User satisfaction in ERP system: some empirical evidence

Moshe Zviran

ABSTRACT

Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems are defined as “configurable information systems packages that integrate information and information-based processes within and across functional areas in an organization”. They promise the seamless integration of all the information flowing through an organization–financial and accounting information, supply chain management, human resources information, customer information and the like. For managers who have struggled with incompatible information systems and inconsistent operating practices, these organization-wide systems hold the promise of integrating all aspects of information and processes within and around the organization. The strategic value of ERP systems and the resources organizations invest in them make evaluating and monitoring their success important to both practitioners and researchers. This is particularly true in light of the many reported cases of failures in implementing such systems. The study aims to gain a better understanding of ERP success through examining the levels of user satisfaction, the most commonly used surrogate for measuring the success of information systems in general, and comparing them to those obtained in traditional systems. It also tests a set of hypotheses regarding possible relationships between user satisfaction and organizational and user characteristics. The empirical results are based on a survey of some 200 users of an SAP ERP system in a Canadian organization. The results indicate a high level of user satisfaction–both in nominal values and in comparison to other IT environments. On the other hand, no supporting evidence was found for relationships between user satisfaction and organizational and user characteristics.

1. INTRODUCTION

The role of information technology (IT) in industry and commerce has increased over recent decades to the point where it now represents about half of all capital investment on a global basis while much of the workforce in the developed world relies on telecommunications and computer-based information systems (Martinsons and Chong, 1999). Automation and IT-enabled redesign of operational processes have reduced both costs and cycle times while improving output quality. In addition, management information systems are helping decision-makers resolve complex problems while responding to crises and seizing opportunities in a timely manner. Growing numbers of strategic information systems that shape or critically support organizational applications of IT are also being reported (Martinsons and Chong, 1999).

Since the early days of organizational computing, integration has been considered one of the most important issues of management information systems. Blumenthal (1969) proposed an integrated architecture for organizational information systems. However, for several reasons, these concepts were not implemented until the late 1990s. Among the objective reasons are the high levels of organizational and technical complexity involved in the implementation of IT. Some implementation attempts failed because of a lack of the long-term development and resource continuity needed for such systems, and only a handful of successful implementations have been reported, usually as a result of gradual inside-out evolution (Davenport, 1998).

The strategic value of ERP systems and the resources organizations invest in them make evaluating and monitoring their success important to both practitioners and researchers. This is particularly true in light of the many reported cases of failures in implementing such systems. In principle, traditional investment analysis techniques and criteria, such as return on investment (ROI), net present value (NPV), or payback period could be used. However, these techniques seldom suffice in practice due to the unique nature of information systems investment (Saarinen 1996).

This study investigates the levels of user satisfaction of ERP systems and compares them to traditional systems. It also tests a set of hypotheses regarding possible relationship between user satisfaction and organizational and user characteristics. The empirical results are based on a survey of some 200 users of an SAP ERP system in a Canadian organization. The results indicate a high level of user satisfaction–both in nominal values and in comparison to other IT environments. On the other hand, no significant relationships were found between user satisfaction and the organizational and user characteristics that were investigated.

2. MEASURING USER SATISFACTION

The measurement of information systems success has been on the research agenda for well over thirty years (Powers and Dickson, 1973; Nolan and Seward, 1974; Knutsen and Nolan, 1974; Swanson, 1974; Mahmood et al., 2000; Zviran and Erlich, 2003), the earliest studies date back to the early 1970s and focus on the search for identifiable and more easily measured surrogate parameters and constructs, including satisfaction and usage.

Powers and Dickson (1973) studied the factors affecting the success of management information systems. They identified user satisfaction as one of the key factors affecting management information systems success. User participation in the development process was found to be crucial for user satisfaction. Studying user satisfaction as a surrogate for information utility and information systems success, Nolan and Seward (1974) developed a questionnaire for the measurement of user satisfaction and administered it to users of various systems in the US Department of Defense (DoD). They also tested the validity of their survey instrument as an evaluation mechanism for information systems. These authors concluded that measurement of user satisfaction as a surrogate for the evaluation of information systems success is feasible and practical.

Knutsen and Nolan (1974) discussed a cost/benefit approach to information systems success. They concluded that a neat quantitative analysis of costs and savings of information systems is impossible to achieve. According to these authors there are too many qualitative factors affecting information systems success, and any attempt to quantify all of them would involve damaging tradeoffs that would offset the accomplished benefits. Suggesting that computer-based systems are agents of change, they proposed that what should be measured are the costs and benefits of change, within a framework that includes qualitative factors as well as quantitative factors.

