Most ERP systems are designed by Western

IT professionals, reflecting basically to western practices. This has as a result

the ERP implementation’s tendency to failure in an attempt of western ERP

adoption from other than western companies (Xue et al., 2005; Zhang et al.,

2005). However, ERP systems cost a lot of money and in many cases people

who implement these systems are not trained in using it or do not know how

to use it effectively, resulting to insufficient outcomes (Motwani et al., 2005).

However, Zhang et al. (2005) suggest that failure on the implementation of

ERP systems occur because of:

The need for business process change during the implementation of

an ERP.

Lack of top management support, data accuracy, and user

involvement.

Underestimation of education and training.

The lack of culture recognition versus business models based on

western practices.

LITERATURE REVIEW

17

1.2.5. ERP Cases: Success

ERP implementation success depends on the adequate management of

the ERP context on strategic, operational and tactical level (Tchokogué et al.,

2005). There are few approaches regarding the evaluation, selection and

project management of ERP systems and ERP success (Motwani et al.,

2005). Wang et al. (2005) supported that ERP project success depends

seriously on human factors such as project leaders’ and team members’

efforts and dedication. On the other hand, “a cautious, evolutionary,

bureaucratic implementation process backed with careful change

management, network relationships, and cultural readiness can lead to

successful ERP implementations” (Motwani et al., 2005, p. 541). According to

White et al., (1982) successful ERP implementation could be accomplished

along two dimensions:

Improved performance and

User satisfaction.

On the other hand, as Delone and McLean have stated in 1992, the ERP

systems implementation success measures are:

User satisfaction,

Individual impact,

Organisational impact, and

Intended business performance improvement.

However, according to Zhang et al., (2005) there are seven measures used

as surrogates of ERP implementation success:

User satisfaction

Intended business performance improvements

Oliver White's ABCD Classification Scheme

On time

Within budget

System acceptance and usage and

Predetermined corporate goals.

LITERATURE REVIEW

18

1.2.6. Critical Success Factors for ERP Implementations

The ERP implementation success and how to be accomplished was topic

analysed by many researchers (Sun et al., 2005; Zhang et al., 2005; King and

Burgess, 2006). For that reason and in order the ERP projects’ failures to be

avoided, the Critical Success Factors (CSF) had been introduced (Ehie and

Madsen, 2005; Motwani et al., 2005).

According to Holland and Light (1999, p. 31) CSFs are “factors needed to

ensure a successful ERP project”. The following table 1 lists 32 factors that

other papers and research on CSF’s have focused on. CSFs should focus on

how to achieve “productivity improvements and improved decision-making

which, after all, are the reason for the investment in the new technology in the

first place” (King and Burgess, 2006, p. 67). However, CSFs should be related

with implementation methodologies (Esteves and Pastor, 2001).

It is worth mentioning that CSF’s must be taken into account in accordance

with the determined priorities and all CSFs must be kept in mind during

various phases of implementation (Sun et al., 2005). Top management plays

a critical role in ERP implementation by continuously supporting and

monitoring of the implementation process (Ehie and Madsen, 2005).

According to King and Burgess (2006) the most CSFs for ERP

implementation are:

Top management support

Project team competence

Interdepartmental co-operation

Clear goals and objectives

Project management

Interdepartmental communication

Management of expectations

Project champion

Vendor support

Careful package selection

Another decisive factor for successful ERP implementation is the

methodical understanding of project management principles and its

application, which can be achieved “by establishing the scope of the project,

LITERATURE REVIEW

19

establishing the project team and their responsibilities with clear statement of

work, and defining the performance objectives” (Ehie and Madsen, 2005, p.

555).

No. Critical Success Factors Key Authors

1 Decision making (Light, 2005; Soffer et al., 2005)

2 Management structure (Somers and Nelson, 2004; Le Loarne, 2005; Soffer et al., 2005).

3 Top management support (Holland and Light, 1999; Motwani et al., 2002; Umble et al., 2003; Somers and Nelson, 2004; Wang and Chen, 2005; Wang et al., 2005; King and Burgess, 2006).

4 External expertise (use of consultants) (Somers and Nelson, 2004; Wang and Chen, 2005; Wang et al., 2005).

5 Balanced project team (Somers and Nelson, 2004).

6 Clear goals, focus and scope (Holland and Light 1999; Umble et al., 2003; Somers and Nelson, 2004; Ehie and Madsen, 2005; King and Burgess, 2006).

7 Project management (Holland and Light, 1999; Markus and Tanis, 2000; Umble et al., 2003; Somers and Nelson, 2004; Ehie and Madsen, 2005; King and Burgess, 2006).

8 Change management (Holland and Light, 1999; Umble et al., 2003; Somers and Nelson, 2004; Ehie and Madsen, 2005; Wang et al., 2005).

9 User participation (Ehie and Madsen, 2005; Despont-Gros et al., 2005; Wang and Chen, 2005).

10 Education and training (Umble et al., 2003; Somers and Nelson, 2004; Ehie and Madsen, 2005; Motwani et al., 2005).

11 Project champion (Somers and Nelson, 2004; King and Burgess, 2006).

12 Minimal customisation (Esteves and Pastor, 2001; Koch, 2001; Somers and Nelson, 2004; Light, 2005; Dillard and Yuthas, 2006).

13 Business process reengineering (Somers and Nelson, 2004).

14 Discipline and standardisation (Sumner, 1999).

15 Effective communications (Somers and Nelson, 2004; King and Burgess, 2006).

16 Best people full-time – great implementation team

(Umble et al., 2003; Ehie and Madsen, 2005).

17 Technical and business knowledge (Sumner, 1999).

18 Culture (Botta-Genoulaz et al., 2005; Motwani et al., 2005; Wang and Chen, 2005; Xue et al., 2005; Zhang et al., 2005).

19 Monitoring and evaluating of performance- Performance measures

(Umble et al., 2003; Ehie and Madsen, 2005).

20 Software development testing (Umble et al., 2003; Ehie and Madsen, 2005).

21 Management of expectations (Somers and Nelson, 2004).

22 Vendor/customer partnerships (Somers and Nelson, 2004).

23 Vendor support (Somers and Nelson, 2004; King and Burgess, 2006).

24 Careful package selection (Umble et al., 2003; Somers and Nelson, 2004; Ehie and Madsen, 2005; King and Burgess, 2006).

25 Interdepartmental cooperation and communication

(Umble et al., 2003; Somers and Nelson, 2004; King and Burgess, 2006).

26 Hardware issues (Umble et al., 2003).

27 Information and access security (Umble et al., 2003).

28 Implementation approach (Ehie and Madsen, 2005).

29 Management of expectations (Somers and Nelson, 2004; Ehie and Madsen, 2005; King and Burgess, 2006).

30 Data analysis and conversion (Umble et al., 2003; Somers and Nelson, 2004).

31 Architectures choices (Somers and Nelson, 2004; Ehie and Madsen, 2005).

32 Dedicating resources (Somers and Nelson, 2004).

Table 1.1: CSF’s for ERP Implementations. All this CSFs can contribute to the success of an ERP

implementation project (Modified from Nielsen, 2002).

CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS FOR ERP IMPLEMENTATION

LITERATURE REVIEW

20

1.2.7. Vendor Quality

According to Zhang et al. (2005), there are three dimensions of vendor

quality, which are:

Service response time of the software vendor,

Qualified consultants with knowledge ability in both enterprises’

business processes and information technology including vendors’ ERP

systems, and

Participation of vendor in ERP implementation.

ERP vendors should not only try to improve the ERP products’ quality, but

should also focus on how to improve user’s knowledge and involvement and

to select suitable consultants and suppliers (Wu and Wang, 2005). Nowadays,

ERP vendors provide improved web-based solutions for faster information

flow and try to enlarge the capabilities of their products “by adding

functionality for new business functions such as sales force automation,

supply-chain, order management, data warehousing, maintenance-repair-and-

overhaul” (Stensrud, 2001, p. 414).

However, software vendors play a very important role in ERP

implementation, and therefore their careful selection from the users/

customers is imperative (Zhang et al., 2005).

1.2.8. ERP systems customisation

ERP customisation is regarded as part of systems’ expansion and

organisational decision-making’s improvement (Light, 2005). ERP systems

can be customised in order to organise specific needs of an organisation

(Esteves and Pastor, 2001) when ERP’s available processes do not meet

these organisation’s needs (Dillard and Yuthas, 2006). During the ERP

system’s implementation companies have to decide the changes and the level

of customisation that should be performed in order the specific ERP system to

be fitted in accordance to the needs of the company (Cornford and Pollock,

2001).

