Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2003




   Enterprise Resource Planning Expe...
Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2003




   Therefore, the ERP implementation...
Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2003




H3: The ES industry and traditional ...
Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2003




         If buying package software,...
Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2003




                                    ...
Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2003




enable fast order fulfillment cycle ...
Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2003




    Third, the misfit issue is still...
Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2003




       Table 5. ERP satisfaction by ...
Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2003




       Table 6. ERP satisfaction by ...
Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2003




       Table 7. ERP satisfaction bet...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Enterprise Resource Planning Experience in Taiwan: An ...

679 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
679
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
15
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Enterprise Resource Planning Experience in Taiwan: An ...

  1. 1. Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2003 Enterprise Resource Planning Experience in Taiwan: An Empirical Study and Comparative Analysis Jen-Her Wu Yuh-Min Wang Department of Information Management, National Sun Yat-sen University Hsi-Tze Wan, Kaohsiung, Taiwan jhwu@mis.nsysu.edu.tw ymwang@mis.nsysu.edu.tw Abstract representative samples of “large size enterprise (LSE) vs. medium size enterprise (MSE)” and “electronics & In this article, we focus on enterprise sizes and science industry vs. traditional industry” to investigate industry sectors to compare their difference on different ERP implementation patterns and outcomes. enterprise resource planning (ERP) implementation The knowledge of these factors has great impact on the development, package selection, and user satisfaction in decisions of ERP implementation. However, research on Taiwan. A survey, using the measurement instrument, of these issues is extremely limited. two representative samples of “large size enterprise vs. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. medium size enterprise” and “electronics & science Section 2 presents the research model and hypotheses. industry vs. traditional industry” is conducted to Section 3 describes the research methodology and the investigate different ERP implementation patterns and sampling techniques adopted for this study. Sections 4 outcomes. A comparative analysis of ERP and 5 analyze the data of ERP penetration development, implementation rate, package selection, and user package selection, and user satisfaction. The last section satisfaction based on business-related factors is summarizes and concludes the paper. performed. Some propositions based on the finding of this research are proposed for future research. 2. Research model and hypotheses 1. Introduction An ERP system is a software package which promises enabling a company to seamlessly integrate the data and Today, ERP is now considered to be the price of entry information flowing throughout its entire organization for running a business and for being connected to other including financial and accounting, human resource, enterprises in a network economy [15]. Most of large supply chain, and customer information [23]. In general, companies have already installed ERP and many midsize at the heart of an ERP system is a single comprehensive companies have adopted ERP in one or more functional database. The database collects data from and feeds data areas too. The percentage of companies implemented into modular applications supporting virtually all of a ERP varies across industries and Electronics is the leader company’s business activities – across functions, across among them [23]. business units, and across the world. When new However, research (e.g., [9]) reported that about three information is entered in one place, related information quarters of the ERP projects were judged to be is automatically updated [2]. unsuccessful. A common problem when adopting ERP ERP implementation is not only a technical problem software has been the issue of misfits, that is, the gaps but also an organizational and strategic problem. between the functionality offered by the package and that Successful ERP implementation must be based on some required by the adopting organization. The degree of requisites, including: reshaping how business is done, misfit varies among