The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology

Evaluating the impact of ERP systems in higher education

Ahed Abugabah Louis Sanzogni Osama Alfarraj
Article information:
To cite this document:
Ahed Abugabah Louis Sanzogni Osama Alfarraj , (2015),"Evaluating the impact of ERP systems in
higher education", The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, Vol. 32 Iss 1 pp.
45 - 64
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-10-2013-0058
Downloaded on: 06 March 2015, At: 07:58 (PT)
Downloaded by CAIRO UNIVERSITY At 07:58 06 March 2015 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 69 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 65 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Reyes González-Ramírez, José L. Gascó, Juan Llopis Taverner, (2015),"Facebook in teaching:
strengths and weaknesses", International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, Vol. 32 Iss
1 pp. 65-78 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-09-2014-0021
Shang Gao, John Krogstie, Trond Thingstad, Hoang Tran, (2015),"A mobile service using anonymous
location-based data: finding reading rooms", International Journal of Information and Learning
Technology, Vol. 32 Iss 1 pp. 32-44 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-08-2014-0017
Piotr D#biec, Andrzej Materka, (2015),"Information technology networked system for student mobility
support", International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, Vol. 32 Iss 1 pp. 17-31 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-06-2014-0014

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 559421 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
 *Related content and download information correct at time of
download.
Downloaded by CAIRO UNIVERSITY At 07:58 06 March 2015 (PT)
 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2056-4880.htm

Evaluating the impact of ERP Impact of ERP

systems in
systems in higher education higher
education
Ahed Abugabah
American University in Dubai, Dubai, United Arab Emirates 45
Louis Sanzogni
Griffith Business School, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia, and
Osama Alfarraj
King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Abstract
Downloaded by CAIRO UNIVERSITY At 07:58 06 March 2015 (PT)

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the impacts of enterprise resource planning (ERP)
systems on user performance (UP) in higher education institutions with a view to better understanding
the ERP phenomenon in these institutions, and to determine whether or not these systems work
well in such a complex environment.
Design/methodology/approach – A quantitative methodology was used in this study and data
were collected by means of a written questionnaire. Measurement items used in the operationalization
of the study instrument were adopted from relevant prior research.
Findings – The findings indicated that system quality, task technology fit and information quality
are the most important factors that lead to better end UP. The provides evidence of the appropriateness
of extending IS models as a useful way to give more powerful insights into user aspects and
system impact.
Research limitations/implications – Although the study factors explained a large portion of the
variance in UP, there is a part of the variance that still remains unexplained.
Practical implications – Vendors and designers must consider user needs and concerns in the
design of ERP packages. Understanding user characteristics and their interaction will lead to better
benefits. For example, if ERP users are predominantly individuals with little computer experience, the
system designers should invest more in making the systems easier to use to facilitate more system
impacts and benefits.
Originality/value – There has been a general lack of awareness about the importance of evaluating
ERP systems from a user perspective. Rather, the main focus of previous studies was either on critical
factors and implementation issues and/or on user acceptance and satisfaction. This study underscores
the importance of this issue and presents some insights into the benefits of ERP systems in higher
education by taking lessons from IS theory in general.
Keywords User studies, Information systems, System quality, Management information systems,
ERP systems, User performance, Higher education
Paper type Research paper

1. Background
Enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems have become popular in firms throughout
the world in order to deal with a rapidly changing environment and overcome the
limitations of legacy systems (Kallunki et al., 2011). Unlike transactional systems that
support-specific business activities, ERP applications are information systems (IS)
packages that are engineered to institutionalize the sharing of organizational data
resources (Klaus et al., 2000). Organizations around the world implement ERP The International Journal of
Information and Learning
applications to improve operational efficiency because such systems permit the Technology
Vol. 32 No. 1, 2015
seamless flow of information across the entire organization and address the problem of pp. 45-64
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2056-4880
This work was supported by King Saud University in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. DOI 10.1108/IJILT-10-2013-0058
 IJILT fragmentations of information or “Islands of information” in organizations (Eric et al.,
32,1 2007). Since the emergence of ERP packages in the late 1990s, they have become
popular among practitioners and IS researchers alike (Davenport, 1998). According to
Gartner Inc, the revenue for ERP software around the world in 2011 is US $253.7 billion;
this amount represents an increase of 7.5 percent compared to 2010’s, as stated
in Ifinedo (2011).
46 Despite such huge amounts being spent on ERPs, recent industry reports and
academic studies have indicated that many adopting organizations have come to
realize that the deployments of such systems were not as effective as expected (Ifinedo,
2011). A large number of studies looked for answers, but at the organizational level.
Issues at the user level such as user’s needs, user task’s requirements and user issues
in general have received little attention from researchers casting the domain in
ambiguity, if one considers the long history of ERP failures being attributed to the lack
Downloaded by CAIRO UNIVERSITY At 07:58 06 March 2015 (PT)

