Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2002
An Examination of ERP User Satisfaction in Taiwan
Jen-Her Wu Yuh-Min Wang Mien-Chih Chang-Chien
National Sun Yat-sen University, Taiwan
jhwu@mis.nsysu.edu.tw ymwang@mis.nsysu.edu.tw alan@fuhsing.com.tw
Abstract
Enterprise research planning (ERP) systems for
supporting inter- and intra-company business processes
are reaching maturity in many organizations. However,
ERP systems are complex and expensive, and the decision
to install an ERP system necessitates a choice of
mechanisms for determining whether the ERP is needed,
and once implemented, whether it is successful. User
satisfaction is one evaluation mechanism for determining
system success. In this study, we concentrate on
satisfaction results, examine factors related to satisfaction,
and compare satisfaction differences between firms
implementing foreign and domestic ERP systems. A survey
was conducted to identify user satisfaction patterns. A
general observation was that several areas of low ERP
satisfaction (mean value less than .5) exist among
key-users and end-users. For key-users these are: system
integrity, domain knowledge of consultants, consultant's
project management, training, and system understanding,
and for end-users, feelings of user involvement, system
understanding and system integrity.
1. Introduction
Enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems
development began with standard inventory control
packages, evolved to material requirements planning, and
passed through manufacturing resource planning to its
present state. Kumar and van Hillegersberg [13] pointed
out that ERP system use is now considered an entry fee
for running a business, and for being connected to other
enterprises in a network economy. Most large
organizations have already installed ERP systems and
mid-size companies are beginning to embrace ERP.
Due to the complexity of ERP systems,
implementation may involve difficult, possibly unique,
technical and managerial choices and challenges [14].
With the need for rapid delivery of systems to business and
all-too-common in-house shortages of both routine and
key skills, vendors and suppliers can perform important
fill-in roles [24] Instead of developing ERP systems
in-house, many organizations purchase them from external
contractors. However, ERP systems are expensive, and
once a system has been implemented, top managers then
0-7695-1435-9/02 $17.00 (c) 2002 IEEE
Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-3502)
0-7695-1435-9/02 $17.00 2002 IEEE
Wei-Chun Tai
need to evaluate whether it is successful.
Measuring ERP impact directly from costs and
benefits, productivity improvements, competitive
advantage and impact on decision-making would be ideal.
In view of the difficulty such measurement entails, user
satisfaction has received widespread acceptance as a
surrogate measure, and we use it in our study. Details of
ERP user-satisfaction measurement and instruments were
reported in [25, 26] In this study, we concentrate on
satisfaction results, examine factors related to satisfaction,
and compare differences in satisfaction between firms that
implemented systems from local contractors and global
contractors.
Section 2 defines the ERP user-satisfaction construct
and describes instruments for measuring user satisfaction.
Section 3 describes the research model and hypotheses.
Section 4 describes our data-analysis techniques and
presents our results. Section 5 summarizes and concludes
the paper.
2. The ERP user satisfaction construct
2.1. The ERP environment
As Figure 1 shows, ERP environments differ from
management information system (MIS) and end-user
computing (EUC) environments (for details of EUC and
MIS environments, please see [15]). In the traditional DP
mode, users interact with computer systems indirectly,
through the systems staff or through operations staff. In
this environment, a user might be not aware of what
specific functions are run to produce reports [4, 15].
Following the development of user-friendly interface and
the advance of user computer knowledge, a general
enterprise application is gradually changing to two types:
common MIS environment and EUC.
In the common MIS environment, users have the
capabilities of operating computer systems directly and
MIS staff is responsible for the development, management,
and maintenance of computer systems. In the outsourcing
condition, there are vendors who provide relevant
information services to enterprises. In the MIS application
environment, information systems are individually
developed by departmental or functional requirement.
Therefore, system integration is a big problem in this
1
 Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2002

application environment. In the end-user computing

environment, the users (typically, managers and staff
analysts) interact directly with the computer systems
through application software to enter information or
produce reports. In this environment, typically there is a
support group, referred to information center, to support
end users.
Two stakeholders generally participate in the ERP
implementation process: an internal project team and an
external contractor. Once a business firm decides to
purchase an ERP system, it may form an internal ERP
project team to handle system implementation. The teams
responsibility will be to integrate the ERP system into the
firms operations. Typically, a project team will consist of
top management, MIS staff, and key users selected from
user departments who are not only experts in the
companys processes, but also possess domain knowledge
of their areas in the industry. During the implementation
process, key users communicate with the contractors and
learn system functionality and uses. Once the ERP system
has been implemented, the key users then train end users.
Key users and end users are both ERP system users and
interact with the ERP system. Key users specialize in parts
of the ERP system and act as trainers, help-desk resources,
educators, advisors, and change agents for end users; end
users have only very specific knowledge of the parts of the
system they need for their work [9]. The role of the MIS
staff changes from that of system developer to that of
supporting participant during ERP system implementation
[24].
ERP implementation can reap enormous benefits
when successful or it can be disastrous when organizations
fail to manage the implementation process. What are the
critical success factors (CSF) for ERP implementation?
Holland and Light [10] proposed a CSF model with
strategic and tactical factors. The strategic factor includes
items such as legacy systems, business vision, ERP
strategy, top management support, and project scheduling
and planning; the tactical factor includes items such as
client consultation, personnel, BPC and software
configuration, client acceptance, monitoring and feedback,
communication, and troubleshooting.
Bingi, et al. [2] argued that implementing any
integrated ERP solution is not as much a technological
exercise but an organizational revolution. They pointed
out that to ensure successful implementation commitment
from top management, reengineering of existing processes,
integration of existing ERP with other business
information systems, selection and management of
consultants and employees, and training of employees on
the new system must be included. Therefore, in practice,
the important elements can be classified into users,
management, consultants, and systems dimensions and, in
practice, fitted into the ERP environment as shown in
Figure 1.
Other Systems
ERP Third-party
...
Communication