Swanson (1974) defined and investigated the concepts of user appreciation and involvement in management information systems. According to Swanson, appreciation of a management information system is “the manifold of beliefs about the relative value of the system as a means of inquiry”. This definition of appreciation is closely related to success. Swanson suggested that user involvement in the design and implementation phases affects appreciation of the system, which in turn affects user involvement in what he defined as “inquiry involvement”, or actual use of the system. Swanson’s model, which he concluded should be revised, is depicted in Figure 1.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Ginzberg (1978), investigating the types of benefits resulting from changes in organizational processes and changes in the information produced, made the following suggestions about information systems evaluation:

* A management information system project should be seen as a change process. The ultimate purpose of this process is to help someone (a manager) to do his job better.

* Satisfying this purpose does not necessarily require that the manager use the model developed during the project. Model use is, at best, only a partial measure of effectiveness.

* A behavioral measure of operations research / management science effectiveness can be developed if the issue of goals at the start of the project is explicitly addressed.

User satisfaction has been gaining popularity as a measure of information systems success since the early 1980s (Rushineck and Rushineck, 1986) and several instruments have been proposed to measure it.

Bailey and Pearson (1983) developed a tool for measuring and analyzing computer user satisfaction. They identified 39 items affecting user satisfaction and defined user satisfaction as a weighted sum of a user’s positive or negative reactions to these items. Ives, Olson and Baroudi (1983) attempted to improve Bailey and Pearson’s tool. They reduced the number of items measured by eliminating items that showed undesirable psychometric values and introduced a short-form of the Bailey and Pearson instrument.

DeLone and McLean (1992) made an important step towards consolidation of prior research. They introduced a model of information systems success based on a study of more than 180 published papers, which addressed the issue of information systems success. DeLone and McLean identified six major dimensions of success, as depicted in Figure 2.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

DeLone and McLean (1992) admit that their model is not definitive: “The success model clearly needs further development and validation before it could serve as a basis for the selection of appropriate measures” (DeLone and McLean 1992). This model has been the subject of much debate in the research literature. Many researchers, including Seddon (1997), Melone (1990), Torkzadeh and Doll (1994), Bonner (1995) and Ballentine et al. (1996), have expressed dissatisfaction with different aspects of the DeLone and McLean model (Drury and Farhoomand, 1998).

Doll and Torkzadeh (1988) introduced their twelve-item user satisfaction scale, as a measure of overall satisfaction as well as satisfaction with the extent to which the computer application meets a user’s needs for information content, accuracy, output format, ease of use and timeliness. Each item is measured on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from “1” (almost never) to “5” (almost always). Tests of Doll and Torkzadeh’s instrument for its validity and generalizability have demonstrated instrument validity–content validity, construct validity and reliability (Straub 1989) and added evidence to the argument that external validity and generalizability are present (McHaney and Cronan 1998). Doll and Torkzadeh’s instrument was used to measure user satisfaction in this research.

3. RESEARCH MODEL AND HYPOTHESES

This study aims to gain a better understanding of ERP success through examining the levels of satisfaction of ERP users and comparing them to those obtained in traditional systems. It also tests a set of hypotheses regarding possible relationship between user satisfaction and six user characteristics: functional department to which the user belongs, position in organizational hierarchy, formal education level, age, computer experience and gender.

3.1 Department

ERP systems consist of functional modules. Usually, each module applies to one or several departments within an organization (e.g. marketing, sales). Several studies have found significant differences between different user groups in terms of satisfaction with their information systems (Sengupta and Zviran, 1997; Zviran, 1992). Thus, the belief that user satisfaction with ERP systems will follow a similar pattern, the following hypothesis is made:

HI: There are differences in user satisfaction with an ERP system between users belonging to different departments.

3.2 Position in Organizational Hierarchy

Several studies (Igbaria, 1992; Igbaria and Nachman, 1990; Joshi and Lauer, 1999) have examined organizational level as a variable affecting user satisfaction. The results are contradictory. Some studies show no correlation between organizational level and user satisfaction (Igbaria, 1992; Igbaria and Nachman, 1990). Other studies report satisfied low-level employees as opposed to very unsatisfied managers (Joshi and Lauer, 1999). No study reporting higher satisfaction among managers than among employees was found. Consequently, the following hypothesis is made:

H2: There is a relationship between user satisfaction with an ERP system and the user’s position in the organizational hierarchy.

3.3 Formal Education Level

Several studies have used user education as a variable in the evaluation of computing practices. The obvious hypothesis is that user’s with more formal education will tend to use computers more and will have greater IT satisfaction (Palvia and Palvia, 1999). Based on these findings, the following hypothesis is suggested:

H3: There is a relationship between user satisfaction with an ERP system and the user’s formal education.