of fit between information and user tasks (Kositanurit et al., 2006; Al-Mudimigh et al.,
2001; Hong and Kim, 2002; King et al., 2002).
In the ERP system literature, conventional critique of ERP systems states the lack of
fit between applications and the practices that they are expected to support. The lack
of knowledge of perceived benefits of ERPs to users motivates this type of study
aiming to enhance our knowledge in this area. In addition, organizations adopt ERPs
and their applications to improve performance by improving the availability, clarity,
integration and accuracy of data and information, enhancing efficiency, and reducing
performance errors (Al-Mudimigh et al., 2001; Hong and Kim, 2002; King et al., 2002).
It is interesting that organizations implement ERP systems with these expectations,
unfortunately, these plans do not come true most of the time (Basoglu et al., 2007).
These aforementioned issues led to many critical questions whose core part centralizes
the study’s aim on whether or not the ERPs improve user performance (UP) and meet
staff requirements, and contribute to performance efficiency and effectiveness.
To sum up, debate still exists regarding the various contributions of the ERP
systems to performance, especially at the user level, where the core values of IS are
represented and the actual benefits and impacts are created. It would therefore be
worthwhile for studies to research why such have been the case. Another useful
research area worth pursing could be to offer insight on factors that could enhance
the success or effectiveness of such systems in adopting organizations. The current
study is motivated, in part, by the desire to shed light in this area of study and evaluate
the impacts of such system on performance in higher education. The current study
reviews literature about the impacts of ERPs on UP with a special focus on ERPs
in higher education, providing empirical evidence by statistically testing and validating
a new integrated model. The study model is consolidating three well-known and widely
used IS models. We argue that the combination of different evaluation factors and their
subsequent classification into structured factors can contribute to shaping a more
exploratory model that represent a further step in the ongoing investigation of the ERP
systems and their impact on UP.

2. ERP systems in higher education

Higher education institutions have been strongly influenced by global trends to adopt
new technologies. There has been a call by governments for universities worldwide to
improve their performance and efficiency (Allen and Kern, 2001). Challenges including
increasing expectations of stakeholders such as students and governments, decreasing
 governmental support, meeting quality and performance requirements, and maintaining Impact of ERP
competitive education environments have pressured universities to adopt new strategies systems in
in order to improve their performance (Fisher, 2006). In response to the many challenges
faced, higher education institutions have turned to ERP systems in order to cope with
higher
the changing environment (McCredie and Updegrove, 1999) and to replace aging education
management and administration computer-based systems (Pollock and Cornford, 2001).
This consequently would improve learning services by providing better managerial 47
tools (Kvavik et al., 2002) thereby increasing their pace of organizational change and
effectiveness (Fisher, 2006; Nielsen, 2002).
ERP systems in universities can provide academic entities including schools and
departments with completely functional applications for research and teaching
(Watson and Schneider, 1999). They improve information access for planning and
managing the institution, and enable users to access students’ information, academic
records, and other data needed to complete their daily work (Davis and Huang, 2007),
Downloaded by CAIRO UNIVERSITY At 07:58 06 March 2015 (PT)

leading thus to improved business processes and services provided to the faculty,
students, and employees (Kvavik et al., 2002; King et al., 2002).
Even though, implementation of ERP systems in higher education institutions
is often described as extremely difficult. Expenses and risks involved are high. It is also
sometimes unsuccessful or ineffective, whereas the return on investments is medium
to long-term. Research on ERP systems in higher education reported a large number
of failures and/or inadequate adoption of ERPs (Botta-Genoulaz and Millet, 2006).
For example, EDUCAUSE conducted series of studies to assess ERP systems for
tertiary institutions (Kvavik et al., 2002; Judith, 2005) reporting that 50 percent of these
implementations were over budget and over timeline schedules. Recent research
claimed that as many as 60-80 precent of all ERP systems fail due to lack of meeting
expected outcomes (Mehlinger, 2006) and/or lack of performance improvement, with
users expressing dissatisfaction with their performance.
Although ERP systems are the largest IS’ project adopted by universities, with
significant resources allocated to implementation (e.g. higher education institutions
spent more than five billion dollars in the last few years on ERP investments) (Davis
and Huang, 2007), little research has been conducted on ERP implementations in
universities compared to other environments (Nielsen, 2002). At best, these studies
brought about the identification of a number of critical factors related to the ERP
implementation in higher education such as, staff training (Watson and Schneider,
1999; Allen and Kern, 2001), leadership and culture (Mehlinger, 2006), change management,
system functionality (Vevaina, 2007), ERP integration with education processes ( Judith,
2005; Cynthia and Harold, 2004; Todd et al., 2004; Casper and Dirk-Jan, 2004; Jarmoszko
and Michael, 2004), the evolution of ERP systems and the university curriculum (Paul et al.,
2004; Davis and Huang, 2007), and the ability of ERP systems to support business
processes in universities ( Jane et al., 2004).
Overall, prior research on ERPs revealed some important results, opening the path
for new empirical investigations on ERP systems in a university environment,
especially using ERP systems in the classroom for learning and teaching purposes
(Yvonne Lederer et al., 2004) such as the usefulness of using ERP systems for
enhancing learning by providing ways to transform the classroom into a real business
environment (Noguera and Watson, 2004).
To sum up, research on ERP systems in higher education is still in its infancy with
the subsequent research interests focussing mainly on understanding the failure
factors at the organization and system levels (Bologa et al., 2009). With the spotlight of
 IJILT prior research mainly focussed on success and failure factors and the successfulness
32,1 of the ERP implementation other important issues at the user level such as
user evaluation and UP of ERPs thus remain elusive (Lope Ahmad et al., 2011).
As consequence, this study focusses on ERPs’ users to evaluate the impacts of ERP
systems on UP in higher education institutions with a view to better understand ERP
phenomenon in these institutions and determine whether or not these system work well
48 to deliver the right outcomes with special emphasis on the user level. The study was
designed to answer several questions related to how ERP systems affect user’s
performance, whether ERP systems improve performance and whether ERP systems
meet user needs and task requirements, and identify the most significant factors that
affect UP within the context of ERP systems.