industry sector and enterprise scale standardization and integration across business units, and and will ultimately affect the ERP implementation business process reengineering [16, 25]. Thus ERP outcomes such as on the factors of ERP implementation implementation will enable organizational change. Along rate, package selection and ERP system success. with an organizational transition to ERP, whole Here, we focus on these factors to compare their departments must be retrained, job redefined, and difference on ERP implementation, package selection procedures discarded or rebuilt from scratch [3], and user satisfaction. A survey is administered in ultimately transforming core processes [1]. Taiwan, using the measurement instrument, of two 0-7695-1874-5/03 $17.00 (C) 2003 IEEE 1
  2. 2. Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2003 Therefore, the ERP implementation outcomes enterprise size). The research model is shown in Figure (including implementation rate, package (vendor) 1. selection, and perceived satisfaction) could be affected by organization characteristics (such as industry sector and ERP Implementation Company Characteristics Outcomes h1 ERP Implementation Industry Sector h2 h3 Package Selection h5 h4 ERP Success Enterprise Size (User Satisfaction) Figure 1. Research Model Industry sector including underlying data and process models as well as organization characteristics such as industry In Taiwan, more and more industry classification use characteristics and enterprise scale [20]. These factors dichotomy: electronics & science (ES) industry and have great impact on the system success. Van traditional industry. The ES industry includes Everdingen, et al. [23] pointed out that the most semiconductor, information, telecommunications, important criterion used in selecting an ERP package is consumer electronics, and optoelectronics industries. The the best fit with current company characteristics. traditional industry includes iron, steeling, mining, Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed: textiles, food, plastic, chemical, rubber, machinery, cable, H1: The ES industry and traditional industry will differ and paper industries. The ES industry has global in ERP implementation rate. competition. To reduce the cost and response time, they H2: The ES industry and traditional industry will differ are undertaking a significant change from being in ERP package selection. vertically integrated to being “virtually” integrated and thus has a strong link on the supply chain [5]. They share ERP implementation success their manufacturing information visibility with their global business partners, create long-term collaborations Once ERP systems are implemented, top managers to enable fast order fulfillment cycle time, and implement then desire to evaluate whether the system is successful. a transparently integrated environment that allows User satisfaction is a good surrogate in assessing system customers to quickly and easily access information [5, success and effectiveness [13] and is defined as the extent 24]. Therefore, ES industry highly relies on IT to to which users believe the information system available accomplish these goals. While the demands for the quick to them meets their information requirements Ives, et al. response time and the level of integration of the supply [10]. chain for the traditional industry are lower. Wu and Wang [27] contended, there are two types of Therefore, the level of IT implementation in different user in an ERP environment: key-user and end-user. Key industry sectors may have some variability, for instance users are selected from user departments and are not only different conditions and situations in computing, experts in the company’s processes, but also possess different degrees of complexity in competition and domain knowledge of their areas in the industry. Key process, and different requirements among industry users specialize in parts of the ERP system and act as sectors. These imply that there can be different in ERP trainers, help-desk resources, educators, advisors, and implementation, package selection, and system change agents for end users; end users have only very satisfaction among industry sectors. specific knowledge of the parts of the system they need In addition, ERP systems also provide the reference for their work [6]. Therefore, these two types of user models that embody best business practices. Reference satisfaction should be measured respectively in an ERP models usually reflect preferred business models environment. The following hypotheses are proposed: 0-7695-1874-5/03 $17.00 (C) 2003 IEEE 2