3.4 Age

Older people, who were generally educated and trained without the benefit of computer technology, are more likely to have a fear of technology. By contrast, younger generations, many of whom were often introduced to computer technology in their high school years or even earlier, generally feel more comfortable with it. It is therefore postulated that older users will have less satisfaction with information technology (Palvia and Palvia, 1999):

H4: There is a relationship between user satisfaction with an ERP system and the user’s age.

3.5 Computer Experience

Computer skills, often measured by years of computer experience, have been thoroughly examined as a variable in computing studies. It is intuitively evident that higher levels of the computer skills (measured by years of computer experience) will lead to greater use of computers and greater IT satisfaction (Palvia and Palvia, 1999).

H5: There is a relationship between user satisfaction with an ERP system and the user’s computer experience.

3.6 Gender

Gender differences in terms of computing attitudes, computer use and computing practices have been widely reported (Palvia and Palvia, 1999; Igbaria, 1993). Based on the findings of such studies it is believed that there should be no difference between men and women with regard to user satisfaction with the ERP system examined.

H6: There are no differences between men and women in terms of user satisfaction with an ERP system.

Figure 4 presents the research model examined in this study. The model consists of a set of individual and organizational characteristics and user satisfaction.

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

4. RESEARCH METHOD

4.1 Procedure and Sample

The research is based on an empirical survey conducted in a Canadian organization that had implemented an SAP ERP system about a year before the start of the present research. It was selected as the basis for this research for two reasons. First, the ERP system had been introduced long enough prior to the survey for the users to establish opinions about it and compare it to the information systems they had been using previously. Second, the planned implementation of ERP in other parts of the organization ensured much needed management interest and support of the survey.

Data for Canadian survey were collected by means of a two-part questionnaire. . Part A of the questionnaire consisted of questions regarding user characteristics, including position, departmental affiliation, age group, level of education, level of computer experience, and gender. A privacy statement was included in order to assure the users that the survey was completely anonymous and that the information provided would be used only for statistical analysis.

The second part of the questionnaire focused on user satisfaction with the system, using Doll and Torkzadeh’s (1988) short form instrument.

The sample consisted of 200 users of the ERP system belonging to different departments, at different levels within the organizational hierarchy, and having different levels of education and computer experience. Of the 200 users surveyed, 184 (92%) returned responses. Of these 172 (86%) were valid responses.

4.2 Data Analysis and Instrument Validation

The survey instrument used was the Doll and Torkzadeh (1988) twelve-item EUCS construct for measuring user satisfaction. Doll and Torkzadeh reported five factors of user satisfaction measured by their instrument: content, accuracy, format, ease of use, and timeliness. These findings have been revalidated by several studies including Doll, Xia and Torkzadeh (1994) and McHaney and Cronan (1998).

The data gathered in the Canadian survey were first used to revalidate the construct. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted using principal component analysis with varimax rotation and Kaiser normalization. Table 2 presents the loadings of each of the items and lends further support to the validity of the construct.

5. FINDINGS

5.1 User Satisfaction Levels

The means and standard deviations of each of the individual items, as well as the total user satisfaction score are presented in Table 3.

5.1 Hypothesis Testing

H1: There are differences in user satisfaction with an ERP system between users belonging to different departments.

The users’ organizational affiliation was determined by the “department” parameter in the survey. Respondents were classified as belonging to one of the following departments.

Kruskal-Wallis analysis of the results showed a significant difference (p < 0.05) in the satisfaction of users belonging to different departments on only one item (item 3) of the 12 survey items (p = 0.037). One-way ANOVA analysis of the results showed no significant differences (p < 0.05) in user satisfaction among users from different departments.

Based on these results, H1 is rejected. There is no difference in user satisfaction between users belonging to different departments. This is contradictory to the findings of Sengupta and Zviran (1997) and Zviran (1992), who reported significant differences in user satisfaction among the different user groups.

H2: There is a relationship between user satisfaction with an ERP system and the user’s position in the organizational hierarchy.

Organizational level was determined by the “position” parameter in the survey. Respondents were classified as belonging to one of the following groups.

Mann-Whitney analysis of the results showed no significant differences (p < 0.05) in user satisfaction among employees from different organizational levels. T-Test analysis of the results also supported these findings (p < 0.05).

Consequently, H2 is also rejected, suggesting that there is no difference in user satisfaction among different organizational levels. This supports the findings of Igbaria (1992) and Igbaria and Nachman (1990), who found no correlation between user satisfaction and organizational level.

H3: There is a relationship between user satisfaction with an ERP system and the user’s formal education.

Table 6 lists the distribution of respondents by level of education.