3. Model development
Downloaded by CAIRO UNIVERSITY At 07:58 06 March 2015 (PT)

From the mid-1990s, IS researchers have concentrated their research efforts in

developing and testing models that help in investigating IS in different organizational
environments. As a result, a number of models for studying systems utilization of end
users and other related issues including system use, system success, and user aspects
have emerged. The most commonly used models are the Technology Acceptance Model
(TAM), Task-Technology Fit (TTF) and the DeLone and McLean (D&M)
model (Goodhue and Thompson, 1995; DeLone and McLean, 2003; Davis, 1989). Each
model focusses on different aspects and has different perspectives on the impacts of IS
on users and/or at least follows researcher’s goals and research purposes. These models
provide a much-needed theoretical basis for exploring the factors that explain IS’
utilization and impacts on UP (Dishaw and Strong, 1999; Kobelsky, 2000) signifying the
need for a model that can help better understand the relationship between IS and users
in different environments. Such a model should embrace different dimensions of IS,
technology and users contemporaneously. This would help identify most important
aspects and shift the focus from less important or more researched factors to more
important factors that bring new useful ideas to both practitioners and researchers.
Our model thus is based on a common argument that aforementioned models were
criticized for different reasons. Each model alone tells only a particular part of the story and
none of them alone has achieved a universal acceptance in terms of comprehensiveness and
suitability to various IS environments specialty with materializing new huge and complex
IS such as ERP systems. The current study takes lessons from the IS literature by deriving
its theoretical foundation from previous IS models, suggesting that an integration of
current models into a combined model would lead to a more explanatory investigation
(Urbach et al., 2009; Dishaw and Strong, 1998). The study model was built after an
extensive review of the literature of IS and ERP systems, combining the key ideas of TAM,
TTF and D&M’s models. All constructs of these models were necessary in predicting
system impacts on UP reflecting more explanatory power and improve our understanding
of system utilization and impacts on end users performance as illustrated in Figure 1.

4. Methods
A survey methodology was used to gather data from ERP users in universities. The
questionnaire was synthesized after an extensive review of the IS and ERP literature.
The study was carried out in six large universities in Australia implemented several
modules of ERP systems in different functional units such as human resource, students
administration, and finance. The respondents numbered 387 ERP users in total from
 Impact of ERP
Task technology fit
Locatability systems in
Compatibility
Meaning
higher
Software Adequacy
IT support
education
Training
IT staff support
and assistance 49
System quality
Reliability
Correctness
Response time Perceived usefulness
Integration
User Performance
Information quality Efficiency
Effectiveness
Relevancy
Perceived ease of use Service Quality
Accuracy
Downloaded by CAIRO UNIVERSITY At 07:58 06 March 2015 (PT)

Timeliness
Completeness
Accessibility

User characteristics
Gender System evaluation
Age
Education Utilization
Experience Figure 1.
Frequency of use
User type
The study model

various functional areas in these universities. The name of the university is withheld
due to our non-disclosure agreement with the executives.

4.1 Instrument
Measurement items used in the operationalization of the instrument were adopted from
relevant prior research. The TTF factor was measured by items adopted from Goodhue
and Thompson (1995). The TTF measures asked participants to rate their level of
agreement on 12 items about how these measures affect their performance and whether
the ERP systems fit their needs and task requirements. System quality (SQ) and
information quality (IQ) were measured eight items developed (DeLone and McLean,
1992, 2003).
Perceived usefulness (PU) and ease of use (PEOU) were measured using the
measures developed by Davis et al. (1989) and asked respondents how the ERP systems
would affect UP and enhance efficiency and effectiveness. Lastly, UP was measured
through a set of items adopted from relevant studies in ERP systems as listed in the
Appendix (Calisir and Calisir, 2004).

4.2 Pre-tests and pilot study

Although, most items used in the study instrument were validated in previous studies.
For the sake of more validity, the adopted instrument was tested to ensure high content
and construct validity within the ERP context through two phases as follows.
Phase one. A series of interviews were first conducted with ERP users. The users,
selected from three universities, were from different backgrounds including managers,
administrative, and system professionals experienced in ERP applications. The study
questionnaire was discussed with all participants of the interviews in an opened ended
 IJILT approach. The purpose of this discussion was to refine items measuring each factor
32,1 (Blumberg et al., 2005). Discussion made in the focus group helped improve the research
considerably as sources of error and misunderstanding are handled before the study
conducted (Shank, 2006; Gummesson, 1999; Lee et al., 2002). As a result, only minor
changes were made and wording of some of the items to tailor with the ERP system
environment and to fit the ERP context.
50 Phase two. Prior to data collection, the questionnaire was also further tested in a pilot
study. The purpose of the pilot study was to obtain statistical evidence about the
reliability of the questionnaire before the actual data collection stage took place.
This helped eliminate any remaining duplicity in the questionnaire. At this stage, 15
ERP users, who did not participate in the interviews were sent the modified
questionnaire and were asked to fill out the questionnaire. A Cronbach’s α was used to
measure the reliability of the study questionnaire used in the pilot study. All factors
Downloaded by CAIRO UNIVERSITY At 07:58 06 March 2015 (PT)

had a high reliability value confirming thus the appropriateness of the instrument and
suggesting the readiness to conduct the actual study.