Vendors Service
The external contractor may employ consultants, Providers
Implementation
ERP Systems

vendors, and third parties. The consultants communicate Modules Modules

Consultants ...
with key users to establish the acquiring organizations ERP External
Contractors
standard operating procedures (SOPs) and identify
differences between the organizations business
requirements and the functionality provided by the ERP Management
Key-UserERP Contractor
User-ERP
Interaction
system. The vendors and third parties may provide solution, Interaction

design, or customization support according to SOP MIS Staff

...
End-User Project Team

specifications, install the ERP system, and provide training Key Users Interaction

ERP Internal
to key users. An ERP environment is depicted in Figure 1. Project Teams
End Users

Because of the high level of organizational and
technical complexity associated with the development and
implementation, integrated enterprise-wide systems have
been difficult to achieve in practice. Therefore, the ERP
development and implementation is becoming user- and
supplier/ consultant-driven, and CIO and IT (information
technology) professionals are assuming supporting roles.
This implies that instruments developed for MIS and EUC
environments cannot necessarily be generalized to the ERP
environment. ERP system users consist of key users and
end users. Thus, ERP user satisfaction may need to
consider both key-user satisfaction and end-user
satisfaction.
2.2. ERP Critical Success Factors
Acquiring ERP System Users
Organization
Figure 1.
1. An ERP environment
2.3. Measuring user satisfaction in an ERP
outsourcing environment
Two instruments, a 14-scale instrument for key users
and a 10-scale instrument for end users developed on the
basis of Figure 1 were applied to measure ERP user
satisfaction as a surrogate for ERP system success [25, 26].
These instruments (summarized in Appendices A and B)
were developed through extensive refinement and rigorous
validation. The measure of key-user satisfaction includes
the factors: ERP product, contractor service, and

0-7695-1435-9/02 $17.00 (c) 2002 IEEE 2

Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-3502)
0-7695-1435-9/02 $17.00 2002 IEEE
 Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2002
knowledge and involvement, and the measure of the
end-user satisfaction includes the factors: ERP project
team and service, ERP product, and knowledge and
involvement. All scales of both instruments were of the
bi-adjective 7-point semantic differential type shown in
Figure 2.
Accuracy Correctness of information output by the ERP
system:
Inaccurate __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Accurate
Insufficient __:__:__:__:__:__:__ Sufficient
Figure 2. Presentation format of each scale
3. Research model and hypotheses
Much information system (IS) implementation
research [1, 11, 22] has identified user characteristics, such
as computer experience, management levels, and operating
styles as being the key factors affecting IS success. Hare [7]
indicated that the people factor is the single most critical
factor in achieving success in an ERP project. Soh, et al.
[19] pointed out that the misfit issue is a common problem
when adopting an ERP system because ERP
implementation is more complex due to cross-module
integration, adoption of the underlying business model of
"industry best practices", and so forth. The misfit problem
in Asia may be worse because the business models
underlying most ERP packages reflect European or U.S.
industry practices. The business processes in Asian
organizations are likely to be different, having evolved in
different cultural, economic, and regulatory contexts.
Due to the complexity of ERP systems, knowledge
gaps among implementation personnel are usually
significant. Therefore, ERP user satisfaction may differ
between organizations adopting domestic packages and
those adopting foreign packages. Thus, in this study we
consider two variables categories that may relate to user
satisfaction: user characteristics and package localization.
Figure 3 shows the conceptual model used in this research.
We elaborate these two categories below.
User
Characteristics
Age
Education
ERP User Satisfaction
Management Level
Computer Experience
Key User
ERP Product
Project Team &
Operating Style
Contractors Service
Knowledge &
Involvement
Package Characteristics
domestic or foreign
Figure 3. A model of ERP user satisfaction
0-7695-1435-9/02 $17.00 (c) 2002 IEEE
Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-3502)
0-7695-1435-9/02 $17.00 2002 IEEE
3.1. User Characteristics
User characteristics have a particularly significant
influence on ERP system success. Since the users have a
dominant role in ERP implementation and may also be the
primary users. Five user-related factors were examined:
age, education level, management level, computer
experience, and operating style.
Harrison and Rainer [8] indicated that there is
relationship between user satisfaction and computer skill.
Older people are more likely to fear new technology and be
hesitant to change [16, 21, 23]. By contrast, younger
professionals were often introduced to information
technology (IT) in high school, or even earlier. Therefore,
younger professionals might be more easily satisfied by an
ERP system.
A more experienced manager has more knowledge of
specific problems and consequently is able to employ an
information system more effectively [23]. Therefore,
higher levels of user computer experience will lead to
easier IT acceptance and greater IT satisfaction. Similarly,
users with more formal education tend to use computers
more and will have greater IT satisfaction [16, 23]. This
leads to proposal of the following hypotheses.
H1a: For key users, ERP user satisfaction is greater
among younger users than among older ones.
H1b: For end users, ERP user satisfaction is greater
among younger users than among older ones.
H2a: For key users, ERP user satisfaction correlates
positively with educational level.
H2b: For end users, ERP user satisfaction correlates
positively with educational level.
H3a: For key users, ERP user satisfaction correlates
positively with duration of computer experience.
H3b: For end users, ERP user satisfaction correlates
positively with duration of computer experience.
To compare the findings of this study with previous
research (such as [16, 18]), user age was classified into two
categories: under 40 and over 40because in Taiwan,
people under 40 are more likely to have been introduced to
IT in high school, or even earlier (as reported by [16]).
Computer experience was operationalized as years of
End User
computer experience: under two years, 2-3 years, 3-5 years,
Service
5-9 years, and over 9 years (as in [27]). Since this study
was conducted in Taiwan, it was necessary to consider this
ERP Product
countrys computer education development. User
Knowledge &
Involvement
education was classified into four levels: high school or
less, junior college, college graduate, and post-graduate
degree (as in [16]).
Cheney and Dickson [3] suggested that user
satisfaction differs according to management level. Vlahos
3
 Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2002