Due to the small number of responses in the “Graduate degree or higher” category, it was combined with the “Undergraduate degree” category. Thus, statistical analysis was performed using only two groups. Mann-Whitney analysis of the results showed significant differences (p < 0.05) in user satisfaction between users of different education levels on 2 out of the 12 survey items: item 5, referring to user friendliness (p = 0.030), and item 8, addressing appropriateness of the output reports (p = 0.035). T-Test analysis of the results yielded similar results with significant differences on item 8 (p = 0.028) and item 5 (p = 0.051).

Based on these results, however, H3 is rejected; suggesting no difference in user satisfaction between users with different levels of formal education. This contradicts prior research by Palvia and Palvia (1999), who suggested that level of education affects user satisfaction.

H4: There is a relationship between user satisfaction with an ERP system and the user’s age.

Table 7 lists the distribution of respondents by age group.

Kruskal-Wallis analysis of the results showed no significant differences (p < 0.05) in user satisfaction among users of different age groups. This was further supported by a one-way ANOVA analysis (p < 0.05).

Consequently, H4 is rejected, suggesting no difference in user satisfaction among users of different ages. This, however, contradicts prior research by Palvia and Palvia (1999), who reported significant differences in user satisfaction among different age groups and predicted that older users would be less satisfied with an information system.

H5: There is a relationship between user satisfaction with an ERP system and the user’s computer experience.

In reporting their computer experience, respondents had a choice of four levels: “Under one year”, “1-3 years”, “3-5 years”, and “Over five years”. The distribution was as depicted in Table 8.

Of the 12 survey items, Mann-Whitney analysis showed significant differences (p < 0.05) in user satisfaction among users of different computer experience only on item 4 "Does the information content meet your needs " (p = 0.007). T-Test analysis of the results showed similar results for item 4 (p = 0.009).

Based on these results, H5 is also rejected, suggesting no difference in user satisfaction among users with different levels of computing experience. This finding contradicts prior research by Palvia and Palvia (1999), who reported that computing experience affects user satisfaction.

H6: There are no differences between men and women in terms of user satisfaction with an ERP system.

Table 9 lists the distribution of respondents by gender.

Mann-Whitney analysis of the results showed no significant differences (p < 0.05) in user satisfaction between men and women. T-Test analysis supported this finding.

Based on these results, H6, suggesting no difference in user satisfaction between men and women, can be accepted. This finding contradicts prior research by Palvia and Palvia (1999), who found gender differences in user satisfaction.

6. DISCUSSION

The user satisfaction levels reported in Table 2 suggest a relative high level of satisfaction in both total satisfaction (3.82 on a 1-5 scale) and in each of the individual items. Since there is no normative scale to compare these results, the user satisfaction levels of the current study were compared to the results of other studies using the same measurement instrument (Doll and Torkzadeh, 1988). Significant differences between the current study and the other studies were found in four of the five studies examined, suggesting that user satisfaction with the ERP system was higher than with other types of systems. Table 10 depicts the results of the comparative evaluation. Possible explanations for these findings are as follows.

* Several studies, including Igbaria (1993), Wan and Wah (1990) and Ives et al. (1983), point out the importance of management support to user satisfaction. The fact that, by nature, an ERP system cannot be implemented without strong management support could account for the higher rate of user satisfaction with ERP systems.

* Another possible explanation is that ERP systems claim to incorporate “best business practice” solutions (Kumar and Hillegersberg, 2000). As “best business practices” are chosen among other things by best success rate, and user satisfaction is considered one of the main surrogates of information system success (Ives and Olson, 1984; DeLone and McLean, 1992), incorporating best business practice methods in the implementation stage should result in a higher level of user satisfaction.

* Another explanation for the higher satisfaction scores in the ERP environment is anchored in system integration. Most traditional information systems are designed to carry out a specific task or a group of related functional tasks. Integration has always been a complex, expensive and generally sore point in information systems development (Hirt and Swanson, 1999). ERP systems, on the other hand, are designed as integrated systems (Kumar and Hillegersberg 2000). Eliminating integration problems by implementing an ERP system should thus result in a much smoother application and cause a rise in user satisfaction.

* A fourth possible explanation is the “look and feel” quality. ERP systems usually replace many other information systems in the organization, some of which are are old, outdated legacy systems. Traditionally, these older systems do not have the “look and feel” quality. The shift to an ERP system brings along with it the standardized interface that users easily become familiar with. A new, easier to use interface should thus bring the level of satisfaction up, at least for those users who had previously used old, outdated legacy systems. DeSanctis (1986) emphasize the importance of a friendly interface to system success.

H1-H6 tested for differences in user satisfaction with the ERP system according to the users’ individual and organizational characteristics. No significant differences were found on any of the hypotheses.