4.3 Validity and reliability

The reliability and validity of the measurement instrument was carried out using
reliability and factor analysis. The entire instrument, as well as the individual
variables, achieved high levels of reliability. The results showed that the reliabilities of
the constructs (Cronbach’s coefficient α) ranged from 0.84 for PU to 0.97 for UP,
indicating high reliability, as mentioned in Table I.
Instrument validity. Factor analysis was carried out to examine measurement
construct validity. Typically construct validity is considered to be satisfactory when
items load high on their respective constructs (factors). The cut-off point used in this
analysis was 0.5, as recommended by Golafshani (2003). All correlations below this
point were considered low. As shown in Table I, all items had high loadings on their
respective factors, with most of items above 0.70, demonstrating high construct
validity.

5. Discussion and analysis

Multiple regression analysis (MRA) was used to assess the effects of various factors
included in this study on UP. MRA is useful to identify significant contributions
made by these factors to predicting UP, rather than correlations, by themselves, as they
do not explain all the relationships between factors in a study. This is considered to be
appropriate given that most prior studies similar to this study have used regression
analyses to assess the relationships between the factors and thus doing the same here
will facilitate comparison of the study results with previous ones (Amoako-Gyampah,
2007; Lucas and Spitler, 1999; Calisir and Calisir, 2004). The results of the analysis are
presented below followed by a discussion for each factor.

5.1 The overall impact of ERP systems on UP

The impact of ERP systems on UP was measured through all independent factors
including TTF, SQ, IQ, and UC, and UP as a dependent factor.
The findings indicated that the whole model has a significant positive relationship
with UP, explaining 61 percent (R2) of the variance in UP. To further investigate UP and
identify the individual contribution for each factor a regression analysis was performed
separately for TTF, SQ, IQ, and UP measures including efficiency, effectiveness,
 Downloaded by CAIRO UNIVERSITY At 07:58 06 March 2015 (PT)

Factors/items Loading Mean SD Factors/items Loading Mean SD

TTF (α ¼ 0.90) 4.9 0.96 Corr1 0.75 3.2 0.93

Loc1 0.74 5.3 1.39 Corr2 0.60 3.3 0.92
Loc2 0.81 4.9 1.39 PU (α ¼ 0.84) 3.9 0.78
Com2 0.74 5.4 1.12 PU1 0.69 3.9 0.83
Com3 0.75 5.3 1.14 PU2 0.67 4.2 1.03
ITsub2 0.84 4.7 1.33 PU3 0.76 3.7 0.92
ITsub3 0.85 4.8 1.31 PU4 0.73 3.7 0.98
Ade1 0.84 4.8 1.34 PEOU (α ¼ 0.89) 3.3 0.89
Ade2 0.60 4.8 1.36 PEOU1 0.72 3.2 1.00
Mea1 0.74 4.5 1.30 PEOU2 0.85 3.2 0.97
Mea2 0.78 4.3 1.30 PEOU3 0.89 3.4 0.98
IQ (α ¼ 0.87) 3.6 0.61
Access1 0.71 3.5 0.90 UP (α ¼ 0.97) 4.5 1.14
Access2 0.82 3.4 0.91 Effici1 0.81 4.6 1.28
Complet1 0.50 3.4 0.88 Effici2 0.77 4.9 1.34
Complet2 0.50 3.7 0.76 Effici3 0.76 4.7 1.29
Tim1 0.53 3.6 0.86 Effici4 0.76 4.6 1.32
Tim2 0.69 3.6 0.87 Effici5 0.65 4.6 1.24
SQ (α ¼ 0.87) 3.3 0.63 Effici6 0.78 4.7 1.32
Integ1 0.77 3.1 0.85 Effici7 0.74 4.8 1.35
Integ2 0.78 3.3 0.83 Effici8 0.69 4.7 1.34
Integ3 0.58 3.2 0.99 Effec1 0.715 4.5 1.38
Relia1 0.66 3.7 0.87 Effec2 0.61 4.4 1.32
Relia2 0.83 3.6 0.79 Effec3 0.60 4.7 1.30
Restime1 0.73 3.3 0.96 Crea1 0.91 3.9 1.52
Restime2 0.74 3.2 0.94 Crea1 0.83 3.7 1.57
Notes: n ¼ 387. Values in parenthesis represent Cronbach’s α. aOnly loadings of 0.5 or above are shown
education

measurement
higher

analysis and
Impact of ERP

Results of factor
Table I.
51
systems in

reliabilitya
 IJILT and creativity. The findings of the analysis are presented in Table II, followed by the
32,1 discussion for each factor.
Efficiency was measured by time, productivity, and quantity and quality of work.
The findings indicated that ERP systems improve UP significantly (R2 ¼ 0.79).
ERP users reported significant improvements in their performance in terms of time
taken to perform tasks and accomplish job. SQ had the strongest weighting on
52 performance, indicating that SQ is the best predictor of end-UP. The SQ through
reliability, correctness, response time, and integration help user improve their efficiency
by increasing the quantity and the quality of the work done. This is due to the ability of
the systems to integrate data from other systems and respond to user enquires in a
timely manner.
Effectiveness was measured in terms of problem solving, reducing performance
errors and enhancing overall performance. The analysis yielded a regression function
with (R2 ¼ 0.54), demonstrating that ERP systems improve effectiveness of UP. ERP
Downloaded by CAIRO UNIVERSITY At 07:58 06 March 2015 (PT)

systems help users reduce the errors occurring in their performance and also correct
them by providing the right information with a high degree of accuracy.
Creativity was measured by the ability of ERP systems to help users generate new
ideas and enhance their innovativeness. The regression yielded a function with
(R2 ¼ 0.31). The results demonstrated that ERP systems support users to create new
ideas related to their job and enhance creativity by providing sufficient and accurate
information that meets user needs and task requirements.
The findings above explained insight only about the whole relationship between
the ERP systems and UP. For the sake of providing more insight about how these
factors jointly and individually affect UP and the individual contribution for the
subsequent measures. We conducted a regression analysis for each factor with
its subsequent measures and their relationship with UP separately. The results of the
analysis , including β-coefficient, t-statistic, and significance level for each independent
variable are reported below and for the aim of summarization these results were
grouped in Table V.