and Ferratt [20] found that front-line managers have adopting domestic packages is greater than that
greater satisfaction levels than middle and top derived from adopting foreign packages.
management. In general, managers require more integrated H6b: For end users, ERP user satisfaction derived
and summarized information than non-managers. Thus, it from adopting domestic packages is greater than
is reasonable to expect that ERP system use might be that derived from adopting foreign packages.
higher for managers than for others. ERP systems are
configurable packages that integrate information and 4. Research Method and Data Analysis
information-based processes within and across functional
areas in organizations. Therefore, organizations using ERP
4.1. Data Collection
systems in more functional areas will tend to have better
integration of the information and information-based
process within and across functional areas and will tend to Data for this study were collected via a questionnaire
have greater user satisfaction. In this study, users were survey administered in Taiwan during 2001. Three survey
classified into two groups: management users and questionnaires were designed for data collection, one for
operational-level (non-management) users. This leads to business-related factors, the other two for the US of
proposal of the following hypotheses. key-users and end-users. The business-related
questionnaire sought data on organizational characteristics
H4a: For key users, ERP user satisfaction among
such as industry sector, number of employees, annual sales,
managers is greater than among non-managers.
duration of the organization, and ERP project data such as
H4b: For end users, ERP user satisfaction among
vendor, number of ERP modules implemented, and
managers is greater than among non-managers.
implementation time.
Raymond [17] indicated interactive system operation Since ERP system implementation differs according to
is more effective than batch operation for managerial industry type, firms from Top-1000 firms in the
decision support and reported that on-line users have manufacturing, financial, and service sectors were
significantly higher levels of user satisfaction than batch included, but only those with ERP systems implemented
(indirect) users. Wierenga and Oude Ophuis [23] also by vendors were selected. This provided a sample of 617
indicated that the success (high satisfaction) of a DSS Taiwan firms with implemented ERPs. Of these, 587
(decision support system) is enhanced when users can received initial phone calls explaining the purpose of the
interact with the DSS through PCs or laptop computers on research project and inquiring about the firm's willingness
their desks (directly) instead of obtaining information from to participate in the study. A contact person was identified
the DSS through intermediaries (indirect use). Can these at each company, asked to provide information on top
findings be applied to ERP systems? In this study, we management and numbers of company key users and end
classified users into two categories: direct users and users, and to distribute the self-administered
indirect users. This leads to proposal of the following questionnaires.
hypotheses. Table 1 RRespondent
espondent companies
H5a: For key users, ERP user satisfaction among Total Number of Employees
direct users is greater than among indirect users. < 150 2.3% 451-650 15.9%
H5b: For end users, ERP user satisfaction among 151-250 8.0% 651-1000 15.9%
direct users is greater than among indirect users. 251-350 12.5% 1001-2000 18.2%
351-450 5.7% > 2000 21.6%
3.2. Package Characteristics Annual Sales (billion / NTD)
< 1.0 6.8% 10.1-20.0 11.4%
Several studies have found that there can be 1.0-5.0 51.1% > 20.0 12.5%
considerable mismatches between business models 5.1-10.0 18.1%
embedded in ERP systems and actual country, industry, Duration of the organization
and company-specific business practices [12, 19]. <5 9.2% 16-20 12.6%
Mismatches can also occur when few organizational users 6-10 12.6% 21-30 24.1%
understand the functionality of an ERP well enough to 11-15 21.8% > 30 19.5%
appreciate the implications of adoption. Similarly, few
ERP consultants understand their clients' business models ERP Supplier
well enough to highlight all areas of mismatch. Therefore, SAP 14.9% JDEdwards 1.1%
localization of an ERP system (domestic package vs. Baan 3.4% SSA/ BPCS 4.6%
foreign package) may affect ERP user satisfaction. This Oracle 13.8% Other foreign 4.6%
leads to proposal of the following hypotheses. QAD 5.7% Taiwan 51.9%
H6a: For key users, ERP user satisfaction derived from Peoplesoft 0.0%