According to Light (2005, p. 616-617) customisation might occur:

As a form of maintenance or

As a form of resistance or protection or

LITERATURE REVIEW

21

In many cases where it is not needed or

Due to the nature of the consumer organisational environment.

Alshawi et al. (2004) supported that the heavy customisation required by

most ERP implementations can be minimised by choosing the best modules

from each vendor and integrating them using enterprise application integration

technologies, to create one integrated system. However, most of the

organisations prefer to fit their organisation to the ERP system rather than to

follow another option (Koch, 2001).

1.3. USER SATISFACTION

1.3.1. User Satisfaction and ERP

For the realisation of benefits from the ERP as an organisational

investment, the effective use of information technology (IT) and the IT user’s

satisfaction are crucial (Somers et al., 2003). According to Ives et al. (1983),

user satisfaction is the sum of one’s feelings and attitude regarding to a range

of aspects associated to information products and services. User satisfaction

is used as surrogate of success (Li, 1997; Zhang et al., 2005) and as an IS

evaluation mechanism (Wu and Wang, 2005). Additionally, user satisfaction is

one of the most important determinants of the success of IS (Somers et al.,

2003; Zviran and Erlich, 2003; Calisir and Calisir, 2004; Botta-Genoulaz et al.,

2005) measuring subjectively the information system’s success (Despont-

Gros et al., 2005).

Trust and satisfaction are totally correlated (Flavián et al., 2006). One of

the main questions that is required to be answered before the ERP adoption is

how, how much and when this ERP system will improve the customer

satisfaction (Donovan, 2000) based on the fulfilment of customer’s

expectations (Flavián et al., 2006). According to Wu and Wang (2005), the

key-user’s satisfaction evaluation for ERP system is multidimensional

consisted of three factors, which are interrelated and the interest should focus

on all of them rather than on each of them exclusively. These factors are:

ERP product,

Contractor service,

Knowledge and involvement.

LITERATURE REVIEW

22

According to Zhang et al. (2005), user satisfaction, intended business

performance improvements, and predetermined corporate goals (where the

latter two factors can be combined) could be used as success measures.

Additionally, implementation issues are related to satisfaction (Bradford and

Florin, 2003). Therefore, user satisfaction is a very important measure to be

taken into account for the ERP implementation.

As Wu et al. (2002) identified in their survey, the user satisfaction patterns

are the following:

For key users: system integrity, domain knowledge of the

consultants, consultant's project management, training and system

understanding, and,

For end users: feelings of user involvement, system understanding

and system integrity.

Furthermore, top management support and training are positively related to

user satisfaction (Bradford and Florin, 2003). It is also worth mentioning that

“the end-user computing instrument (EUCI) comprises the five-measure of

user satisfaction: end-user trust in the system, presenting accurate

information, using a clear presentation format, ensuring timeliness of

information, and perceived ease of use”. Zviran et al. (2006, p. 159)

User satisfaction is a very good IS’s success measure, although it would be

more desirable to measure system success in terms of monetary costs and

benefits. Usability and customer/user satisfaction are two critical objectives

that should be adopted in company’s strategy (Flavián et al., 2006). However,

such measures are complicated to be approached, due to the difficulty of

quantifying intangible system impacts and of isolating the effect of the

information system from the numerous intervening environmental variables

that may influence organisational performance (Wu and Wang, 2005). It is

also worth mentioning that schedule, cost, and achievement in conjunction

with CSF priorities can be utilised in a manner that can drastically improve

successful ERP implementations in accordance with the user satisfaction

(Sun et al, 2005).

LITERATURE REVIEW

23

1.3.2. Factors Affecting User Satisfaction

User satisfaction is affected by top management’s support and

participation, user’s confidence and user’s participation (Bailey and Pearson,

1983). Furthermore, user’s satisfaction is also verified by the quality and the

quantity of productivity tools supporting the organisation’s functions (software,

hardware and peripheral devices) (Li, 1997).

On the other hand, it is also suggested that user satisfaction is determined

by the perceived usefulness, the perceived ease of use (Calisir and Calisir,

2004), the perceived quality, the perceived value, and the usability

disconfirmation (Chiu et al., 2005). Ease to use is important but usefulness is

much more important (Davis et al., 1989). According to Flavián et al. (2006)

perceived usability is directly and positively related with user’s satisfaction and

trust. User satisfaction is strongly related to the perceived usefulness of the

IS, as a user who perceives an IS as providing value, is more likely to be

satisfied with the IS than one who does not (Calisir and Calisir, 2004).

Amoako-Gyampah (2005, p. 14) supported that “both the perceived

usefulness and ease of use of the ERP system contribute significantly to a

behavioural intention to use the technology”. Additionally, satisfaction

depends on the difference between what a user wants and what the user

obtains (Flavián et al., 2006). However, perceived usefulness influences

peoples' intentions strongly (Amoako-Gyampah, 2005) and assists in

predicting users intentions (Legris et al., 2003), where on the other hand,

perceived ease of use effects slightly on their intentions (Davis et al., 1989).

On the other hand, both perceived usefulness and learnability are

determinants of end-user satisfaction with ERP systems, among which,

perceived usefulness most impacts on end-user satisfaction.

Expectations on a system should be kept to a realistic level; otherwise

users may discontinue using the system (Szajna and Scamell, 1993).

Furthermore, users are not keen to deal with difficult interfaces of ERP

systems and search for alternatives when centralised IS development fails to

meet user needs. Therefore, the design of an ERP system's interface should

allow easy navigation among different modules (Calisir and Calisir, 2004)

LITERATURE REVIEW

24

Moreover, in order an IS to be successful or failed the way that users

approach computer technology is determinant (Grémy, 2005). It is however

very important to mention that according to Amoako-Gyampah (2005, p.15)

“while the participation of users in implementation activities may be important,

… it may be less important when the users are intrinsically involved in the

implementation process. Similarly, while intrinsic involvement may be

important, it may be less important in an environment where the users clearly

understand the perceived usefulness of the technology being implemented”.

1.3.3. Theories and Models Affecting User Satisfaction

Several theories have been used regarding the variables that affect the

user satisfaction. The technology acceptance model (TAM) and the Theory of

Planned Behaviour (TPB), which both are extensions of the Theory of

Reasoned Action (TRA) (Hung et al., 2003), focus on variables that

encourage users to accept and use an IS (Lin et al., 2005).

The TPB explains how targets and objectives guide behaviour (Song et al.,

2006). Lee et al. (2006, p. 3) defined that “TPB asserts the behaviour is a

weighted function of intention and perceived behavioural control and that

intention is the weighted sum of the attitude, subjective norm, and perceived

behavioural control”. According to Davis et al. (2006) the TPB assumes that

the individual's intention to perform, or not to perform a specific behaviour is

influenced by three factors: the attitude, the subjective norm (to perform or not

to perform the behaviour in accordance with social pressures) and the

perceived control (personal perception concerning the ability of performing a

specific behaviour). Finally, Song et al. (2006) supported that the individual’s

intention to perform a given behaviour is the immediate determinant of his or

her behaviour.

Both Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Legris et al., 2003) and

Expectation Confirmation Model (ECT) (Lin et al., 2005) are useful models for

examining the information technology acceptance by the user. The TAM was

based on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use (Davis, 1989)

predicting the factors that lead to an IS’s acceptance or rejection by the user

(Despont-Gros et al., 2005). However, TAM should incorporate variables

related to both human and social change processes (Legris et al., 2003). On

LITERATURE REVIEW

25

the other hand, ECT has been used in order to underestimate user

satisfaction and both pre-behaviour and post-behaviour variables (Lin et al.,

2005). Both TAM and ECT are focused on three factors that influence user’s

decision: satisfaction, perceived usefulness and loyalty incentives

(Bhattacherjee, 2001).

26

CHAPTER II

MATERIALS AND METHODS


27

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. MATERIALS

2.1.1. Singular

2.1.1.1. The Company Profile of Singular

Singular Software (Singular Software, 2003) is a software house according

to the international standards incorporating many years in the Greek and

South-East European markets. Singular Software products are addressed to

small, medium and large companies

The activities of the company include:

Development and marketing of business application products,

Services such as (training and support, project management and

application consulting, business consulting, implementation and

customisation services.