H1 tested for differences in the satisfaction of users belonging to different departments. No significant differences were found. The results contradict the findings of Sengupta and Zviran (1997) and Zviran (1992), who reported differences in user satisfaction among different user groups. One possible explanation for this result is that an ERP system is a single, standardized system. Most organizations have a variety of information systems, each with its own interface and functionality, and very likely with differences in user satisfaction among users of different systems. An ERP system has the same “look and feel” for all users. A difference in user satisfaction in such an environment is therefore less likely to exist.

H2 suggested differences in user satisfaction between users at different levels in the organization. No significant differences were found. The results support the findings of Igbaria (1992) and Igbaria and Nachman (1990), who found no correlation between user satisfaction and organizational level. On the other hand, however, the results are contradictory to the findings of Joshi and Lauer (1999), where significant differences in user satisfaction between low-level employees and their managers were reported.

A possible explanation for this result may be user involvement. Joshi and Lauer (1999) found that user satisfaction decreases as organizational level increases. Several other studies point out that user involvement is a key factor in determining user satisfaction. Swanson (1974) reported that the more an individual is involved in the development of an information system the more appreciative that individual will be of the system. Doll and Torkzadeh (1991) report a higher rate of user satisfaction among users who developed their own software. Thus, the implied involvement of management in an ERP project can balance out the traditionally negative opinions managers have of information systems. H3 hypothesized the existence of differences in user satisfaction between users with different levels of education. No significant differences were found. The results contradict the findings of several studies such as Palvia and Palvia (1999), Rahman and Abdul-Gader (1993) and Igbaria (1992) that found a positive correlation between level of education and user satisfaction.

A possible explanation for this result is the “best business practices” incorporated into ERP systems (Kumar and Hillegersberg 2000). Common information systems are designed to perform specific tasks. While every effort is made to ensure ease of operation, organizations usually run a number of different systems, each with its own interface. H4 tested the relationship between user satisfaction and the user’s age. No significant differences were found. The results contradict the findings of several studies, including Palvia and Palvia (1999), Rahman and Abdul-Gader (1993) and Igbaria (1992), who found a negative correlation between age and user satisfaction.

A logical explanation for this finding is the standard operation of an ERP system as discussed in the context of H3 above, along with the rising level of computer use by people in the 45-65 age group. An increasing number of people in this age group are using computers at home and are consequently exposed to standard software applications and experienced in their use. Several media sources identify the 45-65 years age group as the fastest growing user group on the Internet today. This, combined with the standard, easy to use interface of ERP systems, could eliminate traditional differences in user satisfaction between younger and older users.

H5 tested for differences in user satisfaction between users with different computer experience. No significant differences were found. The results, which contradict the results of other studies (Palvia and Palvia, 1999), can be explained by two factors:

* 125 out of 172 (78.5%) of the sample population had five or more years of computing experience. 150 (93%) respondents had three or more years of computing experience. Only 12 (7%) had less than three years of computing experience.

* The easy to use ERP system (as discussed in H3 above).

The combination of experienced users with an easy to use system may eliminate the effect of computer experience on user satisfaction.

H6 tested for differences in user satisfaction between men and women. Here, too, no significant differences were found. The results contradict previous research by Palvia and Palvia (1999) and Igbaria (1992), who reported differences in user satisfaction between men and women. These findings, however, were mixed. Igbaria (1992) reported that women used a smaller number of applications than men. Palvia and Palvia (1999) found that women were more satisfied with information systems than were men. Thus, although previous research indicates some differences in user satisfaction between men and women, there is no evidence that gender affects user satisfaction one way or another.

7. CONCLUSION

Comparison of the results of the current study with those found in similar studies suggests a relatively high level of user satisfaction with ERP systems. Four explanations were suggested for the high level of user satisfaction: top management support, application of “best business practice” solutions, system integration, and user interface. The indication is that the strong management support needed for ERP system implementation, along with the consolidation of all organizational systems and the standardization of interfaces explain the higher user satisfaction.

An operational implication also arises from the high level of user satisfaction found for ERP systems. Designers and implementers of all types of information systems can and should use this information by applying the methods used for design and implementation of ERP systems to other types of systems. This could help to achieve higher user satisfaction and success rates for information systems in general.

Future research should focus on the execution of similar studies covering a large number of organizations in different industries and using different kinds of ERP systems. Such studies could provide more general and valid findings regarding user satisfaction with ERP systems and help in creating a “standard” instrument for the measurement of the perceived usefulness of information systems. The development of such an instrument (such as the one used in this study for the measurement of user satisfaction) would allow the comparison of perceived usefulness of different types of systems.