0-7695-1435-9/02 $17.00 (c) 2002 IEEE 4

Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-3502)
0-7695-1435-9/02 $17.00 2002 IEEE
 Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2002

4.2 Sample Characteristics factors are combined, and the average score of the
variables is used as a replacement variable [8]. Total user
Two hundred eighty-two companies agreed to satisfaction was obtained by simply averaging the scores
participate in the study. We sent out 282 business-related on the 14 scales (for key users) and 10 scales (for end
questionnaires and received 89 completed questionnaires, users), and user satisfaction for each factor was taken as
a response rate of 33.3%. We sent out 1545 end-user the averages of the values assigned to the scales included in
questionnaires to these companies and received 225 the factor. The descriptive statistics of key-user for and
completed questionnaires. Twenty responses considered end-user satisfaction are shown in Tables 3 and 4,
incomplete or inadequate were discarded. This left 205 respectively.
valid responses for statistical analysis, a response rate of Table 3. Descriptive statistics of key-
key-user satisfaction
13%. We sent out 1015 key-user questionnaires to these US component Min Max Mean SD
companies and received 226 completed questionnaires. Total -1.21 2.45 .50 .67
Twenty-three responses considered incomplete or ERP Product -1.71 2.43 .60 .74
inadequate were discarded. This left 203 valid responses Contractor Service -3.00 2.60 .31 .74
for statistical analysis, a response rate of 20%. The Knowledge & Involvement -2.00 2.50 .65 .86
respondents represented a broad cross-section of industry Scale Min Max Mean SD
and management levels, as shown in Tables 1 and 2. Accuracy -3.0 3.0 .74 .86
Table 2. Respondent
Respondent profile Reliability -2.0 3.0 .91 .88
Respondents by Industry key user end user Response time -3.0 3.0 .40 1.05
SIC 1 Mining & Heavy Construction 3.0% 1.5% Completeness -3.0 2.0 .56 .94
SIC 2 Nondurable Manufacturing 13.5% 17.1% System stability -2.0 3.0 .77 1.02
SIC 3 Durable Manufacturing 73.5% 71.2% Auditing & control -2.0 3.0 .62 .87
SIC 4 Transportation & Utilities 3.0% 2.0% System integrity -3.0 3.0 .21 1.15
SIC 5 Wholesale Trade & Retail Trade 0.5% 2.0% Domain knowledge of
-3.0 3.0 -.02 1.17
SIC 6-9 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, consultants
6.5% 6.3% Consultant experience -3.0 3.0 .51 1.10
& Service
Respondents by Management Level key user end user Project management of
-3.0 3.0 .37 1.05
Manager / supervisor 20.2% 7.5% consultants
Professional employees without Technical competence of
50.7% 22.9% -3.0 3.0 .59 1.08
supervisory responsibility consultants
General employees 26.9% 69.7% Training -3.0 3.0 .08 1.00
Respondents by ERP Functional Feeling of user involvement -3.0 3.0 .85 1.07
key user end user System Understanding -2.0 3.0 .47 0.93
Module
Financial & accounting 16.4% 26.3%
Sales & orders 14.9% 16.7% Table 4. Descriptive statistics of end-
end-user satisfaction
Production & manufacturing 14.7% 13.5% US component Min Max Mean SD
Delivery 5.8% 3.9% Total -1.10 2.30 .49 .58
Purchasing 15.6% 11.9% Project team & Service -1.25 2.75 .65 .68
Supplier chain management 9.5% 7.6% ERP Product -1.33 3.00 .66 .74
Personnel management 4.7% 2.5% Knowledge & Involvement -2.33 2.00 .12 .76
Warehousing & inventory 16.1% 16.5% Scale Min Max Mean SD
Others 2.2% 1.1% Relationship with the ERP
-2.00 3.00 .82 .87
project team
4.3 Descriptive Statistics Communication with the
-1.00 3.00 .67 .83
ERP project team
Domain knowledge of the
All scales in the user-satisfaction instruments were of -3.00 3.00 .55 .86
ERP project team
the 7-point semantic differential type. Scaling of the seven
Attitude of the ERP project
intervals on each scale was quantified by assigning the -3.00 3.00 .57 .86
team
values -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, and 3 to the intervals. Individual
Accuracy -2.00 3.00 .68 .80
reactions to given scales were taken as the averages of two
Timeliness -3.00 3.00 .59 .88
values assigned to item adjectives.
Reliability -2.00 3.00 .72 .91
We use the concept of summated scales, which are
Feeling of user involvement -3.00 3.00 .20 .90
formed by combining several individual variables into
System understanding -3.00 2.00 .13 .88
single composite measures. All high variable loadings on
System integrity -3.00 3.00 .05 .99