  3. 3. Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2003 H3: The ES industry and traditional industry will differ H4a: The LSEs and MSEs will differ in ERP key- in ERP user satisfaction. user satisfaction H3a: The ES industry and traditional industry will H4b: The LSEs and MSEs will differ in ERP end- differ in ERP key-user satisfaction user satisfaction. H3b: The ES industry and traditional industry will differ in ERP end-user satisfaction. Misfit problem Enterprise size The misfit problems arise from incompatibilities between the functionality offered by the ERP package and Size is a variable of considerable importance [8, 18]. that required by the adopting organization. As Swan, et In most countries (e.g. the members of OECD and al., [21] contended, the root of high ERP failure is the APEC), small and medium size enterprises (SMEs) play gap in interests between customer organizations and ERP an important role in economic revival and the creation of vendors. The ERP misfit stems from the firm, or country- new jobs. SMEs were one of the major contributors to the specific requirements that do not match the capabilities economic miracle of Taiwan. According to the of ERP [20]. In addition, other research [14, 20] pointed government document released by the Small and Medium out that the misfit issue is a common problem when Enterprise Administration (MOEA) Taiwan adopting ERP packages and may be worse in Asia (http://www.moeasmea.gov.tw) in 2000, there were over because the business models underlying most foreign a million SMEs, which were 97.7% of all Taiwanese ERP packages reflect European or U.S. industry practices enterprises. Those SMEs had more than seven million [20]. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed: employees, amounting to 78% of the workers in Taiwan. H5: Implementing domestic ERP and implementing The total value of export amounts of SMEs exceeds 50% foreign ERP will differ in user satisfaction. of the total export value of all enterprises in Taiwan. H5a: Implementing domestic ERP and implementing However, the scale of small business in Taiwan is very foreign ERP will differ in key-user satisfaction. small. According to MOEA’s standards, small size H5b: Implementing domestic ERP and implementing enterprise is: (1) In the manufacturing, construction, foreign ERP will differ in end-user mining or quarrying enterprises, the number of its satisfaction. employees does not exceed 20 persons; (2) In other industries, the number of its employees does not exceed 5 3. Methodology persons. Their scale is too small. Thus, the extent of business computing in small size enterprises only 3.1. Data collection supports general management activities, e.g., finance, accounting, and personnel administration. ERP Telephone interviews are helpful in gaining access to implementation is too expensive and complex to them. qualitative data and in refining the questionnaire itself. Therefore, this variable was operationalized as LSEs Such dual data collection approaches are advocated for and MSEs. Using MOEA’s standards, MSEs refer to all complex problems [11]. Thus, in this study, data were enterprises meet the following requirements: (1) In the gathered via telephone interviews and survey manufacturing, construction, mining or quarrying questionnaires administered in Taiwan during 2001. enterprises, its paid-in capital shall not exceed NT$80 Top-1000 firms by revenue were included (Common million or the number of its regular employees shall not Wealth Magazine, 2000), but only those with ERP exceed 200 persons; (2) In the case of agriculture, systems implemented by vendors were selected. commerce, transportation, finance, insurance, or service enterprises, its total operating revenue shall not exceed 3.1.1. Telephone interviews NT$100 million or the number of its regular employees Telephone interviews were conducted with IS shall not exceed 50 persons. executives or managers who are responsible for the ERP Because the resources, information infrastructures, implementation from the Top-1000 firms in Taiwan. Of and computing experiences in LSEs are different from these, 850 executives or managers were willing to accept that of MSEs, ERP implementation outcome may differ the telephone interviews. The interview questions are as between LSEs and MSEs. It would be valuable to follows: examine whether LSEs and MSEs have same degrees of Firm’s basic data. user satisfaction. Thus, the following hypotheses are Does your firm implement ERP? If so, how does proposed: the firm implement ERP: in-house development H4: The LSEs and MSEs will differ in ERP user or buying package software? satisfaction. 0-7695-1874-5/03 $17.00 (C) 2003 IEEE 3