Marketing and support of third-party applications.

2.1.1.2. Manpower of Singular

The company has in total 161 employees. The 121 of them are employed

in the Athens’ department of the company and the rest 40 are occupied at the

Thessalonica’s department (Singular Software, 2003).

2.1.1.3. ERP Products of Singular

The ERP products of the company are demonstrated at the table 2.1.

As far as for the provided software support services (Singular Software,

2003), these are:

Consulting services for the integration of software products in the

company operational processes.

IT operation and management services.

Training services.

Software product and solutions maintenance solutions.

Support services through telephone or e - mail.


28

Enterprise 4U What is it? An Integrated Enterprise Resource Planning System (ERP) for medium-sized.

What does it include?

Extensive functions, having possibility of adaptation in the particularities of enterprise.

Complete expansion ability for the needs of logistics administration, warehouse management, resources and services administration, while at the same time it can be enriched and be extended with dynamic, separate models of operation, sector-based character.

Who is it for? Medium-sized and large commercial and industrial enterprises of private sector, as well as in enterprises of wider public sector.

Table 2.1: ERP products of Singular: Singular Enterprise and Enterprise 4U (Singular Software, 2003).

2.1.2. Altec

2.1.2.1. The Company Profile of Altec

The company offers integrated solutions, carries out large-scale projects,

designs and produces products, equips modern enterprises with tools,

procedures, methods and information (Altec, 2005).

The objective of ALTEC's activity is to provide equipment, software,

networks & communications, training & services. ALTEC undertakes important

investments both in Greece and abroad. ALTEC supports the enterprises in

Romania and Bulgaria technologically; while at the same time is expanding to

other countries (Altec, 2005).

Singular Enterprise

What is it? An Integrated Enterprise Resource Planning System (ERP) for medium-sized and large enterprises.


Financial management

Accountings

Commercial management

Warehouse management

Distribution management

Management Information System (M.I.S.)

RF terminals management

Asset management

Budget management

Administration of Production

Third Party Logistics

Singular Enterprise e-Order

Logistics planning and controlling

Who is it for? Medium-sized and large commercial and industrial enterprises of private sector, as well as in enterprises of wider public sector.


29

2.1.2.2. ERP Products of Altec

The ERP products of ALTEC Company are represented at the table 2.2.

ATLANTIS II E.R.P.

What is it? It is an integrated Information System for Large Industrial and Commercial Enterprises and for Large Enterprises in the private and Public Sector.

What does it includes?

Accounting

Financials

Sales/Distribution

Asset Management (ΑΑ)

Controlling (CO)

Materials Management (MM)

Business Strategy & MIS

Production Planning (PP)

Project Management (PS)

Plant Maintenance (ΡΜ)

Function Management

Who is it for?

For Large enterprises in the private and Public Sector as well as manufacturing and commercial enterprises

ALTEC xLINE E.R.P. What is it? An integrated Information System for medium-sized companies


Commercial Management Module

Financial Management Module

Management Information/Programming Module

Production Module

Who is it for? For medium-sized companies

Table 2.2: ERP Products of Altec: Atlantis II ERP, Atlantis II ERP/Auto, Altec xLINE ERP (Altec, 2005).

ATLANTIS II ERP/Auto

What is it? It is an ATLANTIS II ERP System including additionally functions for the management as far asthe vehicle market



Assets

General ledger and Cost accounting

Fleet Sales Management

Quantity Model Management

Automated Dealer Order

Used Vehicle Management

Service Management

Guarantees

Parts Management

Techncians Management

Candinadte customer visit entry

Customer Order

Who is it for? For companies specialising in long-term selling of vehicles.


30

2.1.3. LogicDIS Group

2.1.3.1. The company Profile of LogicDIS

The LogicDIS Group provides Integrated Information Technology (IT)

Solutions, both for the Private and the Public sector. The companies in the

Group offer a wide range of IT solutions to modern enterprises and

organisations (LogicDIS Group, 2002).

2.1.3.2. Manpower of LogicDIS

The Group today has more than 700 employees. 40% of the Group's

personnel hold a degree from a highest educational institution, 17% from a

higher educational institution and 13% has completed postgraduate studies

(LogicDIS Group, 2002).

2.1.3.3. ERP Products of LogicDIS

The ERP products of the company are demonstrated at the table 2.3.

LogicDIS SOLUTION

ERP

What is it? An Integrated Enterprise Resource Planning System (ERP) for large enterprises.


Accounting

Financials

Sales/Distribution

Manufacturing M.R.P. II


Add Ons

Plus-Specialized Applications

Multi-Currency, Multi-Company, Multi-Lingual

Who is it for? All large enterprises with a turnover of more than 7,5 million Euro.

LogicDIS BUSINESS

ERP

What is it? Integrated Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system for medium-sized enterprises, which have shown significant growth.


Commercial Management Module

Financial Management Module

Management Information/Programming Module

Production Module

Other

Euro ready,

Foreign Currency Management,

Multi-Company,

e-business,

Security System,

Advanced Customisation Capabilities

Who is it for? Medium-sized companies with a minimum turnover of 2,9 million Euro.


31

LogicDIS PRIME

ERP

What is it? An integrated Enterprise Resource Planning System (ERP) for medium-sized enterprises which show rapid growth.


Commercial Management module

Financial Management module

Management Information / Programming Module

Other

Euro ready,

Foreign Currency Management,

Multi-Company,

e-business,

Security System,

Advanced Customisation Capabilities

Who is it for? Medium-sized companies with a turn over of 1 to 2,9 million Euro.

BPCS

What is it? An Integrated Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System for large enterprises.


Configurable Enterprise Accounting

Configurable Enterprise Financials

Supply Chain Management

Multi-Mode Manufacturing -MRP II


Add Ons LogicDIS Modules

Multi-Currency, Multi-Company, Multi-Lingual

Who is it for? All large enterprises with a turnover of more than 7.5 million Euro.

mySAP.com

What is it? An integrated Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)/e-Business System and e-Collaboration System.


Supply Chain Management

Customer Relationship Management

Supplier Relationship Management

Product Lifecycle Management

Business Information Warehouse

e-Procurement

Financials

enterprise portal

e-Marketplace

human resource(HR)

Industry Solutions

General Ledger/Cost Accounting (FI)

Asset Management (ΑΑ)

Controlling (CO)

Materials Management (MM)

Sales Management (SD)

Production Planning (PP)

Project Management (PS)

Plant Maintenance (ΡΜ)

Who is it for? For Large and demanding enterprises in the private and Public Sector as well as commercial enterprises, manufacturers and service providers.


32

LogicDIS SECURITIES

ERP

What is it? The only Enterprise Resource Planning System which was developed specifically for the needs of Securities Companies.


BackOffice - Middle Office - Front Office

Trade & Order Routing

Management & Portfolio Management

Custody

Security & Audit

Internet Brokers (ELDE) Client

Internet Personal Client

Creditworthiness Index System / Average Market Price (Μ.H.Α.) & Official Reports

CRM

Financial management

MIS - Decision Support System

Collaboration Server

Alert Server

MIS Generator

Object Model

Human Resource

Payroll

Who is it for? All Securities Companies seeking the advantages of the ERP philosophy.

LogicDIS LEASING

ERP

What is it? A complete ERP system which covers the computerization needs of Leasing companies.


Leasing Modules (contracts, branches, leases)


Assets


Who is it for? Leasing companies

LogicDIS CAR

LEASE ERP

What is it? An integrated ERP system, which covers the computerization, needs of companies specializing in long-term leasing of vehicles.


Fleet management Modules


Assets


Who is it for? For companies specializing in long-term leasing of vehicles.

Table 2.3: LogicDis ERP products. These include LogicDis Solution ERP, LogicDis Business ERP ,

LogicDis Prime ERP, BPCS, mySAP.com, LogicDis Securities ERP, LogicDis Leasing ERP and

LogicDis Car Lease ERP (LogicDIS Group, 2002).

2.1.4. Participation

For the purpose of this study, 47 persons working in the above companies

in posts related to ERP systems (support, sales etc) were asked whether to

complete the questionnaire. The percentage of these persons that denied


33

taking part to the study was very small (4,3%). The overall of the persons

participated to the study was in total forty-five. Nineteen of them were

employees in Singular and the rest twenty-six were occupied at Altec.