0-7695-1435-9/02 $17.00 (c) 2002 IEEE 5

Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-3502)
0-7695-1435-9/02 $17.00 2002 IEEE
 Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2002

4.4. Key-user vs. end-user satisfaction generally have higher positions and require more
integrated and summarized information than younger users.
Tables 3 and 4 show that overall satisfaction and Thus, the accuracy, timeliness, and reliability of the
satisfaction on each factor for key users and end users were information provided by an integrated ERP system can
all positive, ranging from 0 to 1. Satisfaction on the enhance the older users productivity and this may be the
contractor service factor (.31) among key users and key to ERP system acceptance by older users.
satisfaction on the knowledge & involvement factor (.12)
among end users were lower than on other factors in the Table 5. Kendall coefficients
coefficients of correlation between
key-user and end-user groups. These suggest that ERP user satisfaction and user-
user-related variables
managers need to pay more attention to contractor service, Computer
US factors Education
and knowledge and involvement factors when experience
implementing ERP systems. Key user
Among key users, the standard deviations (SDs) on Total -.005 -.011
each item in the contractor service factor were greater Product .050 .039
than 1. The mean value of satisfaction on the domain Contractor service -.040 -.079
knowledge of consultants item was negative (-.02), and Knowledge &
-.025 .009
the mean value of satisfaction on the Training factor was Involvement
low (.08). These indicate that managers need to consider End User
consultants abilities and the training services they provide Total .114* -.065
when choosing an external contractors. Satisfaction on Project Team .073 -.021
system integrity in the ERP product factor was .21 Product .100 -.002
with an SD of 1.15. This indicates that ERP systems still Knowledge &
.059 -.081
suffer from system integration problems. Involvement
*
In comparing satisfaction on the ERP product factor marginally significant at the 0.05 level
** ***
among key users and end users, we find consistent results significant at the 0.05 level significant at the 0.01 level
between the two groups. However, on the knowledge &
involvement factor, key users expressed greater Table 6. T tests of ERP user satisfaction by user and
satisfaction than end users. This may be because key users package-
package-related variable p values
have higher levels of involvement, training, and system Mgnt or Direct or Domestic
US factors Age
understanding than end users. non-mgnt indirect or foreign
Key user
4.5. Hypotheses Testing Total .642 .006*** .456 .000***

The data were analyzed using the Kendall coefficient Product .154 .010** .851 .084*
of correlation and T testing. Results of these tests are Contractor
.591 .134 .141 .000***
expressed at significance levels of 0.01, 0.05, or slightly service
greater than 0.05 (marginally significant) and represented Knowledge &
.384 .002*** .828 .053*
by ***, **, and *, respectively. Test statistics are shown in Involvement
Tables 5 and 6. End User

4.5.1 Hypothesis 1Age. Among key users, there was no Total .192 .051* .664 .192
significant difference between the under-40 (i.e., younger) Project Team .182 .080 .651 .135
group and the over-40 (i.e., older) group in total **
Product .015 .194 .854 .687
satisfaction or on any of its factors. However, a significant
difference (= 0.05) between these age categories was Knowledge & **
.932 .030 .725 .282
found in the ERP product factor among end users in that Involvement
*
older users expressed greater satisfaction than younger marginally significant at the 0.05 level
** ***
significant at the 0.05 level significant at the 0.01 level
users (mean satisfaction: 1.0 vs. .65, significantly different
at the .05 level). This finding is inconsistent with findings
in previous studies such as [16]. The following reasons 4.5.2. Hypothesis 2Education. Table 5 shows no
may account for this. (1) All modern ERP systems have significant evidence was found indicating that ERP
graphical user interfaces so they are easier to use than the key-user satisfaction correlates positively with educational
end-user computing systems and management information level. However, there is slim evidence that ERP end-user
systems examined in previous studies. (2) Older users satisfaction correlates positively with educational level.
Therefore, ANOVA testing was used to analyze the data.

0-7695-1435-9/02 $17.00 (c) 2002 IEEE 6

Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-3502)
0-7695-1435-9/02 $17.00 2002 IEEE
 Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2002

The results are shown in Table 7.
Key user educational level apparently led to no
significant differences between overall ERP satisfaction
and that on any individual factors. However, end user
educational level did lead to a significant difference
between total satisfaction ( 0.05) and that on the ERP
product factor (= 0.05). Figure 4 presents mean values
of total and product satisfaction classified according to
education level.
Table 7. ANOVA tests of ERP user satisfaction by
user related variables p values
End-users computer experience apparently exerted no
significant influence on overall ERP satisfaction, or on that
of individual factors. This may be because end-users need
only know the parts of the ERP operation that support their
work. Their scope is limited and the degree of complexity
they have to deal with is lower, thus computer experience
does not significantly affect their satisfaction.
.7
.6

Total Satisfaction
Computer
US factors Education .5

Scores
experience
Key user .4

Total .929 .065

.3

Product .373 .021**

.2
Contractors service .442 .303 college beyond college
high school junior
Knowledge & or less college degree
.908 .229
Involvement .9