TABLE 2: EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS

Original Current Factor Analysis–Component Loading

Question Factor (*) 1 2 3 4 5

1 Content 0.794 0.351 0.164 0.214 0.208

2 Accuracy 0.296 0.710 0.338 0.146 0.240

3 Timeliness 0.211 0.012 0.821 0.140 0.112

4 Content 0.518 0.229 0.399 0.255 0.192

5 Ease of use 0.058 0.172 0.300 0.250 0.813

6 Content 0.584 0.184 0.412 0.392 0.251

7 Format 0.105 0.157 0.026 0.809 0.381

8 Content 0.759 0.173 0.143 0.395 -0.064

9 Timeliness 0.229 0.131 0.830 0.234 0.193

10 Format -0.083 0.302 0.412 0.560 0.237

11 Ease of use 0.250 0.232 0.135 0.134 0.840

12 Accuracy 0.110 0.777 0.242 0.228 0.179

TABLE 3: USER SATISFACTION–MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS

Question Average STD

1. Does the ERP system provide the precise information 3.99 0.76

you need? 5

2. Are you satisfied with the accuracy of the ERP 4.13 0.76

system? 2

3. Does the ERP system provide up-to-date information? 4.37 0.63

4. Does the information content meet your needs? 3.87 0.84

5. Is the ERP system user friendly? 3.62 0.98

6. Does the ERP system provide sufficient information? 3.83 0.84

7. Do you think the output is presented in a useful 3.46 1.02

format? 2

8. Does the ERP system provide reports that seem to be 3.35 1.02

just about exactly what you need? 4

9. Do you get the information you need in time? 3.78 0.9

10. Is the information clear? 3.88 0.84

11. Is the ERP system easy to use? 3.55 0.98

12. Is the ERP system accurate? 4.05 0.77

Total–User Satisfaction 3.82 0.91

TABLE 4: DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES BY DEPARTMENTS

Department No. of users % of Population

Sales 10 5.8%

Finance 31 18.0%

Logistics 70 40.7%

Production 41 2.38%

R&D 19 11.0%

Other (not used) 1 0.6%

Total 172 100%

TABLE 5: DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES BY ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL

Organizational Level No. of users % of Population

Management 43 25.0%

Employees 129 72.7%

Total Used 172 100%

TABLE 6: DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES BY LEVEL OF EDUCATION

Level of Education No. of users % of Population

Non university degree or lower 124 72.1%

Undergraduate degree 41 23.8%

Graduate degree or higher 6 3.5%

N/A not used 1 0.6%

Total 172 100%

TABLE 7: DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES BY AGE

Age No. of users % of Population

Under 20 0 0

20-30 35 20.3%

30-40 61 35.5%

40-50 54 31.4%

Over 50 22 12.8%

Total 172 100%

TABLE 8: DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES BY COMPUTER EXPERIENCE