As far as for LogicDis, the researcher could not contact any person working

in that company, due to company’s deontology according to which any survey

from outside the company is not permitted.

2.1.5. Questionnaire Structure

For the purpose of this study, a questionnaire was structured. This

questionnaire is designed only for the persons occupied in the ERP vendor

companies. Subjects were asked to complete a paper-based form of this

questionnaire given to them hand-to-hand, written to the Greek language and

attached with the consent form.

This questionnaire was designed in order to measure:

The quality of after sale ERP support that the Greek ERP vendor

companies provide to their customers/users.

What the Greek ERP vendor companies believe concerning the

quality of ERP systems/products that they provide to their customers/users.

The questionnaire is a simple fifteen-item scale assessing subjectively a

variety of aspects of ERP systems. The first two statements regard the age of

the respondents and the duration that they are occupied at the specific vendor

company. The questionnaire is consisted of two chapters. The first chapter

examines the quality of after sale ERP support that the Greek ERP vendor

companies provide to their customers/users. The second chapter examines

the quality of ERP systems/products.

This questionnaire is simple, flexible and covers many aspects as far as for

ERP systems in order to evaluate customer/user satisfaction from the

vendor’s point of view.

2.1.6. Filling in the Questionnaire

In order the filled questionnaires to be valid, all items should be checked

and participants should response to each question immediately without


34

thinking a lot. In case of the subjects are not certain what to response to a

particular item they should check the number three of the scale.

2.2. METHODS

2.2.1. Data Collection

Sufficient primary data were gathered, as in the early stage of the research,

the study of the literature review revealed that there is a great amount of

articles covering the theoretical approach of enterprise resource planning

systems. In order to gather secondary data a survey was conducted that was

addressed to the above ERP vendor companies in Greece.

2.2.2. Data Protection

The person responsible for the collection and the statistical evaluation of

the data was the researcher. The results may be published in a Greek or an

international journal or conference by all means. The anonymity of the

subjects was secured by using index numbers.

2.2.3. Contact with the Respondents

Respondents were contacted directly. Firstly, the name of the researcher

the purpose and the benefits of the study were briefly illustrated. Therefore,

the respondents were encouraged to participate to the study and to fill in the

questionnaire truthfully.

2.2.4. Confidentiality

Respondents’ privacy rights were respected. The privacy guarantee was

stated in order the research to be valid and respondents to be protected.

Respondents’ personal information, such as names, telephone numbers or

addresses, were not required for the needs of the study, in order to protect

their confidentiality.

2.2.5. Consent Form and Information Sheet

An information sheet and a consent form, which were written in the Greek

language for the convenience of the respondents, were given to all subjects.

The purpose of the study was notified to the participants both orally and by


35

reading the information sheet. The participation was limited to that specified in

the information sheet. All the subjects agreed signing the consent form to

participate to the filling in the questionnaire.

Additionally, as far as about the consent form, participants were informed of

their right to answer any question and therefore they could either agree or

disagree to take part to the study.

2.2.6. Selection Criteria

The study considers the quality of ERP after sale support and the quality of

the ERP systems from the vendors’ point of view. For this reason, only

persons occupied to ERP vendor companies were asked to participate to this

study. The purpose of this study comprises only Greek ERP vendor

companies. Therefore, international ERP vendor companies were excluded.

Consequently, the vendor companies that satisfied the above selection criteria

were Altec PC, Singular and LogicDis.

It is also worth noting that all the persons participated to this study had

work positions in the vendor companies related to ERP systems (ERP-sales

department, ERP support etc.).

2.2.7. Statistical Methods

The statistical package used was SPSS 12.0. The statistical methods used

were descriptive statistics (frequencies and crosstabulations), bivariate

correlations and non-parametric tests.

36

CHAPTER III

DATA ANALYSIS

DATA ANALYSIS

37

3. DATA ANALYSIS

3.1. Statistics for Each Item

3.1.1. Age and Years of Occupation

3.1.1.1. Age of the Respondents

The statistical evaluation of the data disclosed the majority of the

respondents are aged between 31-40 years in the 84.4% of the cases. The

rest of the respondents are aged between 21-30 years (15.6%) (Fig. 3.1).

21-30 31-40

Respondents' Age

0

20

40

60

80

100

Fig. 3.1: Percentages concerning the age of the respondents working in the vendor companies.

3.1.1.2. Years of Occupation in the Vendor Companies

Over the forty percent of the respondents are occupied in the respective

company for 5-7 years. On the other hand, about the one fourth of the cases

are occupied for 3-5 years and the 20% of the cases are occupied for more

than seven years in the companies. It is also worth mentioning that only the

6.7% and the 4.4% of the respondents are occupied for less than one year

and 1-3 years respectively (Fig. 3.2).

DATA ANALYSIS

38

0-1 1-3 3-5 5-7 7 and more

Years that respondents work in the company

0

10

20

30

40

50

Fig. 3.2: Years of participants’ occupation in the companies (in percentages).

3.1.2. Support Quality of ERP Systems

3.1.2.1. Trust and Security

Concerning the opinion that the vendor companies inspire trust and

security to their customers, it is worth mentioning that none of the respondents

disagreed or totally disagreed with the above opinion. Furthermore, almost the

90% of the respondents believe that the companies in which they are

occupied inspire trust and security to their customers and only the 11.1% of

them had no specific opinion on that subject (Fig. 3.3).

The latter results are significant (p<0.01), using the Chi-square statistical

test but imprecise because of the quite wide 95% confidence interval [95%

confidence interval= (0.797, 0.981)].

3.1.2.2. Sincere Interest to Solve Problems

Over the three quarters of the respondents agree that the vendor

companies present genuine interest to support the after sale problems relating

to ERPs. Only the 11.1% of them disagreed with that opinion and a same

percentage neither agree nor disagree accordingly (Fig. 3.4). These results in

accordance to Chi-square statistical test are significant (p<0.01) but imprecise

[95% confidence interval= (0.121, 0.656)].

DATA ANALYSIS

39

Totally agree agree nor agree, nor disagree

Trust and Security

0

20

40

60

80

Fig. 3.3: Percentages of the respondents concerning the opinion that the company in which they are

occupied inspires or not trust and security to the customers.

totally agree agree nor agree nor disagree

disagree

Sincere Interest to Solve Problems

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Fig. 3.4: Percentages presenting whether the respondents believe that the vendor companies are

truly concerned to solve possible after sale problems in ERPs or not.

DATA ANALYSIS

40

3.1.2.3. The Vendor Company is Dependable

The statistical evaluation of the data revealed that over the 95% of the

respondents believe that the vendor company in which they are occupied, is

dependable. It is also worth noting that none of the respondents disagreed

with that attitude and only a small percentage had no specific opinion (Fig.

3.5). The above results are significant (p<0.01) and precise due to 95%

confidence interval [95% confidence interval= (0.895, 1.015)].


The company is dependable

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Fig. 3.5: The company is dependable. Respondents’ beliefs in percentages.

3.1.2.4. The Company Provides Prompt Services

Approximately the three quarters of the respondents believe that the

vendor companies, in which they are occupied, provide prompt services to

their customers. A quite extensive percentage of them (26.7%) neither agree

nor disagree with the above opinion. Moreover, none of the respondents

support the opposite opinion (Fig. 3.6). However, these results are statistically

insignificant (p>0.05).

DATA ANALYSIS

41


The company provides prompt services

0

10

20

30

40

50

Fig. 3.6: The company provides prompt services to the customers. The beliefs of the respondents in

percentages.

3.1.3. Quality of ERP Systems

3.1.3.1. ERP Systems are Easy to be Used by the Users.

The majority of the respondents believe that the ERP system is easy to be

used by the users. However, a great proportion of them had no specific

opinion on this subject. On the other hand, only a small percentage of the

respondents believe that the ERP systems are difficult to be used by the users

(Fig. 3.7). These results are statistically significant (p=0.01) but imprecise due

to the wide 95% confidence interval [95% confidence interval= (0.433, 0.723)].

3.1.3.2. The ERP is not Cumbersome to be Used by the Users

The 40% of the respondents agreed with the fact that the ERP systems are

not cumbersome to be used. However, over the 20% of them disagreed with

that opinion. It is worth mentioning that a wide proportion neither disagree nor

agreed with the above opinion (Fig. 3.8). According to Chi-square test, these

results have no statistical significance.