End User

Satisfaction Scores
.8

Total .057* .705

of Product
Project Team .408 .854 .7

Product .037** .418 .6

Knowledge &
.562 .701
Involvement .5
*
marginally significant at the 0.05 level
** ***
significant at the 0.05 level significant at the 0.01 level .4
beyond college
high school junior college
degree
or less college
Figure 4 shows similar patterns for total satisfaction Figure 4. Mean total and product satisfaction scores by
and product satisfaction. Thus, the major difference may end user educational level
come from the ERP product factor. A post hoc procedure,
the Scheff method, was conducted to examine all group
However, key users computer experience apparently
differences between education levels. The results indicate correlates significantly with ERP product factor
that college degree vs. junior college education (mean
satisfaction (= 0.05). Figure 5 presents mean values of
satisfaction: .81 vs. .48) led to significant difference at
ERP product satisfaction plotted against users computer
the .05 level. The reasons may be as follows. ERP
experience levels. Scheff testing was conducted to
implementation is not just a technical issue, it is also an
examine the differences in satisfaction due to computer
organizational issue. Users with junior college educations
have good training in practice, but their training in experience levels. No significant differences were found
among the various computer experience levels. However,
organizational and management-related areas is weak
we found that satisfaction among users with 5-9 years of
compared to that of users with college educations.
computer experience was lower than that of other at a
Therefore, users with college educations may derive
greater satisfaction than users with junior college marginally significant level = .05 (p= .06).
In Taiwan, the users with 5-9 years of computer
educations. However, further research is needed to explore
experience have spent more time and effort learning
this issue as Figure 4 shows.
business process and existing business information
4.5.3. Hypothesis 3Computer Experience. Table 7 systems than users with 5 years or less of computer
experience. Therefore, they are familiar with business
shows no significant evidence was found indicating that
processes and existing information systems. Following
ERP user satisfaction correlates positively with key-user
ERP implementation, they must learn new business
and end-user educational levels. Therefore, ANOVA
testing was used to analyze the data. The results are shown processes and specialize on parts of the ERP system so
they can act as trainers. Some key-users may be
in Table 7.

0-7695-1435-9/02 $17.00 (c) 2002 IEEE 7

Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-3502)
0-7695-1435-9/02 $17.00 2002 IEEE
 Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2002

particularly loyal to the legacy system and thus derive less Table 9. Key-Key-user satisfaction scores by
satisfaction than others. Many key users with 9 or more management level vs. number of modules
years of computer experience are managers and may feel implemented
that the benefits of information integration from ERP Number Satisfaction
systems are much greater than those from legacy systems. Mgnt
of Contractors
level
However, further research is needed to explore this issue. modules Total Product service
K&I
.8 Mgnt 1-4 .49 .63 .20 .72
.7
5-8 .74 .90 .43 .96
Satisfaction Score

>8 1.10 .91 1.13 1.67

of Product

.6

Non- 1-4 .08 .13 -.13 .50

.5
mgnt 5-8 .44 .58 .19 .56
.4 >8 .91 1.00 .85 .75
.3

Significant differences were found between

.2
<2 2-3 3-5 5-9 >9 management and non-management end users on total
Computer Experience (Yr) satisfaction, the "Project team & service" factor (= 0.08),
Figure 5. Mean Produ
Product
duct satisfact
satisfaction
ion scores by and the "Knowledge & involvement" factor (= 0.05, see
computer-
computer-experience level (key users)
users) Table 6). The mean total satisfaction and two-factor
satisfaction differences have similar patterns. This
4.5.4. Hypothesis 4Management vs. Non- indicates that the major difference in total satisfaction was
management. Table 6 shows that no significant from the "Project team & service" and "Knowledge &
differences were found between management and involvement" factors. The results indicate that managers
non-management key users in total satisfaction and any derived greater satisfaction than operational-level users.
factors (except the contractor service factor, but its The findings are the same for key users.
significance level is close to .1). The results indicate that These findings are consistent with those reported by
managers derived greater satisfaction than non-manager Hirt and Swanson [9] who pointed out that end-users view
(Table 8). As expected, since ERP systems provide timely ERP systems as constraints because they limit flexibility in
and integrated information to support manager decisions, handling certain tasks and thus yield less user satisfaction.
and embedded auditing and process-control mechanisms Use of ERP systems by managers in more functional areas
support business processes, managers abilities are in organizations will lead to better integration of
enhanced, but operational users experience reduced information and information-based processes within and
flexibility and control over the system. Thus, managers across functional areas and will provide better support for
derive greater satisfaction than operational users. decision-making.
Tables 10 and 11 show that when organizations
Table 8 Mean key
key--user satisfaction scores by implement more ERP modules, end user satisfaction is
management level vs. number of modulesmodules higher, and when the number of modules implemented is
implemented the same, user satisfaction among managers is higher than
Number of among non-managers.
Management level
modules
Mgnt Non- mgnt 1-4 5-8 >8 Table 10.
10. Mean end-
end-user satisfaction scores by
management level and number of modules
Total .75 .43 .17 .51 .98
implemented
Product .87 .53 .24 .65 1.00 Number of
Management level
Contractors modules
.47 .24 -.06 .26 1.00
service Mgnt Non- mgnt 1-4 5-8 >8
Knowledge &
.99 .55 .55 .66 .96 Total .81 .46 .32 .54 .74
Involvement
Tables 8 and 9 show that when organizations Project Team 1.00 .60 .42 .73 .90
implement more ERP modules, user satisfaction is higher, Product .95 .64 .58 .69 .78
and when the number of modules implemented is the same, Knowledge &
user satisfaction among managers is higher than among .43 .09 -.10 .15 .50
Involvement
non-managers.