5.2 Task technology fit

For the TTF subsequent variables, compatibility was the most significant measure
that contributed uniquely to UP ( β ¼ 0.29). Meaning and adequacy also were found to
be significant predictors of UP ( β ¼ 0.22, β ¼ 0.16). The relative strength of their
explanatory power, however, was different. The implications of these results revealed
that ERP users give high attention to the meaning behind the information that they get
from the systems. This helps the users to utilize the information in performing their
tasks. Participants reported that ERP systems meet their needs and task requirements
in most cases, which helps them perform task efficiently. The fitness and consistency
between ERP applications and work aspects, the exact meaning of information
obtained from the ERP, which is easy to find out, and the correct meaning of the
information on the ERP systems, were adequate to handle the work processing needs
and led consequently to improved performance.

5.3 SQ
In relation to SQ variables the results showed that greater SQ would better the UP of
ERP systems in higher education. When ERP users perceive the systems as high
quality, the benefits gained and the individual impacts will be greater. Among SQ
 Downloaded by CAIRO UNIVERSITY At 07:58 06 March 2015 (PT)

Dependent factors
User performance Efficiency Effectiveness Creativity
Independent factors β t Sig β SE Sig β SE Sig β SE Sig

TTF 0.167 3.54 0.00 0.178 0.057 0.05 0.075 0.072 0.177 0.173 0.098 0.006
SQ 0.077 1.56 0.01 0.561 0.084 0.05 0.549 0.107 0.000 0.537 0.145 0.001
IQ 0.604 13.0 0.00 0.129 0.094 0.01 0.101 0.120 0.083 0.148 0.163 0.025
R 0.780 0.790 0.677 0.562
R2 0.610 0.624 0.458 0.316
F 201 212 108 58.8
education

performance
Regression analysis
higher

of the detailed user

Impact of ERP

53

Table II.
systems in
 IJILT variables, correctness was found as the most significant one that leads to more
32,1 performance improvement and contributes uniquely to this relationship ( β ¼ 0.42). The
same variable “correctness” was also the best predictor of ERP UP. ERP users reported
that the systems do not only help them correct the errors related to work easily but also
help ultimately even avoid and reduce the errors in their job.
Responsiveness and integration of the ERP systems have significant
54 contributions to UP, but less stronger predictors of UP with ERP systems as
compared to correctness ( β ¼ 0.19, 0.32). The results indicate that the ability of the
ERP systems to consolidate all relevant information and respond quickly to given
inquiries also affect UP by saving time and improving the way users interacted with
the systems. ERPs’ integration was demonstrated as a main component and one of
the ERPs core capabilities that affect system usability (Wu and Wang, 2007).
Participants reported that the ability of ERP systems to communicate data with other
systems servicing different functional areas helped users attain different types of
Downloaded by CAIRO UNIVERSITY At 07:58 06 March 2015 (PT)

data to perform tasks more efficiently. Furthermore, a part of system integration is

designing for different types of users. The findings showed that ERP systems suite
all types of users in higher education, confirming thus ERP integration as an
inevitable element that enhances users’ performance (Gupta and Kohli, 2006;
Guimaraes et al., 2007; Petter and McLean, 2009).

5.4 IQ
The findings indicated that individually IQ variables affect UP. Among these variables
completeness was the most important one that contributes significantly to UP
( β ¼ 0.341). Users pay high attention to the quantity of the information obtained from
ERPs “the degree of completeness.” Accuracy and timeliness of information also add
a unique value to the model ( β ¼ 0.213, β ¼ 0.197) and help improve UP in terms
of precise work on time and fewer mistakes in performing tasks. Relevancy and
accessibility were found to be insignificant factors and did not contribute to UP.
Plausible justification might be the authority or the accessibility of the information
given to users from the organizations, which might be according to their predetermined
needs and task requirements.