  4. 4. Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2003 If buying package software, who is the vendor? SSA 2.6% 2.8% What modules do you implemented? BPCS 1.6% 1.1% The IS executives or managers of these firms were TipTop (Taiwan) 24.0% 13.1% solicited to serve as “intermediaries” for their Workflow ERP (Taiwan) 1.6% 6.8% organizations and distribute questionnaires. Two hundred PROERP/ VPROERP (Taiwan) 2.6% 1.7% and seventy companies agreed to participate in the IE ERP (Taiwan) 1.6% 4.5% survey. There was only one intermediary per firm and a Netup (Taiwan) 1.6% 0% prearranged number of questionnaires were sent to this Others 6.3% 8.0% individual. The implementation ratio for each module is shown in Table 2. Among the ERP implemented firms, the ratios 3.1.2. The survey instrument of “financial and accounting”, “sales and orders”, Two instruments, a 24-item instrument for key users “production and manufacturing”, “purchasing” and and a 22-item instrument for end users were used for data “warehousing and inventory” modules are higher than collection. These instruments were developed through the other modules. extensive refinement and rigorous validation; details of this process can be found in Wu, et al. [26] and Wu and Table 2. ERP implementation ratio by ERP modules Wang [27]. The measure of key-user satisfaction includes Implemented the factors: “ERP product, contractor service, and Modular Applications ERP ratio knowledge and involvement”, and the measure of the Financial & accounting. 97.3 % end-user satisfaction includes the factors: “ERP project Sales & orders 93.1 % team and service, ERP product, and knowledge and Production & manufacturing 87.5 % involvement”. All items of both instruments were of the Delivering 48.6 % bi-adjective 7-point semantic differential type shown in Purchasing 93.1 % Figure 2. Scaling of the seven intervals for each item was Supplier chain mgnt 63.9 % quantified by assigning the values –3 (strongly Personnel mgnt 41.7 % dissatisfied), -2, -1, 0 (neutral), 1, 2, and 3 (strongly Warehousing & inventory 88.9 % satisfied) to the intervals. Documentation: The user guide, operation guide, manual, 4.ERP implementation and package selection and any formal document required for the ERP system. Incomplete __:__:__:__:__:__:__ complete 4.1. Analysis of ERP implementation differences Hazy __:__:__:__:__:__:__ clear between ES industry and traditional industry (Hypothesis 1 testing) Figure 2. Presentation format of each item 3.2. Sample According to telephone interview, the data indicated We sent out 1015 questionnaires to key users and that 71.7 percent of firms implemented ERP systems 1545 questionnaires to end users and received 205 valid among the top-1000 firms. The finding supports the key user responses and 258 valid end user responses. The argument that ERP is now considered to be the price of valid response rates for key user and end user are 20.2% entry for running a business [15]. Among the ERP and 16.7%, respectively. The sample contains response system implemented, 42 percent implemented foreign from a variety of industries and ERP packages (see Table ERP packages and 58 percent implemented domestic 1). ERP packages. The market share for each vendor is shown in Figure 3. The Tiptop, Oracle, and SAP are the Table 1. Respondent profile top three ERP packages implemented and own more than Respondents by Industry key user end user 50 percent of the market share in Taiwan. ES industry 59.5% 51.2% Traditional industry 40.5% 48.8% Respondents by ERP Vendor key user end user SAP 17.7% 17.6% Baan 8.9% 8.5% Oracle 26.6% 29.5% QAD 4.2% 6.3% PeopleSoft 0% 0% JDEdwards 1.0% 0% 0-7695-1874-5/03 $17.00 (C) 2003 IEEE 4
  5. 5. Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2003 In addition, the ES industry is a highly profitable industry than other industries and has more capital Netup resources. The ratio of securities trading volume and others SAP Baan 3.0% 16.9% 13.1% 0.7% value in the ES industry has been above 50 percent, or IE ERP Netup Oracle even above 90 percent for the last six years in Taiwan. 4.9% 18.0% Consequently, the ES industry is more affordable to PROERP 3.0% QAD implement ERP systems than traditional industries. 