DATA ANALYSIS

42


disagree

The ERP is easy to be used by the users

0

10

20

30

40

Fig. 3.7: The respondents’ beliefs as far as if the ERP is easy to be used by the users (in

percentages).


disagree

The ERP is not cumbersome to be used by the users

0

10

20

30

40

Fig. 3.8: The ERP is not cumbersome to be used by the users. Respondents’ beliefs in percentages.

DATA ANALYSIS

43

3.1.3.3. ERP Functions’ Integration

The majority of the subjects (64.4%) believe that the ERP systems have

well integrated functions, where on the other hand, the 13.3% of the

respondents disagreed with this statement. However, the 22.2% of this group

neither agrees nor disagrees whether the ERP system have well integrated

functions or not. However, these results are statistically insignificant (Fig. 3.9).


disagree

The fuctions of ERP are well integrated

0

10

20

30

40

Fig. 3.9: The respondents’ beliefs in percentages as far as concerns the integrity of ERPs’

functions.

3.1.3.4. The ERP system is easy to be learned how to use it

The respondents in 35.5% of the group agreed that it is easy to learn how

to use the ERP systems. Nevertheless, over the half of the subjects either

regards ERP systems as easy to learn how to use them or complex. Only the

13.3% of the respondents consider the ERP systems as complex in learning

how to use them (Fig. 3.10). These results are significant (p<0.01) when

performing test statistics, but the confidence interval is quite wide [95%

confidence interval= (0.101, 0.345)].

DATA ANALYSIS

44

totally agree agree nor agree, nor disagree

disagree totally disagree

The ERP is easy to be learned how to use it

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Fig. 3.10: The beliefs of the respondents concerning the easiness of the ERP systems to be learned

(in percentages).

agree nor agree nor disagree


The ERP has problems rarely

0

10

20

30

40

Fig. 3.11: The beliefs of respondents as far as the frequency of performing problems in ERP

systems.

DATA ANALYSIS

45

3.1.3.5. ERP Systems Perform Problems Rarely

The one third of the group have defined that ERP systems present

problems rarely. In contrast, one third of the same group, disagreed with the

above statement. It is however worth-mentioning that the rest third of the

subjects neither agreed nor disagreed with the above statement (Fig. 3.11).

According to Chi-square statistical test, these results have statistical

significance but they are imprecise due to the wide 95% confidence interval

[95% confidence interval= (0.529, 0.805)].

3.1.3.6. The User has to Learn a Lot of Things to Use the ERP

One in four of the respondents believe that users have to learn a lot of

things in order to use the ERP system. However, the largest percentage of the

subjects (66.7%) had no specific opinion on this statement (Fig. 3.12).

Although, the total proportion of the group supported that there is no need to

learn a lot of things in order to use the ERP systems was less than 7%, driving

also to significant results (p<0.01), the confidence interval is fairly wide [95%

CI= (0.138, 0.396)] suggesting poor precision.



The user has to learn a lot of things to use the ERP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Fig. 3.12: The user has to learn a lot of things to use the ERP. The beliefs of the respondents in

percentages.

DATA ANALYSIS

46

3.1.3.7. ERP Systems Provide Easy Information Transmission

Regarding the easy information transmission that ERP systems provide,

over the 75% of the respondents. The second most common response was

neither negative nor positive in 17.8% of the individuals in the same group.

Finally, less than 5% of the subjects regarded that the ERP systems provide

difficult information transmission (Fig. 3.13). Even though these results

sequenced to significant results (p<0.01), 95% confidence interval was wide

[95% CI= (0.657, 0.899)]


disagree

The ERP provides easy information transmission

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Fig. 3.13: Respondents’ opinion in percentages as far as for the easy information transmission that

ERP systems provide.

3.1.3.8. ERP Systems Provide Information Accuracy

Over the 90% of the respondents strongly considered that ERP systems

provide information accuracy. The opposite opinion was reported only in 4.4%

of the group (Fig. 3.14). The latter results are significant (p<0.01) using the

Chi-square statistical test but imprecise because of the wide 95% confidence

interval [95% confidence interval= (0.828, 0.994)].

DATA ANALYSIS

47


disagree

The ERP provides information accuracy

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Fig. 3.14: Subjects’ opinions in percentages as far as for information accuracy provided by the

ERP systems.


disagree

The ERP provides information in time

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Fig. 3.15: The ERP systems provide information at the moment that the user needs it. Respondents’

opinions in percentages.

DATA ANALYSIS

48

3.1.3.9. ERP Systems Provide Information On Time

The great majority of the respondents (88.9%) believed that ERP systems

provide information in time. On the other hand, small proportions supported

the opposite statement (4.4%) or had no specific opinion (6.7%) (Fig. 3.15).

These results are statistically significant (p<0.01) but with an inadequate

precision [95% confidence interval= (0.819, 1.003)].

3.1.3.10. The ERP Systems Increases User’s Productivity

The opinion that ERP systems increase user’s productivity was supported

by the 91.1% of the group. Finally, two small proportions- equal to 4.4% each-

supported ERP systems do not increase user’s productivity or had no specific

opinion on this subject respectively (Fig. 3.16). These results are statistically

significant (p<0.01) but with an inadequate precision [95% confidence

interval= (0.819, 1.003)].

3.1.3.11. ERP Systems and User’s Timesaving At Work

Over the 86% of the subjects supported that ERP systems contribute to

users’ timesaving at their work. The proportion that supported the opposite

opinion rated to 4.4% (Fig. 3.17). These results have a statistical significance

(p<0.01). However, the confidence interval is fairly wide [95% confidence

interval= (0.768, 0.966)], suggesting poor precision.

DATA ANALYSIS

49


disagree

The ERP increases user's productivity

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Fig. 3.16: ERP systems increase user’s productivity. Presentation of subjects’ opinions in

percentages.


disagree

The ERP saves user's time in work

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Fig. 3.17: the opinions of respondents concerning users’ timesaving in their work using the ERP

systems.

DATA ANALYSIS

50

3.2. Correlations

Significant correlations were found at the 0.05 or 0.01 level using Pearson’s

Correlation test, which are performed at the tables 3.1 and 3.2, demonstrated

below.

CORRELATIONS

QUALITY OF ERP SYSTEM

Correlated Statements Pearson

Correlation [r]

Level where correlation is

significant The ERP is easy to be used by users- The ERP system is not cumbersome to be used by the users

0.658 0.01

The ERP is easy to be used by users- The functions of ERPs are well integrated

0.551 0.01

The ERP is easy to be used by users- The ERP is easy to be learned how to use it

0.458 0.01

The ERP is easy to be used by users- The ERP performs problems rarely

0.421 0.01

The ERP is easy to be used by users- The user has to learn a lot of things to use the ERP

0.317 0.05

The ERP is easy to be used by users- The ERP provides easy information transmission

0.361 0.05

The ERP is easy to be used by users- The ERP provides information accuracy

0.469 0.01

The ERP is easy to be used by users- The ERP provides information at the moment that the user need it

0.386 0.01

The ERP is easy to be used by users- The ERP increases user's productivity

0.480 0.01

The ERP is easy to be used by users- The ERP saves user's time at work

0.488 0.01

The ERP system is not cumbersome to be used by the users- The ERP saves user's time at work

0.331 0.05

The ERP system is not cumbersome to be used by the users- The ERP increases user's productivity

0.356 0.05

The ERP system is not cumbersome to be used by the users- The ERP system perform problems rarely

0.612 0.01

The ERP system is not cumbersome to be used by the users- The ERP is easy to be learned how to use it

0.642 0.01

The ERP system is not cumbersome to be used by the users- The functions of ERP are well integrated

0.577 0.01

The functions of ERP are well integrated- The ERP is easy to be learned how to use it

0.608 0.01

The functions of ERP are well integrated- The ERP system performs problems rarely

0.546 0.01

The functions of ERP are well integrated- The ERP provides easy information transmission

0.546 0.01

The functions of ERP are well integrated- The ERP provides information accuracy

0.547 0.01

The functions of ERP are well integrated- The ERP provides information at the moment that the user need it

0.388 0.01

The functions of ERP are well integrated- The ERP increases user's productivity

0.625 0.01

The functions of ERP are well integrated- The ERP saves user's time at work

0.483

0.01

The ERP is easy to be learned how to use it- The ERP saves user's time at work

0.316 0.05

The ERP is easy to be learned how to use it- The ERP increases user's productivity