5.5 User characteristics

User characteristics such as computer experience, gender, and age were thought to be
important factors in IS research (Arning and Ziefle, 2007). Recent studies found that
user characteristics are significant factors in models such as TAM and TTF to help
explain IS usage and impact (Ziefle et al., 2004). In this study, the findings indicated a
significant but not large relationship between user characteristics and UP (R ¼ 0.281),
explaining only 7.9 percent of the variance in UP. Specifically, only gender, usage type,
and education were found to be significant, while the remaining characteristics did not
account for any significant variance as shown in Table III.
The results of the analysis of user characteristics are interesting. The negative
relationship between age, experience, and type of and performance could be a unique
and interesting phenomenon occurring in an ERP system’s environment, that is worthy
of study by IS researchers. Overall, the interesting findings of the user characteristics
will be discussed in details in another study later. We think that discussing these
characteristics is worth and would bring new sounds in for both ERP researchers
and practitioners.
 Factora β t Sig.
Impact of ERP
systems in
Task technology fit R ¼ 0.630 R2 ¼ 0.402 F ¼ 52 higher
Compatibility 0.290 4.72 0.05 education
Adequacy 0.163 2.83 0.05
Meaning 0.229 4.07 0.05
System quality R ¼ 0.765 R2 ¼ 0.585 F ¼ 544.4 55
Correctness 0.425 1.70 0.001
Integration 0.321 4.07 0.002
Response time 0.193 2.83 0.001
Information quality R ¼ 0.609 R2 ¼ 0.371 F ¼ 227
Completeness 0.341 0.149 0.001
Accuracy 0.213 4.72 0.002
Timeliness 0.197 2.83 0.001
User characteristics R ¼ 0.281 R2 ¼ 0.079 F ¼ 5.44
Downloaded by CAIRO UNIVERSITY At 07:58 06 March 2015 (PT)

Table III.
Gender 0.118 2.17 0.030 Regression analyses
Education 0.168 3.11 0.002 of the study factors
Usage type 0.113 2.20 0.028 and their effect on
Note: aOnly significant relationships were shown user performance

5.6 Usefulness and PEOU

One of the notable findings in this study is the significant effect of both PU and PEOU.
We noticed that these two factors play a critical role in mediating the relationship
between ERPs and UP. Therefore, testing mediation effects of the PU and POEU on the
relationship between (TTF, SQ, IQ and UC), and UP is an important part of this study.
Baron and Kenny (1986) simply suggested using Sobel test, as to test mediation effects.
Sobel test is an approximate significance test for an indirect effect of an independent
factor on a dependent factor via a mediator (Baron and Kenny, 1986, p. 1177). Thus, a
Sobel test was conducted to test whether the relationship between above-mentioned
factors was mediated through TAM factors (PU and PEOU). The results of this
analysis are presented in Table IV, and showed that there was significant mediation of
both PU and PEOU on the relationship between all study factors and UP.

Factor β SE Sobel Z-value Probability

1. TTF-PU 0.551 0.034 9.05 o 0.001

PU-UP 0.589 0.054
TTF-PEOU 0.621 0.037 6.80 o 0.001
PEOU-UP 0.439 0.059
2. SQ-PU 0.605 0.050 7.41 o 0.001
PU-UP 0.459 0.049
SQ-PEOU 0.665 0.053 4.54 o 0.001
PEOU-UP 0.258 0.053
3. IQ-PU 0.679 0.048 7.38 o 0.001
PU-UP 0.536 0.062
IQ-PEOU 0.654 0.057 5.45 o 0.001 Table IV.
PEOU-UP 0.359 0.058 Sobel analysis of the
4. UC-PU 0.342 0.091 3.44 o 0.001 mediation effect of
PU-UP 0.771 0.091 PU and PEOU
 IJILT Interestingly, prior research argued that PU does not predict system usage and
32,1 impacts. Researchers argued that user evaluations based on attitudes/behavior theories
focus on predicting use rather than individual performance, which are obviously not
applicable when use is mandatory. Accordingly, to believe that user evaluation
instruments based on these theories will predict performance, we must make a heroic
assumption that greater use implies better performance. That is clearly not always the
56 case (Goodhue et al., 2000; Gelderman, 1998). Goodhue and Thompson (1995) argue that
greater use leads to better performance only when there is high TTF. Thus, it is hard to
defend a strong link from user evaluation studies to performance from either of these
conceptual bases. In this study we found empirical evidence that PU does predict
system usage and impacts on UP. The results indicated that when ERP system are
perceived as useful, more system usage will occur, leading consequently to more
system impacts on and improvements in UP. This represents a useful contribution to IS
and ERP research as researchers might benefit from this finding to further investigate
Downloaded by CAIRO UNIVERSITY At 07:58 06 March 2015 (PT)

TAM factors and their mediating effect on end UP. For more clarity TTF would
increase the system usefulness, although not necessarily causing them.
Since PU and PEOU were found to be significant factors mediating the effects of
the ERP systems on users’ performance, it would be interesting to investigate which
factors most predict PU and PEOU within an ERP system’s environment. Thus, we
conducted a stepwise regression analysis to identify these factors. The results indicated
that SQ was the most significant factor predicting both PU and PEOU ( β ¼ 0.297, 0.337)
respectively, while IQ, usage type, type of user and TTF were found to be significant
factors mediating the relationships significantly. The relative importance of these
factors was listed in Table V according to their β-values; almost the same factors
operate the same with PEOU as they did with PU. This signifies the importance of
these factors in determining system use and impacts as PU and PEOU in turn magnify
the system impacts on UP (Kwasi, 2007; Davis, 1989; Wang and Strong, 1996).

6. Conclusion and implications

This study investigated the impact of ERP systems on UP in higher education. It is
expected that the results of this study can be used by ERP practitioners and vendors.
First, higher priority should be given to the SQ, fitness between the system and user
needs and task requirements and IQ (in that order). Second, any actions taken to
enhance IS quality can subsequently improve UP. Therefore, both IS system designers
and practitioners should be aware of the importance of ERP SQ and should concentrate
their attempts to improve SQ. Similarly, IQ plays a critical role in affecting UP and a
mediating role in the relationship between SQ and usefulness and UP. Thus, ERP
vendors should focus their efforts to improve system characteristics and functionalities
that provide high-quality outputs (improve IQ).