6.4% Workflow ERP Tiptop 2.2% 22.5% SSA BPCS 2.6% JDEdwards 3.7% 4.2. Analysis of package selection differences 3.0% between ES industry and traditional industry (Hypothesis 2 testing) Table 4 shows the percentage of ERP packages Figure 3. The market share for each ERP vendor selected by industry sector. For the ES industry, the among the top-1000 firms percentage of implemented foreign ERP packages is The ERP implemented by industry sectors are shown significantly higher than that of the domestic one. in Table 3. We find that the ERP implementation rate in However, no significant difference is found for the ES industry is the highest among the industries and is traditional industry. For hypothesis 2, we conclude that significantly higher than the traditional industries the ES industry prefers foreign ERP packages (vendors) (accept hypothesis 1). The reason can be as follows. and there is no significant difference of ERP package Taiwan ES industry has long been internationally famous selection among the traditional industries in Taiwan. for its manufacturing ability and flexibility. The ES Table 4. Analysis of ERP packages selected between industry is a highly growing and profitable industry than ES industry and traditional industry other industries. However, since the wave of the quick response and global logistics management, Taiwan ES Domestic Foreign P value industry must transform and upgrade itself to survive in ERP ERP the global competition. As a consequence, production ES industry 40.5 % 59.5 % .025** lines are being expanded to lower cost places for longer- term development. In other words, Taiwan ES industry is Traditional 46.2 % 53.8 % .234 gradually switching the production of low-level products industry * ** significant at the 0.05 level significant at the 0.01 level to overseas, while Taiwan serves as the base for *** significant at the 0.001 level developing and producing high-level products as well as marketing. With this effort, ES industry transforms itself from a manufacturing center to an international supply 5. ERP user satisfaction center of information, communication and electronics 5.1. Analysis of satisfaction differences between products. To efficiently and effectively manage global ES industry and traditional industry cooperation, the ES industry must highly depend on the (Hypothesis 3 Testing) information and process integration of global supply chain. Therefore, ERP become a good strategic solution Tables 5 and 6 show that the overall ERP satisfaction for the ES industry. in ES industry is significantly higher than that of the traditional industry, especially for key-user satisfaction Table 3. ERP implementation rate by industry sectors on ERP product factors: response time, completeness, Industry The Ratio Implemented Unimplemente P output flexibility, system flexibility and system integrity. Sector of Firms ERP ratio d ERP Ratio value The ES industry significantly reaps benefits on ERP ES industry 36.8 % 84.4 % 15.6 % systems. The reason can be that most of the firms in the Traditional 63.2 % 60.3 % 39.7 % .000*** ES industry in Taiwan belong to the Original Equipment industry Manufacturers (OEM). They are undertaking a * ** *** significant at the 0.05 level significant at the 0.01 level significant significant change from being vertically integrated to at the 0.001 level being “virtually” integrated [5]. Their goal is to become Zp = p1 − p 2 pi: relative percentage, ni: sample the center of globally dedicated foundry. Their p1(1 − p1) + p 2(1 − p 2) competitive advantage is flexible process, business n1 n2 size integration, and high quality. They share their manufacturing information visibility with their global business partners, create long-term collaborations to 0-7695-1874-5/03 $17.00 (C) 2003 IEEE 5
  6. 6. Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2003 enable fast order fulfillment cycle time, and implement a ones in many aspects. The situation is even worse in the transparently integrated environment that allows “consultant’s domain knowledge”, “customization”, customers to quickly and easily access information [2, 5, “documentation”, “required time for ERP 24]. The ERP systems are able to support the business implementation”, and “training” items since their scores visions in the ES industry. Therefore, we suggest: of satisfaction for the foreign ERP packages are negative. Proposition 1: The satisfaction of ERP is positively As many researchers contended [4, 16] that associated/ correlated with the degree of modification of an ERP package’s software code to internationalization for the firm. satisfy organizational idiosyncrasies is highly Proposition 2: The satisfaction of ERP is positively impractical. Our finding supports this argument. The associated/ correlated with the degree of flexible result indicates that the “customization” is a problem operation requests for the firm. regardless of ERP package localization. The customization satisfaction receives the lowest score 5.2. Analysis of satisfaction differences between among all items as shown in Table 7 (domestic ERP: .19 LSEs and MSEs (Hypothesis 4 Testing) and foreign: -.28). Table 8 shows that the overall end-user satisfaction of Tables 5 and 6 show the satisfaction of key users and domestic ERP package is no significantly different from end users by different enterprise sizes. We find that there that of the foreign ERP