0-7695-1435-9/02 $17.00 (c) 2002 IEEE 8

Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-3502)
0-7695-1435-9/02 $17.00 2002 IEEE
 Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2002

4.5.5. Hypothesis 5 Operating Style. Operating style 4. Conclusion

apparently exerted no significant influence on total or
individual-factor ERP satisfaction among end users and
key users. This finding is inconsistent with prior research In this study, we described a new construct and two
(such as [17]). Today's ERP systems provide accurate, instruments for measuring ERP user satisfaction. We
timely, and integrated information for managerial decision investigated user-satisfaction patterns among key users
support, which may explain the lack of significant and end users. Our results show several areas of low ERP
difference found. satisfaction (mean value less than .5) among these users.
Among key users these are, System integrity,
Consultants domain knowledge, Consultant's project
Table 11.
11. End-
End-user satisfaction scores by
management level vs. number of modules management, Training, and System understanding,
implemented and among end users they are, Feeling of user
involvement, System understanding and System
Number Satisfaction integrity.
Mgnt
of Contractors
level We also analyzed total and component user
modules Total Product service
K&I
satisfaction by various user-related factors and ERP system
Mgnt 1-4 N/A N/A N/A N/A localization. The results indicate that user-related factor
5-8 .63 .81 .78 .26 have a great impact on user satisfaction. The factors that
stood out the most were the Management and
>8 N/A N/A N/A N/A non-management role for key users and Management
Non- 1-4 .30 .40 .57 -.13 and non-management role, Age, Educational level,
mgnt 5-8 .52 .71 .69 .13 and Computer experience for end users. Finally, firms
that implemented foreign ERP systems have higher
>8 .74 .90 .78 .50 key-user satisfaction than those that implemented domestic
N/A: not available (due to small sample size) ERP systems. The results of these findings will enhance
the knowledge of the ERP vendor and consultant selection.
4.5.6. Hypothesis 6 Localization. Package localization In addition, it will increase our understanding of the critical
apparently exerted no significant influence on total or factors affecting an ERP system implementation.
individual-factor ERP satisfaction among end users (see Several issues deemed worthy of further study are
Table 6). However, among key users significant influences mentioned in the body of the paper. For instance, why do
were found on total satisfaction (= 0.01), Contractor foreign products yield greater satisfaction than domestic
service (= 0.01), and Knowledge & Involvement ( products? Do ERP systems enhance managers abilities
0.05). Furthermore, foreign products yielded significantly and reduce operational users flexibility and control over
greater satisfaction than domestic products. Table 12 systems? Furthermore, in competitive environments, ERP
shows mean total and factor satisfaction values for foreign system capability is not just about integrating and creating
and domestic ERP systems. A major reasons enterprises more efficient transactional processes: ensuring the
implement ERP systems is to support on-line transactions delivery of new business performance visions can be a new
and communication with overseas customers. In general, measure of ERP system success, as pointed out by [24].
foreign ERP systems (such as SAP, Oracle, and Baan) have
greater capability and functionality and their contractors
have better domain knowledge and experience, which may
Acknowledgement:
This research is supported by the National Science Council
explain why foreign products yield greater satisfaction of Taiwan, under operating grant NSC89-2416-H-110-091.
than domestic products.

Table 12
12. Mean total and factor satisfaction scores by Reference
localization among key-
key-users
US component Foreign Domestic [1] Barki, H. and Hartwick, J., Measuring User Participation,
User Involvement, and User Attitude, MIS Quarterly, 13, 1,
Total .70 .29 1994, pp.59-82.
ERP Product .67 .48 [2] Bingi, P., Sharma, M. K., and Godla, J. K., Critical Issues
Affecting an ERP Implementation, Information Systems
Contractor Service .69 -.06 Management, Summer 1999, pp.7-14.
Knowledge & [3] Cheney, P. H. and Dickson, G. W., Organizational
.78 .54 Characteristics and Information Systems: An Exploratory
Involvement
Investugation, Academy of Management Journal, 25, 1, 1982,
pp.170-184.