0.408 0.01

DATA ANALYSIS

51

The user has to learn a lot of things to use the ERP- The ERP provides information accuracy

0.380 0.01

The user has to learn a lot of things to use the ERP- The ERP provides easy information transmission

0.402 0.01

The ERP provides easy information transmission- The ERP provides information accuracy

0.759 0.01

The ERP provides easy information transmission- The ERP provides information at the moment that the user need it

0.667 0.01

The ERP provides easy information transmission- The ERP increases user's productivity

0.616 0.01

The ERP provides easy information transmission- The ERP saves user's time at work

0.623 0.01

The ERP provides information accuracy- The ERP saves user's time at work

0.696 0.01

The ERP provides information accuracy- The ERP increases user's productivity

0.715 0.01

The ERP provides information accuracy- The ERP provides information at the moment that the user need it

0.809 0.01

The ERP provides information at the moment that the user need it- The ERP increases user's productivity

0.730 0.01

The ERP provides information at the moment that the user need it- The ERP saves user's time at work

0.682 0.01

The ERP increases user's productivity- The ERP saves user's time at work

0.840 0.01

Table 3. 1: Correlations using the Pearson correlation test concerning the quality of the ERP systems

Table 3. 2: Correlations using the Pearson correlation test concerning the quality of the support that

the vendor companies provide to customers.

CORRELATIONS

QUALITY SUPPORT TO CUSTOMERS/USERS

Correlated Statements Pearson

Correlation [r]

Level where correlation is

significant

Trust and Security- Sincere Interest to solve problems 0.397 0.01

Trust and Security- The company is dependable 0.597 0.01

Trust and security- The company provides prompt services

0.354 0.05

Sincere interest to solve problems- The company provides prompt services

0.494 0.01

Sincere interest to solve problems- The company is dependable

0.347 0.05

The company is dependable - The company provides prompt services

0.462 0.01

DATA ANALYSIS

52

3.3. Crosstabulations

In an attempt to investigate associations between respondents’ age and

each attribute of both ‘quality of after sale support to customers’ and ‘quality of

ERP systems’ group, the Using the Continuity corrected asymptotic

significance was in all of the cases more than 0.05 (p>0.05). The same

resulted as well, using the ‘years that respondents are employed to the vendor

company’ attribute respectively.

53

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION

DISCUSSION

54

4. DISCUSSION

4.1. General Considerations

This research examined the opinion of employees of two Greek vendor

ERP companies on user/customer satisfaction with (ERP) systems as

products. The most noticeable aspect of this project is that user/customer

satisfaction from vendor’s point of view was evaluated among several aspects

that impact users.

The questionnaire that was used for this project seemed to be flexible. The

questionnaire’s scale type and the small number of items that were required to

be checked contributed to the agreement by the majority of the participants to

fill it in. Only a small percentage of them (4.3%) denied filling in the

questionnaire. Therefore, the questionnaire donated to participant’s

convenience and to the little work’s time consuming. Thus, this questionnaire

proved to be successful for the evaluation of vendor’s opinion concerning

whether they believe that they keep their customers satisfied or not.

The statistical evaluation of the data revealed that employees in the Greek

vendor companies believe that the vendor companies are dependable and

inspire trust and security to the customers. Additionally, they believe that

these companies provide prompt services and sincere interest to solve

possible after sale problems.

Another noticeable aspect of the results was that employees believe that

ERP systems are easy to be applied by the users and they are easy to be

learned how to use them. However, according to respondents’ opinion, these

systems comprise hardly ever after-sale problems and the things that the

users have to be taught in order to use these systems are a lot.

Although it was expected from the employees to answer positively to all

questions in order the vendor companies to seem perfect, in many questions

the answers were baffled. That probably happened due to the protection of

respondents’ confidentiality rights. Employees were certain that the top

managers of the companies would not be negatively influenced by these

questionnaires, as only the researcher knew their contents and responses. In

addition, the anonymity of the participants was guaranteed and their personal

information was not asked. Therefore, respondents were free to express their

DISCUSSION

55

exact opinion without to be afraid of any negative influence. Thus, as far as

whether using the ERP system is cumbersome or not and as far as ERP

systems have functional integration, employees’ opinions were baffled.

Another significant finding of this study relates to the effects of ERP

systems on information flow. The participants of this study evaluated the

information quality by supporting that these products make the different levels

of information sharing comparable in terms of accuracy, timing and

transmission. They supported the reliability of ERP systems both through

transaction accuracy and easy information transmission at the time that the

user needs it.

According to the findings of this project, system capability also has a strong

impact on productivity and, therefore, on business performance. The increase

in the productivity also corresponds with a decline in production costs,

allowing by this way valuable staff time, so that staff can concentrate on

managing customers’ demands (Soliman et al., 2001). When users realise

that the systems cannot provide information management without improper

impact on response times, they choose seeking for another system (Zeng et

al., 2003). One of the main reasons that companies undertake ERP systems

is in order to standardise automated processes using an information system

and therefore increase productivity and save time (Koch, 2005).

ERP is catalyst for change on productivity enhancements and on

timesaving and therefore assists the company to obtain competitive

advantage without any undesirable impacts. Therefore, ERP systems promote

both customer satisfaction and vendor performance (Garg and

Venkitakrishnan, 1999).

4.2. Correlations

The findings of this study suggested that employees in the vendor

companies believe that ERP systems are not cumbersome to use as they are

easy to be learned how to use them and easy to be used. On the other hand,

the ERP systems are easy to be learned how to be used due to their well

functional integrity, while integration affects significantly the productivity of

users.

DISCUSSION

56

However, easy information transmission that the ERP systems provide

increases considerably the user’s productivity and staff’s timesaving.

Accordingly, when an ERP system provides easy information transmission it

will provide also accurate information at the exact moment that the user needs

it. On the other hand, when the ERP systems provide information accuracy

the staff saves time and get the information they need at the exact moment

that they need it, as well as their productivity is increased accordingly. An

ERP system that provides information on time affects significantly the

productivity and timesaving of the staff. Finally, when an ERP system is

productive contributes to staff’s time saving. All correlations related to ERP

system’s quality are demonstrated at the table 4.1.

Easy to be used

Not Cumbersome

Integration

Easy to learn

how to Use it

Have problems

rarely

The user has to learn a lot

to use it

Easy information

transmission

Information

Accuracy

Timesaving

Increase

Productivity

Information

on time

Fig. 4.1: Correlations related to ERP system’s quality.

DISCUSSION

57

The most strongly supported bilateral relation as far as the quality support

to customers/users, is that the vendor company is dependable providing trust

and security and vice versa. Additionally, the company provides prompt

services and sincere interest to solve possible after-sale problems of ERP,

inspiring to users/customers trust and security and dependability. All the

interrelations among the aspects related to quality support to

customers/users, are demonstrated at table 4.2.

User satisfaction: The ERP Evaluation Mechanism

Definitely, the user satisfaction is a factor that vendors should take under

consideration. According to ISO 9241, satisfaction is one of the metrics that

usually evaluated in the context of use as well as effectiveness and efficiency

(International Organization for Standards, ISO 9241). Satisfaction is linked

with the trust, as “the degree of trust is a consequence of the capacity of a

business to satisfy the needs of its clients” (Flavián et al., 2006, p. 4.).

According to the results of this study vendors believe that inspire trust to the

users and therefore they keep their customers satisfied.

On the other hand, there is a strong link among ease of use, usefulness,

usability and user satisfaction, which is demonstrated at Fig. 4.3. However,

users are willing to adopt a system primarily because of its functionality and

Trust and

Security The Vendor Company

is Dependable

Sincere Interest to

solve problems

The Company

Provides

Prompt Services

Fig. 4.2: Correlations related to quality support to customers/users.

DISCUSSION

58

secondarily because of its ease of use (Davis, 1989). Therefore, vendors

should not overstate ease of use and neglect functionality and usefulness.

Consequently, vendors who wish to keep their customers satisfied they focus

mainly on the functionality of the system in order the system to be usable for

the user.

Regarding the items of questionnaire that has to do with the functionality of

the ERP system (II5, II7, II8, II9, II10 and II11) and taking into account the

statistical evaluation of the data, vendors believe that their products are

functional. In the only item of the questionnaire concerning the functionality of

the ERP, which’s statistical results were imprecise, was the item II3 (functional

integrity). However, functional integrity is a very crucial topic proposed for the

successful ERP implementation that systems’ designers should take more

seriously into account.