Computer Experience No. of users % of Population

Under one year 0 0.0%

1-3 ears 12 7.0%

3-5 ears 25 14.5%

Over five years 135 78.5%

Total 172 100%

TABLE 9: DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES BY GENDER

Level No. of users % of Population

Male 114 66.3%

Female 58 33.7%

Total 172 100%

TABLE 10: COMPARISON OF THE CURRENT STUDY TO OTHER USER SATISFACTION

STUDIES

Information Quest. Current ERP Study

Study System # N [mu] STD

Type

Rocheleau Public sector 1 172 3.988 0.765

(1993) information 2 4.128 0.762

systems 3 4.372 0.631

4 3.872 0.842

5 3.622 0.981

6 3.826 0.840

7 3.459 1.022

8 3.355 1.024

9 3.785 0.902

10 3.878 0.846

11 3.547 0.981

12 4.052 0.774

Total 3.824 0.630

Igbaria and Overall user 1 172 3.988 0.765

Tan (1997) satisfaction 2 4.128 0.762

(16 different 3 4.372 0.631

applications) 4 3.872 0.842

5 3.622 0.981

6 3.826 0.840

7 3.459 1.022

8 3.355 1.024

9 3.785 0.902

10 3.878 0.846

11 3.547 0.981

12 4.052 0.774

Total 3.824 0.630

McHaney Computer 1 172 3.988 0.765

and simulation 2 4.128 0.762

Cronan success 3 4.372 0.631

(1998) 4 3.872 0.842

5 3.622 0.981

6 3.826 0.840

7 3.459 1.022

8 3.355 1.024

9 3.785 0.902

10 3.878 0.846

11 3.547 0.981

12 4.052 0.774

Total 3.824 0.630

Doll and Overall user 1 172 3.988 0.765

Torkzadeh satisfaction 2 4.128 0.762

(1988) (250 3 4.372 0.631

different 4 3.872 0.842

applications) 5 3.622 0.981

6 3.826 0.840

7 3.459 1.022

8 3.355 1.024

9 3.785 0.902

10 3.878 0.846

11 3.547 0.981

12 4.052 0.774

Total 3.824 0.630

Information Quest. Other Study

Study System # N [mu] STD p

Type Other Other Other

Rocheleau Public sector 1 130 3.120 0.758 0.000

(1993) information 2 3.330 0.741 0.000

systems 3 3.540 0.673 0.000

4 3.150 0.808 0.000

5 3.170 0.861 0.000

6 N/A N/A N/A

7 3.120 0.835 0.002

8 2.980 0.887 0.001

9 3.260 0.832 0.000

10 3.260 0.755 0.000

11 3.230 0.752 0.002

12 3.470 0.626 0.000

Total N/A N/A N/A

Igbaria and Overall user 1 317 3.700 0.810 0.000

Tan (1997) satisfaction 2 3.610 0.880 0.000

(16 different 3 3.410 0.890 0.000

applications) 4 3.630 0.850 0.003

5 3.570 0.950 0.567

6 3.530 0.810 0.000

7 3.560 0.870 0.252

8 3.330 0.890 0.782

9 3.550 0.840 0.004

10 3.640 0.850 0.003

11 3.610 0.890 0.468

12 3.560 0.870 0.000

Total N/A N/A N/A

McHaney Computer 1 411 3.650 0.985 0.000

and simulation 2 3.940 0.990 0.026

Cronan success 3 3.870 0.970 0.000

(1998) 4 3.810 0.995 0.473

5 3.334 1.082 0.003

6 3.850 0.975 0.774

7 3.620 0.959 0.071

8 3.500 1.034 0.121

9 3.840 1.005 0.534

10 3.790 0.959 0.297

11 3.530 1.025 0.858

12 3.900 0.964 0.066

Total 3.720 0.731 0.118

Doll and Overall user 1 618 3.891 0.959 0.220

Torkzadeh satisfaction 2 4.207 0.868 0.279

(1988) (250 3 4.247 0.924 0.095

different 4 3.972 0.907 0.195

applications) 5 3.964 1.110 0.000

6 4.037 0.894 0.006

7 4.099 0.817 0.000

8 3.862 1.030 0.000

9 4.096 0.975 0.000

10 4.286 0.812 0.000

11 4.080 1.010 0.000

12 4.297 0.854 0.001

Total 4.091 0.692 0.000

REFERENCES

Bailey, J.E. and Pearson, S.W., “Development of a Tool for Measuring and Analyzing Computer User Satisfaction”, Management Science, Vol. 29(5), 1983, 530-545.

Ballentine, J., Bonner, M., Levy, M., Martin, A., Munro, I. and Powell, P.L., “The 3-D Model of Information Systems Success: The Search for the Dependent Variable’, Information and Management, Vol. 9(4), 1996, 5-14.

Blumenthal, S., Management Information Systems: A Framework for Planning and Development, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1969.

Bonner, M., “DeLone and McLean’s Model for Judging Information Systems Success–A Retrospective Application in Manufacturing”, Proceedings of the European Conference on IT Investment Evaluation, Henley Management College, UK, July 11-12, 1995.

Davenport, T.H., “Putting the Enterprise into the Enterprise System”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 57, 1998, 121-131.

DeLone, W.H. and McLean, E.R., “Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 3(1), March 1992, 60-95.

DeSanctis, G., “Human Resource Information Systems: Current Assessment”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 10(1), March 1986, 15-27.

Doll, W.J. and Torkzadeh, G., “The Measurement of End-User Computing Satisfaction”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 12(2), June 1988, 259-274.

Doll, W.J. and Torkzadeh, G., “A Congruence Construct of User Involvement”, Decision Science, Vol. 22, 1991, 443-453.

Doll, W.J., Xia, W. and Torkzadeh, G., “A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the End-User Computing Satisfaction Instrument”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 18(4), December 1994, 453-461.

Drury, D.H. and Farhoomand, A.F., “A Hierarchical Structural Model of Information Systems Success”, INFOR, Vol. 36(1/2), February/May 1998, 25-40.

Ginzberg, M.J., “Finding an Adequate Measure of OR/MS Effectiveness” Interfaces, Vol. 8(4), August 1978, 59-62.

Hirt, S.B. and Swanson, E.B., “Adopting SAP at Siemens Power Corporation”, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 14, 1999, 243-251.

Igbaria, M., “An Examination of Microcomputer Usage in Taiwan”, Information and Management, Vol. 22, 1992, 19-28.

Igbaria, M., “User Acceptance of Microcomputer Technology: An Empirical Test”, Omega Int. J. of Mgmt Science, Vol. 21(1), 1993, 73-90.

Igbaria, M. and Nachman, S.A., “Correlates of User Satisfaction with End User Computing–An Exploratory Study”, Information and Management, Vol. 19(2), November 1990, 73-82.