PU PEOU
Factors β SE Sig R R2 β SE Sig R R2

SQ 0.297 0.622 0.001 0.605 0.366 0.337 0.671 0.002 0.665 0.442
IQ 0.292 0.591 0.001 0.654 0.428 0.251 0.597 0.001 0.749 0.561
Table V. Frequency of use 0.195 0.572 0.002 0.682 0.465 0.135 0.471 0.002 0.662 0.445
Factors affecting Type of user 0.126 0.567 0.001 0.691 0.477 0.199 0.614 0.001 0.732 0.535
PU and PEOU TTF 0.139 0.563 0.012 0.697 0.486 0.272 0.633 0.001 0.710 0.504
 The findings of this study, for the most part, are consistent with previous studies on Impact of ERP
ERP systems such as (Kositanurit et al., 2006; Amoako-Gyampah and Salam, 2004; systems in
Calisir and Calisir, 2004), and several others that have extended TAM and TTF models,
though there are also some differences between our results and the others such as
higher
(Wu et al., 2004). The results of the study demonstrated that PU has a positive direct education
and indirect impact on system use and UP. In fact, among all factors investigated, PU
has a large effect on and/or mediated the impacts of other factors on performance 57
suggesting that ERP usage and impacts might depend more on how useful these
systems are perceived by users, than how easy it will be to use the systems. This result
is significant as it shows that in a complex IS environment, just as in non-complex
environments, PU of a system is perhaps more important than its ease of use
(Amoako-Gyampah, 2007). Thus, designing attempts focussed on enhancing PU of the
ERP systems will be worthwhile since it is more likely to lead to more system impacts
and an improved performance.
Downloaded by CAIRO UNIVERSITY At 07:58 06 March 2015 (PT)

Unlike previous studies that used PU measures to investigate the system impacts
in most cases and/or user satisfaction to measure system success and system usage
(Wu and Wang, 2007; Kwahk and Ahn, 2010), the current study provides significant
progress in measuring systems’ impacts and UP. Utilizing prior validated
measures, the study combined a new set of measures to better investigate UP in
an ERP system environment, differentiating explicitly between systems usefulness
and system impacts.
More specifically, building upon several previously validated instruments (Goodhue
and Thompson, 1995; DeLone and McLean, 2003; Davis, 1989), the instrument of
the current study integrates factors of system, information, technology, and users.
The instrument appears to have sufficient reliability and validity, contributing thus to a
better understanding of several aspects of ERP systems in business organizations.
Furthermore, the study instrument (questionnaire) can be utilized as a diagnostic tool to
assess and analyze what aspects of IS are most problematical and most significant in
creating benefits and positive impacts for users.
The implications of TTF results revealed that ERP users give high attention to
the meaning behind the information they get from the ERPs. The fitness and
consistency between ERP applications and work aspects, the exact meaning of
information obtained from the ERP, which is easy to find out, and the correct
meaning of the information on the ERP systems, were adequate to handle the work
processing needs and led consequently to improved performance. For example,
adequacy has a relatively smaller but significant effect on UP with ERP systems.
The design of an ERP system’s interface and functionality should be aligned
with user needs and task requirements and also should be easy to navigate among
different ERP modules.
Another noticeable result drawn from this study that system characteristics
also have a strong impact on PU of ERP systems and thus in return on UP.
The importance of this result is supported by (Calisir and Calisir, 2004), who indicate
the same relationship in the ERP system environment. Therefore, in addition to
developing useful and easy to use systems, ERP system designers should pay more
attention to user requirements analysis to determine their expectations and
requirements for the content of ERP systems, and then incorporate relevant
applications and functions into the systems, considering also users background and
levels. For example, designing ERP systems with multiple interfaces for different
levels of users would be useful.
 IJILT A major conclusion of the current study is that both PU and PEOU of ERP systems
32,1 contribute significantly to ERP usage and performance impacts. This study put
forward SQ and IQ and the intrinsic beliefs of users for consideration as important in
affecting the PU of ERP systems. Concurrently, the results suggest that SQ, through
PU, has the greatest impact on UP among all factors investigated. One possible
implication of this observation for both researchers and practitioners is that users place
58 great emphases on the PU of ERP systems, even more so than a system’s PEOU.
The original TAM relationships were confirmed. Both Sobel test and regression
analysis showed the significance of PU and PEOU toward system usage. Evidence
existed for a stronger dependence of an individual on utilization than on lower
complexity when using ERP systems. Both Sobel Z-value and β-coefficients are higher
for relationships with PU than those with PEOU. Research on TAM has investigated
this issue. This indicates that as users gain experience with ERP systems, PEOU is
overshadowed by other factors (Venkatesh et al., 2003). This result seems to be
Downloaded by CAIRO UNIVERSITY At 07:58 06 March 2015 (PT)

interesting with those related to user characteristics and will be further investigated in
details in the next paper. We think that discussing these characteristics is worth and
would bring new sounds in for both ERP researchers and practitioners.
This study provides more clarifications and explanations about the potential benefits
and outputs of ERP systems for users in business organizations. This is becoming
important as organizations, especially higher education institutions are increasingly
investing significant amounts on ERP systems’ installations, while only little empirical
research in this environment is available especially at user level, associated with lack of
empirical research in this environment and consequently the benefits of the systems
seem unrecognized yet (Sun et al., 2009; Hellens et al., 2005). The study is deemed to be
useful in explaining how users can obtain values from ERP systems and reflect them in
their task and job accomplishments.
The negative relationship between experience, education, and system impacts could be
a unique and interesting phenomenon occurring in the ERP system’s environments.
As mentioned early in this study, higher education organizations have turned to ERP
systems as a means of replacing existing legacy systems. Typically, users of existing
systems might have vested interests, experiences and know how to work on these systems.
Therefore, replacing those systems means that users need to re-obtain new particular skills
to utilize ERP systems, making previous skills and experiences inapplicable for ERP usage.
In this sense, some prior studies mentioned that with ERP systems “every employee
becomes a new employee” (Amoako-Gyampah, 2007, p. 1245).