0-7695-1435-9/02 $17.00 (c) 2002 IEEE 9

Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-3502)
0-7695-1435-9/02 $17.00 2002 IEEE
 Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2002

[4] Doll, W. T. and Torkzaden, G., The Measurement of contingency approach, Information & Management 37, 2000,
End-user Computing Satisfaction, MIS Quarterly, 12, 2, 1988, pp.283-295.
pp.259-271. [23] Wierenga, B. and Oude Ophuis, P. A. M., Marketing
[5] Gibson, N., Holland, C. P., and Light, B., Enterprise Decision Support Systems: Adoption, Use, and Satisfaction,
Resource Planning: a Business Approach to System International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14, 1997,
Development, Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International pp.275-290.
Conference on System Sciences, Island of Maui, Hawaii, January [24] Willcocks, J. P. and Sykes, R., The Role of the CIO and IT
5-8, 1999. pp.1-9. Function in ERP, Communications of the ACM, 43, 4, 2000,
[6] Hair, JR. J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., and Black, W. pp.32-38.
C., Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed. Prentice-Hall International, [25] Wu, J-H., Wang, Y-M., Chang-Chien, M-C., and Tai, W-C.,
Inc., New Jersey, 1998. "Development of a Tool for Measuring Key-User Satisfaction in
[7] Hare, D., Succeeding with ERP, Manufacturing an ERP Outsourcing Environment," Working paper, 2001a.
Engineering, April 1999, pp.65-67. [26] Wu, J-H., Wang, Y-M., Chang-Chien, M-C., and Tai, W-C.,
[8] Harrison, A. W. and Rainer, JR. R. K., A General Measure "Developing and Applying User Satisfaction as a Measure of
of User Computing Satisfaction, Computers in Human Behavior, ERP Success in an Outsourcing Environment," The Sixth Asia
12, 1, 1996, pp.79-92. Pacific Decision Science Annual Meeting, Singapore, July 17-21,
[9] Hirt, S. G. and Swanson, E. B., Maintaining ERP: 2001b.
Rethinking Relational Foundations, The Anderson School at [27] Yap, CS, Soh, CPP, and Raman, KS, Information systems
UCLA, working paper, 1999. Success Factors in Small Business, OMEGA International
[10] Holland, C., and Light, B., A Critical Success Factors Journal of Management Science, 20, 5/6, 1992, pp.597-609.
Model for ERP Implementation, IEEE Software, May/June,
1999, pp.30-36. Appendix A: An instrument for measuring ERP
[11] Igbaria, M., Zinatelli, N., and Cavaye, A. L., Analysis of
Information Technology success in small Firms in New Zealand,
key-user satisfaction in an outsourcing environment
International Journal of Information Management, 18, 2, 1998, I. ERP Product
pp.103-119. 1. Accuracy
[12] Krumbholz, M. and Maiden, N., The Implementation of 2. Reliability
Enterprise Resource Planning Packages in Different 3. Response time
Organizational and National Cultures, Information Systems, 26, 4. Completeness
2001, pp.185-204. 5. System stability
[13] Kumar, K. and Van Hillegersberg, J., ERP Experiences and 6. Auditing and control
Evolution, Communications of the ACM, 43, 4, 2000, pp.23-26. 7. System integrity
[14] Markus, M. L., Tanis, C., and Van Fenems, P. C., Multisite
II. Contractors Service
ERP Implementations, Communications of the ACM, 43, 4, 2000,
8. Consultants domain knowledge
pp.42-46.
[15] Palvia, P. C., A Model and Instrument for Measuring Small 9. Consultant experience
Business User Satisfaction with Information Technology, 10. Consultants project management
Information & Management, 31, 1996, pp.151-163. 11. Consultants technical competence
[16] Palvia, P. C. and Palvia, S. C., An Examination of the IT 12. Training
Satisfaction of Small-business Users, Information & III. Knowledge and Involvement
Management, 35, 1999, pp.127-137. 13. Feeling of user involvement
[17] Raymond, L., Validating and Applying User Satisfaction as 14. System understanding
a Measure of Success in Small Organizations, Information &
Management, 12, 1987, pp.173-179. Appendix B: An instrument for measuring ERP end
[18] Robey, D. and Farrow, D., User Involvement in
Information System Development: A Conflict Model and
user satisfaction in an outsourcing environment
Empirical Test, Management Science, 26, 1, 1982, pp.73-85. I. ERP Project Team and Service
[19] Soh, C., Kien, S. S., and Tay-Yap, J., Cultural Fits and 1. Relationship with the ERP project team
Misfits: Is ERP a Universal Solution, Communications of the 2. Communication with the ERP project team
ACM, 43, 4, 2000, pp.47-51. 3. Domain knowledge of the ERP project team
[20] Vlahos, G. E. and Ferratt, T. W., Information Technology 4. Attitude of the ERP project team
Use by Managers in Greece to Support Decision Making: II. ERP Product
Amount, Perceived Value, and Satisfaction, Information & 5. Accuracy
Management, 29, 1995, pp.305-315. 6. Timeliness
[21] Watson, H. J., Rainer, K., and Koh, C., Executive
7. Reliability
Information Systems: a Framework for Development and a
III. Knowledge and Involvement
Survey of Current Practices, MIS Quarterly, 15, 1, 1991,
pp.13-30. 8. Feeling of user involvement
[22] Winston, T. L. and Benjamin B.M. S., The relationship 9. System understanding
between user participation and system success: a simultaneous 10. System integrity

0-7695-1435-9/02 $17.00 (c) 2002 IEEE 10

Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-3502)
0-7695-1435-9/02 $17.00 2002 IEEE