package. However, we find that is no significant difference of end user satisfaction the scores of the “required time for ERP implementation” between LSEs and MSEs (reject hypothesis 4b). and “system flexibility” of foreign ERP packages are However, there are significant difference of key-user significantly lower than that of domestic ERP packages. satisfaction between LSEs and MSEs on some ERP These phenomena imply that more serious misfit consultant service and ERP product factors (marginally problems exist in foreign ERP implementation. accept hypothesis 4a). For instance, the key user satisfaction of LSEs is significantly lower than that of the 5.3.2. Top management involvement MSEs on the items of “consultant experience”, As shown in Table 7, we find a surprised “consultant’s project managements”, “consultant’s phenomenon that although the top management technical competences”, “training”, “relevancy”, and involvement for implementing foreign ERP packages is “auditing and control”. This can be the reason that the higher than that of the domestic ones, the overall complexity of training, redesigning works, rearranging satisfaction of foreign ERP packages is lower than that of jobs, and coordinating consultants for the LSEs is higher the domestic ones. The importance of the top than that of the MSEs. These works are key users’ management involvement and support is going without responsibilities and they are highly involved during the saying in adopting a new information technology to an ERP implementation process. organization. But the embedded business models of foreign ERP packages typically reflect the Western 5.3. Analysis of satisfaction differences between practices, unanticipated misfits in ERP does cause breakdown, even in the higher top management domestic and foreign ERP packages involvement and support case in our study. Hence, we (Hypothesis 5 testing) suggest that: Proposition 3: The degree of influence of the “fit” 5.3.1. Misfit problem issue is greater than that of the top management Tables 7 and 8 show the user-satisfaction differences involvement and support in ERP satisfaction. between the domestic and foreign ERP package implementation from the viewpoints of key-user and end- 6. Conclusions user. The overall key-user satisfaction of domestic ERP package is significantly higher than that of the foreign In this study, we find that, first, more than 70% of the ERP package (accept hypothesis 5a). Researchers (Soh, et firms implemented ERP and the ERP implementation al., 2000; Krumbholz and Maiden, 2001) pointed out that rate in the ES industry is the highest among the the misfit issue is a common problem when adopting industries. Second, the ERP user satisfaction of ES ERP packages and may be worse in Asia because the industry is significantly higher than that of the traditional business models underlying most foreign ERP packages industry. From the key-user viewpoint, the ERP reflect European or U.S. industry practices [20]. Our satisfaction of MSEs is significantly higher than that of finding supports their argument. LSEs. The user satisfaction may be positively associated Table 7 indicates that the satisfaction of foreign ERP the degree of user involvement in ERP implementation. packages is significantly lower than that of the domestic 0-7695-1874-5/03 $17.00 (C) 2003 IEEE 6
  7. 7. Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2003 Third, the misfit issue is still a serious problem for [11] Kaplan, B. and Duchon, D., “Combining Qualitative and the ERP implementation. The ERP user satisfaction is Quantitative Methods in Information System Research: A Case low. Specifically, the satisfaction of foreign packages is Study,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 4, 1998, pp.571-586. significantly lower that that of the domestic ones and the [12] Kerlinger, F. N. and Lee, H. B., Foundations of Behavioral Research, 4th edition, Harcourt Brace, 2000. situation is even worse in the “domain knowledge of [13] Klenke, K., “Construct Measurement in Management consultants”, “customization”, “documentation”, Information systems: A Review and Critique of User “required time for ERP implementation”, and “training” Satisfaction and User Involvement Instruments,” INFOR, Vol. items. Thus, careful evaluation is requisite before 30, No. 4, 1992, pp.325-348. selecting and implementing an ERP package because [14] Krumbholz, M. and Maiden, N., “The Implementation of ERP is expensive and once ERP implemented, it is Enterprise Resource Planning Packages in Different difficult and expensive to undo. Organizational and National Cultures,” Information Systems, ERP vendors and IS managers must be alert to the Vol. 26, 2001, pp.185-204. low satisfaction items. These finding