4.3. Conclusions

The questionnaire used for this study proved flexible. However, future

research is necessary as the validity of the proposals cannot be truly founded

on the base of a single study. Vendors should inspire trust and security to

their customers and they also should emphasise to undertake as functional

and useful ERP systems as possible in order to keep their customers/users

satisfied. Therefore, the need of investigating the determinants of ERP user

satisfaction and the link between ERP implementation stage and user

satisfaction is eminent.

Usefulness Ease of Use

User Satisfaction Usage

are linked with… (Davis, 1989)

are linked with… (Calisir and Calisir, 2004)

So, they are linked

Fig. 4. 3.: Links among user satisfaction, usage, usefulness and ease of use.

59

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

60

References

1. Aladwani, A. M. (2001), “Change management strategies for

successful ERP implementation”, Business Process Management

Journal, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp. 266-275.

2. Al-Mudimigh, A., Zairi, M. and Al-Mashari, M. (2001), “ERP software

implementation: an integrative framework”, European Journal of

Information Systems, Volume10, Issue 4, pp.216-226.

3. Alshawi, S., Themistocleous, M. and Almadani, R. (2004), “Integrating

diverse ERP systems: a case study”, Journal of Enterprise Information

Management, Volume 17, Issue 6, pp. 454-462.

4. Altec. (2005), Solutions: ERP Systems. [Online]. Available:

http://www.altec.gr/gr/altec.asp?aid=20. [13 August 2005].

5. Amoako-Gyampah, K. (2005), “Perceived usefulness, user involvement

and behavioral intention”: an empirical study of ERP implementation,

Computers in Human Behavior.

6. Bailey, J.E. and Pearson, S. (1983), “Development of a tool for

measuring and analyzing computer user satisfaction”. Management

Science, Volume 29, Issue 5, pp.530-545.

7. Benders, J., Batenburg, R. and van der Blonk, H. (2006), “Sticking to

standards; technical and other isomorphic pressures in deploying ERP-

systems”, Information & Management, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp. 194-

203.

8. Bhattacherjee, A. (2001), “An empirical analysis of the antecedents of

electronic commerce service continuance”, Decision Support Systems,

Volume 32, Issue 2, pp. 201-214.

9. Boonstra, A. (2006), “Interpreting an ERP-implementation project from

a stakeholder perspective”, International Journal of Project


10. Botta-Genoulaz, V., Millet, P. and Grabot, B. (2005), “A survey on the

recent research literature on ERP systems”, Computers in Industry,


11. Botta-Genoulaz, V. and Millet, P. (2005), “A classification for better use

of ERP systems”, Computers in Industry, Volume 56, Issue 6, pp. 573-

587.

REFERENCES

61

12. Botta-Genoulaz, V. and Millet, P. (2006), “An investigation into the use

of ERP systems in the service sector”, International Journal of

Production Economics, Volume 99, Issues 1-2, pp. 202-221.

13. 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, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp. 205-225.

14. Brown, C. V. and Vessey, I. (1999), “ERP implementation approaches:

Toward a contingency framework”, Proceedings of the 20th

International Conference on Information Systems, pp. 414-416.

15. Calisir, F. and Calisir, F. (2004), “The relation of interface usability

characteristics, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use to

end-user satisfaction with enterprise resource planning (ERP)

systems”, Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp. 505-

515.

16. Chiu, C., Hsu, M., Sun, S., Lin, T. and Sun, P., (2005), “Usability,

quality, value and e-learning continuance decisions”, Computers &

Education, Volume 45, Issue 4, pp. 399-416.

17. Cornford, J. and Pollock, N. (2001), “Customising industry standard

computer systems for universities: ERP systems and the university as

an ‘unique’ organisation”. Proceedings of the Critical Management

Studies, UMIST, England, July 11-13. pp.1-18.

18. Davenport, T. H. (1998), “Putting the Enterprise Into the Enterprise

System”, Harvard Business Review, Volume 76, pp. 121-131.

19. Davenport, T. H. (2000), "Does ERP build a better business?", CIO

Magazine. [Online]. Available:

http://www.cio.com/archive/021500_excerpt.html. [20 August 2005].

20. Davis, F.D. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and

user acceptance of information technology”, MIS Quarterly, Volume 13,

Issue 3, pp. 319–340.

21. Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1989), “User

acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical

models”, Management Science, Volume 35, Issue 8, pp. 982–1003.

REFERENCES

62

22. Davis, G., Phillips, P.S., Read, A.D. and Iida, Y. (2006),

“Demonstrating the need for the development of internal research

capacity: Understanding recycling participation using the Theory of

Planned Behaviour in West Oxfordshire, UK”, Resources, Conservation

and Recycling, Volume 46, Issue 2, pp. 115-127.

23. Dechow, N. and Mouritsen, J. (2005), “Enterprise resource planning

systems, management control and the quest for integration”,

Accounting, Organizations and Society, Volume 30, Issues 7-8, pp.

691-733.

24. DeLone, W. H. and McLean, E. R. (1992), “Information Systems

Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable”, Information Systems

Research, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp. 60-95.

25. Despont-Gros, C., Mueller, H. and Lovis, C. (2005), “Evaluating user

interactions with clinical information systems: a model based on

human-computer interaction methods”, Journal of Biomedical

Informatics, Volume 38, Issue 3, pp.244-255.

26. Dillard, J.F. and Yuthas, K. (2006), “Enterprise resource planning

systems and communicative action”, Critical Perspectives on

Accounting, Volume 17, Issues 2-3, pp. 202-223.

27. Donovan, M. R. (2000), "Why the Controversy Over the ROI from

ERP?", The CEO Refresher. [Online]. Available:

http://www.refresher.com/!controversy. [18 July 2005].

28. Ehie, I.C. and Madsen, M. (2005), “Identifying critical issues in

enterprise resource planning (ERP) implementation”, Computers in

Industry, Volume 56, Issue 6, pp. 545-557.

29. Esteves, J. and Pastor, J. (2001), “Enterprise resource planning

systems research: an annotated bibliography”, Communications of the

Association for Information Systems, Volume 7, Issue 8, pp. 1-52.

30. Flavián, C., Guinalíu, M. and Gurrea, R. (2006), “The role played by

perceived usability, satisfaction and consumer trust on website loyalty”,

Information & Management, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp. 1-14.

31. Garg, V.K. and Venkitakrishnan, N.K. (1999), "ERP a curtain raiser",

Enterprising Resource Planning: Concepts and Practice, Prentice-Hall

of India, New Delhi, pp. 3-19.

REFERENCES

63

32. Gefen, D. (2000), “Lessons Learnt from the successful adaptation of an

ERP: the central role of trust”, in Decision Making: Recent

Developments and Worldwide Applications, ed. Zanakis, S. H., Kluwer

Academic Publishers: Netherlands, pp. 17-30.

33. Grémy, F. (2005), “Hardware, software, peopleware, subjectivity: a

philosophical promenade”. Methods of Information in Medicine, Volume

44, pp.352-358.

34. Holland, C. P. and Light, B. (1999), “A critical success factors model for

ERP implementation”, IEEE Software, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp. 30-36.

35. Hunton, J.E., Lippincott, B. and Reck, J.L. (2003), “Enterprise resource

planning systems: comparing firm performance of adopters and non-

adopters”, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems,

Volume 4, Issue 3, pp. 165–184.

36. Hung, S., Ku, C. and Chang, C. (2003), “Critical factors of WAP

services adoption: an empirical study”, Electronic Commerce Research

and Applications, Volume 2, Issue 1, pp. 42-60.

37. International Organization for Standards, ISO 9241. “Ergonomics

Requirements for Office Work with Visual Display Terminals (VDTs),

Part 11”. Guidance on Usability Specification and Measures.

38. Jones, M.C., Cline, M. and Ryan, S. (2006), “Exploring knowledge

sharing in ERP implementation: an organizational culture framework”,

Decision Support Systems, Volume 41, Issue 2, pp. 411-434.

39. King, S.F. and Burgess, T.F. (2006), “Beyond critical success factors: A

dynamic model of enterprise system innovation”, International Journal

of Information Management, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp. 59-69.