Igbaria, M. and Tan, M., “The Consequences of Information Technology Acceptance on Subsequent Individual Performance”, Information and Management, Vol. 32, 1997, 113-121.

Ives, B. and Olson, M., “User Involvement and MIS Success: A Review of Research”, Management Science, Vol. 30(5), May 1984, 586-603.

Ives, B., Olson, M.H. and Baroudi, J.J., “The Measure of User Information Satisfaction”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 26(10), October 1983, 785-793.

Joshi, K. and Lauer, T.W., “Transition and Change During the Implementation of a Computer-Based Manufacturing Process Planning System: An Analysis Using the Equity Implementation Model”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 46(4), November 1999, 407-416.

Knutsen, K. and Nolan, R., “On Cost-Benefit of Computer-Based Systems”, in Nolan R. (ed.), Managing the Data Resource Function, West Publishing Co., Los Angeles, 1974, pp. 277-292.

Kumar, K. and Hillegersberg, J.V., “ERP–Experiences and Evolution”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 43(4), April 2000, 23-31.

Mahmood, M.A., Burn, JM., Gemoets, L.A., Jacquez, C., “Variables Affecting Information Technology End-User Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 52, 2000, 751-771.

Martinsons, M.G. and Chong, P.K.C., “The Influence of Human Factors and Specialist Involvement on Information Systems Success”, Human Relations, Vol. 52(1), 1999, 123-152.

McHaney, R and Cronan, T.P., “Computer Simulation Success: On the Use of the End-User Computing Satisfaction Instrument: A Comment”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 29(2), Spring 1998, 525-535.

Melone, N.P., “A Theoretical Assessment of the User-Satisfaction Construction in Information Systems Research”, Management Science, Vol. 36(1), 1990, 77-91.

Nolan, R.L. and Seward, H., “Measuring User Satisfaction to Evaluate Information Systems”, in R.L. Nolan (ed.), Managinq the Data Resource Function, West Publishing Co., Los Angeles, 1974, pp. 253-275.

Palvia, P.C. and Palvia, S.C., “An Examination of the IT Satisfaction of Small-Business Users”, Information and Management, Vol. 35, 1999, 127-137.

Powers, R.F and Dickson, G.W., “MIS Project Management: Myths, Opinions and Reality”, California Management Review, Vol. 15(3), 1973, 147-156.

Rahman, M and Abdul-Gader, A., “Knowledge Worker’s Use of Support Software in Saudi Arabia”, Information and Management, Vol. 25, 1993, 303-311.

Rocheleau, B., “Evaluating Public Sector Information Systems–Satisfaction Versus Impact”, Evaluation and Program Planning, Vol. 16, 1993, 119-129.

Rushineck, A and Rushineck, S.F., “What Makes Users Happy”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 29(7), 1986, 594-598.

Saarinen, T., “An Expanded Instrument for Evaluating Information System Success”, Information and Management, Vol. 31, 1996, 103-118.

Seddon, P.B., “A Respecification and Extension of the DeLone and McLean Model of IS Success”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 8(3), September 1997, 240-253.

Sengupta, K. and Zviran, M., “Measuring User Satisfaction in an Outsourcing Environment”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 44(4), November 1997, 414-421.

Straub, D.W, “Validating Instruments in MIS Research”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13(2), June 1989, 147-166.

Swanson, E.B., “Management Information Systems: Appreciation and Involvement”, Management Science, Vol. 20(10), 1974, 178-188.

Torkzadeh, G. and Doll, W.J., “The Test-Retest Reliability of User Involvement Instruments”, Information and Management, Vol. 26(1), 1994, 21-31.

Wan, T.B. and Wah, L.T., “Validation of a User Satisfaction Instrument for Office Automation Success”, Information and Management, Vol. 18, 1990, 203-208.

Zviran, M., “Evaluating User Satisfaction in a Hospital Environment”, Health Care Management Review, Vol. 17(3), Summer 1992, 51-62.

Zviran, M and Erlich, Z., “Measuring User Satisfaction: Review and Implications”, Communications of the AIS, Vol. 12, Article 5, July 2003.

Moshe Zviran, Tel Aviv University, Israel

AUTHOR PROFILE

Moshe Zviran is Associate Professor of Information Systems in the Faculty of Management, The Leon Recanati Graduate School of Business Administration, Tel Aviv University, Israel. He received his Ph.D degree in information systems from Tel Aviv University. He held academic positions at the Claremont Graduate University, California, the Naval Postgraduate School, California, and Ben-Gurion University, Israel.

Promising prospects for real estate finance in Brazil

Managers' power and perception of their subordinates' behaviour