provide a useful [15] Kumar, K. and van Hillegersberg, J., “ERP Experiences bases for the ERP vendors to evaluate their relative and Evolution,” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 43, No. 4, 2000, pp.23-26. goodness or badness, then take necessary actions to improve. It is valuable for the IS managers taking these [16] Markus, M. L., “The Qualitative Difference in findings into account when selecting an ERP package Information Systems Research and Practice,” Proceedings of and paying attention to what aspects of their ERP the IFIP TC8 WG 8.2 International Conference on Information systems during the implementation process to reduce the Systems and Qualitative Research, 1997, pp. 11-27.. [17] Markus, M. L., Tanis, C., and van Fenems, P. C., risk of system failure. “Multisite ERP Implementations,” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 43, No. 4, 2000, pp.42-46. References: [18] Palvia, P. C. and Palvia, S. C., “An Examination of the IT Satisfaction of Small-business Users,” Information & [1] Caldwell, B. and Stein, T., “Beyond ERP:New IT Management, Vol. 35, 1999, pp.127-137. Agenda: A Second Wave of ERP Activity Promises to Increase [19] Simon, C. W., “Will Egg-sucking Ever Become a Efficiency and Transform Ways of Doing Business,” Science?” Human Factors Society Bulletin, Vol. 30, 1987, InformationWeek, 711, November 30, 1998. pp.1-4. [2] Davenport, T. H., “Putting the Enterprise into the [20] Soh, C., Kien, S. S., and Tay-Yap, J., “Cultural Fits and Enterprise system,” Harvard Business Review, July-August Misfits: Is ERP A Universal Solution,” Communications of the 1998, pp.121-131. ACM, Vol. 43, No. 4, 2000, pp.47-51. [3] Deutsch, C. H., “Software That Can Make a Grown [21] Swan, J., Newell, S., and Robertson, M., “The Illusion of Company Cry,” The New York Times, November 8, 1998. Best Practice in Information Systems for Operations [4] Glass, R. L., “Enterprise Resource Planning - Management,” European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. Breakthrough and/or Term Problem?”, ACM SIGMIS 8, 1999, pp.284-293. Database, Vol. 29, No. 2, 1998, pp. 14-16. [22] Sweat, J., “ERP: Enterprise Application Suits Are [5] Glover, R., “The Electronics Industry Supply Chain: Who Becoming A Focal Point of Business and Technology Does What?” Proceedings of the 38th Conference on Design Planning,” Information Week, 1998, pp.42-52. Automation Conference, June 2001. [23] Van Everdingen, Y., van Hillegersberg, J., and Waarts, [6] Hirt, S. G. and Swanson, E. B., “Maintaining ERP: E., “ERP Adoption by European Midsize Companies,” Rethinking Relational Foundations,” The Anderson School at Communications of the ACM, Vol. 43, No. 4, 2000, pp.27-31. UCLA, working paper, 1999. [24] Wetherbe, J. C. and Frolick, M. N., “Cycle Time [7] Hong, K. K. and Kim, Y. G., “The Critical Success Reduction: Concepts and Case Studies,” Communications of Factors for ERP Implementation: An Organizational Fit AIS, Vol. 3, No. 13, 2000, pp.1-42. Perspective,” Information & Management, Vol. 40, 2002, [25] Willcocks, J. P. and Sykes, R., “The Role of the CIO and pp.25-40. IT Function in ERP,” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 43, [8] Huang, Z. and Palvia, P., “ERP Implementation Issues in No. 4, 2000, pp.32-38. Advanced and Developing Countries,” Business Process [26] Wu, J-H., Wang, Y-M., Chang-Chien, M-C., and Tai, W- Management Journal, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2001, pp.276-284. C., "Developing and Applying User Satisfaction as a Measure [9] Griffith, T. L., Zammuto, R. F., and Aiman-Smith, L., of ERP Success in an Outsourcing Environment," Proceedings “Why New Technologies Fail?” Industrial Management, 1999, of the 6th Asia Pacific Decision Science Annual Meeting, pp.29-34. Singapore, July 17-21, 2001. [10] Ives, B., Olson, M. H., and Baroudi, J. J., "The [27] Wu, J-H. and Wang, Y-M., "Development of a Tool for Measurement of User Information Satisfaction," Measuring Key-User Satisfaction in an ERP Outsourcing Communications of the ACM, Vol. 26, No. 10, 1983, pp.785- Environment," Proceedings of the 6th Pacific Asia Conference 793. on Information Systems, Sep 2-4, 2002. 0-7695-1874-5/03 $17.00 (C) 2003 IEEE 7