40. Koch, C. (2001), “BPR and ERP: realising a vision of process with IT”,

Business Process Management Journal, Volume 7, Number 3, pp. 258-

265.

41. Koch, C. (2005), “The ABCs of ERP”. CIO Magazine. [Online].

Available:

http://www.cio.com/research/erp/edit/erpbasics.html?action=print. [12

September 2005].

REFERENCES

64

42. Koh, S.C. L. and Saad, S.M. (2006), “Managing uncertainty in ERP-

controlled manufacturing environments in SMEs”, International Journal

of Production Economics, Volume 101, Issue 1, pp. 109-127.

43. Le Loarne, S. (2005), “Working with ERP systems—Is big brother

back?”, Computers in Industry, Volume 56, Issue 6 pp. 523-528.

44. Lee, S.M., Kim, I., Rhee, S. Trimi, S. (2006), “The role of exogenous

factors in technology acceptance: The case of object-oriented

technology”, Information & Management. [In press].

45. Legris, P., Ingham, J. and Collerette, P. (2003), “Why do people use

information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance

model”, Information & Management, Volume 40, Issue 3, pp. 191–204.

46. Li, E.Y. 1997. “Perceived importance of information system success

factors: a meta analysis of group differences”. Information &


47. Light, B. (2005), “Going beyond ‘misfit’ as a reason for ERP package

customization”, Computers in Industry, Volume 56, Issue 6, pp. 606-

619.

48. Lin, C.S., Wu, S. and Tsai, R.J., (2005), “Integrating perceived

playfulness into expectation-confirmation model for web portal context”,


49. LogicDIS Group. (2002), “Products and Services: Horizontal solutions:

ERP”. [Online]. Available:

http://www.logicdis.gr/en/products/horizontalerp.jsp. [14 August 2005].

50. Markus, M. L. and Tanis, C. (2000), “The Enterprise Systems

Experience-From Adoption to Success”, in: Framing the Domains of IT

Research: Glimpsing the Future Through the Past, ed. Zmud, R. W.,

Pinnaflex Educational Resources, Inc, Cincinnati, OH, pp. 173-207.

51. Markus, M. L. and Tanis, C. and van Fenema, P. C. (2000), “Multisite

ERP implementations”, Communications of the ACM, Volume 43, Issue

4, pp. 42-46.

52. Motwani, J. Mirchandani, D., Madan, M. and Gunasekaran, A. (2002),

“Successful implementation of ERP projects: Evidence from two case

studies”, International Journal of Production Economics, Volume 75,

Issues 1-2, pp. 83-96.

REFERENCES

65

53. Motwani, J. Subramanian, R. and Gopalakrishna, P. (2005), “Critical

factors for successful ERP implementation: Exploratory findings from

four case studies”, Computers in Industry, Volume 56, Issue 6, Pages

529-544.

54. Nielsen, J.L. (2002), “Critical success factors for implementing an ERP

system in a university environment: a case study from the Australian

HES”. School of Computing and Information Technology Faculty of

Engineering and Information Technology, Griffith University. (BSc

Thesis).

55. Scheer, A. W. and Haberman, F. (2000), “Enterprise resource

planning: making ERP a success”, Communications of the ACM,


56. Shang, S. and Seddon, P.B. (2002), “Assessing and managing the

benefits of enterprise systems: the business manager's perspective”,

Information Systems Journal, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp. 271–299.

57. Singular Software, (2003), Solutions: ERP implementations. [Online].

Available: http://www.singularsoftware.gr/index.asp. [16 August 2005].

58. Soffer, P., Golany, B. and Dori, D. (2005), “Aligning an ERP system

with enterprise requirements: An object-process based approach”,

Computers in Industry, Volume 56, Issue 6, pp. 639-662.

59. Soliman, F., Clegg, S. and Tantoush, T. (2001), “Critical success

factors for integration of CAD/CAM systems with ERP systems,

International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Volume

21, Issue 5, pp. 609-629.

60. Somers, T., Nelson, K. and Karimi, J. (2003), “Confirmatory factor

analysis of the end-user computing satisfaction instrument: replication

within an ERP domain. Decision Sciences, Volume 34, Issue 3, pp.

595-613.

61. Somers, T.M. and Nelson, K.G. (2004), “A taxonomy of players and

activities across the ERP project life cycle”,


62. Song, Z., Wanberg, C., Niu, X. and Xie, Y. (2006), “Action–state

orientation and the theory of planned behavior: A study of job search in

China”, Journal of Vocational Behavior. [In press].

REFERENCES

66

63. Stensrud, E. (2001), “Alternative approaches to effort prediction of ERP

projects”, Information and Software Technology, Volume 43, Issue 7,

pp. 413-423.

64. Sumner, M. (1999), “Critical success factors in enterprise wide

information management systems projects”, Proceedings of the 5th

Americas Conference on Information System, Milwaukee, WI, USA, 13-

15 August, pp. 297-303.

65. Sun, A.Y.T., Yazdani, A. and Overend, J.D. (2005), “Achievement

assessment for enterprise resource planning (ERP) system

implementations based on critical success factors (CSFs)”,

International Journal of Production Economics, Volume 98, Issue 2, pp.

189-203.

66. Szajna, B. and Scamell, R. (1993), “The effects of information system

user expectations on their performance and perceptions”. MIS

Quarterly, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp. 493-516.

67. Tchokogué, A., Bareil, C. and Duguay, C.R. (2005), “Key lessons from

the implementation of an ERP at Pratt & Whitney Canada”,

International Journal of Production Economics, Volume 95, Issue 2, pp.

151-163.

68. Umble, E.J., Haft, R.R. and Umble, M.M. (2003), “Enterprise resource

planning: Implementation procedures and critical success factors”,

European Journal of Operational Research, Volume 146, Issue 2, pp.

241-257.

69. Vogt, C. (2002), “Intractable ERP: a comprehensive analysis of failed

enterprise-resource-planning projects”, ACM SIGSOFT Software

Engineering Notes, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp. 62-68.

70. Wang, E.T.G. and Chen, J.H.F. (2005), “Effects of internal support and

consultant quality on the consulting process and ERP system quality”,

Decision Support Systems. [In press].

71. Wang, E., Chou, H. and Jiang, J. (2005), “The impacts of charismatic

leadership style on team cohesiveness and overall performance during

ERP implementation”, International Journal of Project Management,


REFERENCES

67

72. Ward, J., Hemingway, C. and Daniel, E. (2005), “A framework for

addressing the organisational issues of enterprise systems

implementation”, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems,


73. White, E.M., Anderson, J.C., Schroeder, R.G. and Tupy, S.E. (1982),

“A study of the MRP implementation process”, Journal of Operations

Management”, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp.145-153.

74. Wu, J., Wang, Y., Chang-Chien. And Tai, W. (2002), “An examination

of ERP user satisfaction in Taiwan”, System Sciences (Proceedings of

the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference), pp. 3072- 3081.

75. Wu, J. and Wang, Y. (2005)‚ “Measuring ERP success: The key-users’

viewpoint of the ERP to produce a viable IS in the organization”.

Computers in Human Behavior.

76. Xue, Y., Liang, H., Boulton, W.R. and Snyder, C.A. (2005), “ERP

implementation failures in China: case studies with implications for

ERP vendors, International Journal of Production Economics, Volume

97, Issue 3, pp. 279-295.

77. Yen, H.R. and Sheu, C. (2004), “Aligning ERP implementation with

competitive priorities of manufacturing firms: An exploratory

study”, International Journal of Production Economics, Volume 92,

Issue 3, pp. 207-220.

78. Zeng, Y., Chiang, R.H.L. and Yen, D.C. (2003), “Enterprise integration

with advanced information technologies: ERP and data warehousing”,

Information Management & Computer Security, Volume 11, Issue 3,

pp. 115-122.

79. Zhang, Z., Lee, M.K.O., Huang, P., Zhang, L. and Huang, X. (2005), “A

framework of ERP systems implementation success in China: An

empirical study”, International Journal of Production Economics,


80. Zviran, M. and Erlich, Z. (2003), “Measuring IS user satisfaction: review

and implications”, Communications of the AIS, Volume 12, Issue 5, pp.

81–104.

REFERENCES

68

81. Zviran, M., Glezer, C. and Avni, I. (2006), “User satisfaction from

commercial web sites: The effect of design and use”, Information &


Documents

erp systems evaluation from vendors point of view