  8. 8. Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2003 Table 5. ERP satisfaction by enterprise size and by industry sector (Key-User) User Satisfaction List Enterprise Size Industry Sector LSE MSE P value ES+ T++ P value Top management involvement .61 .74 .602 .61 .64 .827 Consultant’s domain knowledge .02 .16 .625 .23 -.25 .003** Consultant experience .52 1.05 .038* .59 .53 .696 Consultant’s project managements .34 .89 .029* .48 .27 .146 Consultant’s technical competences .55 1.21 .012* .65 .57 .603 Customization -.09 .32 .156 .07 -.23 .070 Documentation .16 .47 .243 .24 .11 .421 Required time for ERP implementation .08 .21 .594 .31 -.24 .000*** Training .08 .58 .035* .10 .16 .682 Accuracy .73 .95 .294 .80 .69 .373 Timeliness .71 .74 .894 .78 .61 .170 Reliability .90 1.11 .337 1.02 .77 .054 Response time .39 .58 .469 .59 .14 .003** Completeness .61 .37 .441 .72 .38 .012* Output flexibility .40 .21 .495 .59 .08 .001*** * Relevancy .58 1.05 .046 .75 .45 .027* System stability .79 .84 .833 .83 .75 .578 Auditing and control .61 1.05 .034* .68 .60 .481 Ease of use .48 .53 .849 .60 .33 .037* Usefulness .87 1.26 .057 .99 .78 .098 Feeling of user involvement .85 1.32 .066 1.01 .73 .065 System understanding .47 .63 .482 .52 .43 .495 System flexibility .20 .32 .683 .43 -.10 .002** System integrity .22 .42 .461 .39 .00 .024* Total satisfaction .47 .71 .126 .59 .34 .007** + ES: Electronic and science industry ++ T: Traditional industries * significant at the 0.05 level ** significant at the 0.01 level *** significant at the 0.001 level 0-7695-1874-5/03 $17.00 (C) 2003 IEEE 8
  9. 9. Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2003 Table 6. ERP satisfaction by enterprise size and by industry sector (End-User) Enterprise Size Industry Sector User Satisfaction List LSE MSE P value ES+ T++ P value Relationship with the ERP project team .84 1.14 .061 .86 .87 .907 Communication with the ERP project team .65 .81 .305 .70 .63 .495 The domain knowledge of the ERP project team .55 .54 .952 .70 .40 .004 ** Attitude of the ERP project team .59 .67 .625 .69 .50 .076 Training .30 .19 .508 .35 .21 .200 Documentation .21 .09 .473 .22 .17 .666 Required time for ERP implementation .25 .41 .324 .31 .22 .412 Accuracy .70 .71 .926 .73 .67 .565 Timeliness .63 .47 .307 .66 .56 .399 Reliability .78 .74 .826 .81 .73 .447 Response time .21 .17 .837 .31 .06 .048 * Completeness .55 .59 .813 .63 .47 .133 Output requirement .29 .51 .172 .37 .23 .234 Relevancy .56 .69 .373 .66 .47 .044 * System stability .48 .67 .235 .51 .48 .806 Auditing and control .42 .30 .390 .43 .37 .477 Ease of use .62 .54 .615 .72 .48 .025 * Usefulness .65 .67 .904 .77 .53 .022 * Feeling of user involvement .30 .23 .683 .38 .19 .097 System understanding .11 .10 .918 .24 -.02 .017 * System flexibility .05 .34 .081 .24 -.06 .007 ** System integrity .17 .07 .552 .22 .09 .273 Total Satisfaction .45 .49 .756 .52 .37 .035* + ES: Electronic and science industry ++ T: Traditional industries *significant at the 0.05 level ** significant at the 0.01 level *** significant at the 0.001 level 0-7695-1874-5/03 $17.00 (C) 2003 IEEE 9
  10. 10. Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2003 Table 7. ERP satisfaction between domestic and foreign ERP (Key-User) User Satisfaction List Domestic ERP Foreign ERP P value Top management involvement .46 .63 .222 Consultant’s domain knowledge .28 -.18 .008** Consultant experience 1.04 .24 .000*** Consultant’s project managements .74 .13 .000*** Consultant’s technical competences 1.04 .33 .000*** Customization .19 -.28 .007** Documentation .43 -.02 .008** Required time for ERP implementation .28 -.11 .014* Training .44 -.12 .000*** Accuracy .75 .67 .508 Timeliness .71 .64 .607 Reliability .93 .85 .568 Response time .44 .28 .321 Completeness .55 .50 .738 Output flexibility .54 .23 .061 Relevancy .81 .44 .011* System stability .94 .67 .076 Auditing and control .83 .52 .015* Ease of use .74 .33 .004** Usefulness 1.10 .73 .002** Feeling of user involvement .93 .83 .554 System understanding .62 .34 .050* System flexibility .43 .03 .023* System integrity .40 .09 .087 Total satisfaction .64 .33 .001*** *significant at the 0.05 level ** significant at the 0.01 level *** significant at the 0.001 level Table 8. ERP satisfaction between domestic and foreign ERP (End-User) User Satisfaction List Domestic ERP Foreign ERP P value Relationship with the ERP project team .98 .76 .069 Communication with the ERP project team .76 .61 .209 The domain knowledge of the ERP project team .63 .47 .167 Attitude of the ERP project team .71 .43 .024* Training .30 .16 .268 Documentation .10 .24 .303 Required time for ERP implementation .40 .12 .023* Accuracy .66 .67 .987 Timeliness .65 .54 .353 Reliability .72 .72 .991 Response time .23 .09 .334 Completeness .58 .51 .539 Output requirement .34 .22 .327 Relevancy .57 .48 .418 System stability .36 .56 .109 Auditing and control .40 .34 .557 Ease of use .65 .50 .221 Usefulness .70 .59 .350 Feeling of user involvement .36 .13 .067 System understanding .18 -.02 .083 System flexibility .29 -.15 .000*** System integrity .27 .02 .060 Total satisfaction .49 .36 .099 *significant at the 0.05 level **significant at the 0.01 level *** significant at the 0.001 level 0-7695-1874-5/03 $17.00 (C) 2003 IEEE 10

×