7. Limitations and further directions

Although the study factors explained a large portion of the variance in UP, there
is a part of the variance that remains still unexplained. This might be due to other
significant factors not included in this study, suggesting that more additional empirical
and theoretical investigations are required to identify those factors and include
potential effective factors. Similarly, some user characteristics were not investigated in
this study. Further research incorporating additional characteristics to explore what
else can affect UP might be useful. Although not a limitation per se, the framework of
the study analyzed the associated effects of the study factors. The results of the
analysis indicated that the direct vs mediated effects could be overshadowed. Previous
studies found moderating effects of work experience, age, and system experience.
However, we found no significant effects for these factors on UP.
 References Impact of ERP
Al-Mudimigh, A., Zairi, M. and Al-Mashari, M. (2001), “ERP software implementation: an integrative systems in
framework”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 216-226. higher
Allen, D. and Kern, T. (2001), “Enterprise resource planning implementation: stories of power, education
politics, and resistance at the proceedings of the IFIP TC8/WG8.2”, Working Conference on
Realigning Research and Practice in Information Systems Development: The Social and
Organizational Perspective, Boise, ID. 59
Amoako-Gyampah, K. (2007), “Perceived usefulness, user involvement and behavioral intention:
an empirical study of ERP implementation”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 3,
pp. 1232-1248.
Amoako-Gyampah, K. and Salam, A. (2004), “An extension of the technology acceptance model in an
ERP implementation environment”, Information and Management, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 731-745.
Arning, K. and Ziefle, M. (2007), “Understanding age differences in PDA acceptance and
Downloaded by CAIRO UNIVERSITY At 07:58 06 March 2015 (PT)

performance”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 2904-2927.

Baron, R. and Kenny, D. (1986), “The moderator mediator variable distinction in social
psychological-research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Basoglu, N., Daim, T. and Kerimoglu, T. (2007), “Organizational adoption of enterprise resource
planning systems: a conceptual framework”, Journal of High Technology Management
Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 73-97.
Blumberg, B., Cooper, D. and Schindler, P. (2005), Business Research Methods, McGraw-Hill, London.
Bologa, A.-R., Muntean, M., Sabau, G. and Scorta, I. (2009), “Higher education ERPs: implementation
factors and their interdependecies”, W. Trans. on Comp., Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 651-660.
Botta-Genoulaz, V. and Millet, P. (2006), “An investigation into the use of ERP systems in the
service sector”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 99 No. 1, pp. 202-221.
Calisir, F. and Calisir, F. (2004), “The relation of interface usability characteristics, perceived
usefulness and perceived ease of use to end -user satisfaction with enterprise resource
planning systems”, Computer in Human Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 505-515.
Casper, D. and Dirk-Jan, S.(2004), “Best practices of business simulation with SAP R/3”, Journal of
Information Systems Education, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 261-271.
Cynthia, L. and Harold, W.W. (2004), “Appropriating enterprise resource planning systems in
colleges of business: extending adaptive structuration theory for testability”, Journal of
Information Systems Education, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 315-324.
Davenport, T. (1998), “Putting the enterprise into the enterprise systems”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 121-132.
Davis, F. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology”, Management Information System Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 318-340.
Davis, F., Bagozzi, P. and Warshaw, R. (1989), “User acceptance of computer technology:
a comparison of two theoretical models”, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 982-1003.
Davis, M. and Huang, Z. (2007), “ERP in higher education: a case study of SAP and campus
management”, Issues in Information Systems, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 120-126.
Delone, W. and McLean, E. (1992), “Information systems success: the quest for the dependent
variable”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 60-95.
DeLone, W. and McLean, E. (2003), “The DeLone McLean model of information system success:
a ten-year update”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 3-9.
Dishaw, M. and Strong, D. (1999), “Extending the technology acceptance model with
task-technology fit constructs”, Information and Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 9-21.
 IJILT Dishaw, M.T. and Strong, D.M. (1998), “Assessing software maintenance tool utilization using
task-technology fit and fitness-for-use models”, Journal of Software Maintenance, Vol. 10
32,1 No. 3, pp. 151-179.
Eric, W., Ngai, T., Chuck, C. and Law, H. (2007), “An investigation of the relationships between
organizational factors, business process improvement, and ERP success”, An International
Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 287-406.
60 Fisher, M.D. (2006), “Staff perceptions of an enterprise resource planning system implementation:
a case study of three Australian Universities”, unpublished PhD thesis, Central Queensland
University, Queensland.
Gelderman, M. (1998), “The relation between user satisfaction, usage of information systems and
performance”, Information & Management, Vol. 34, pp. 11-18.
Golafshani, N. (2003), “Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research”, The
Qualitative Report, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 597-607.
Downloaded by CAIRO UNIVERSITY At 07:58 06 March 2015 (PT)

Goodhue, D., Klein, B. and March, S. (2000), “User evaluations of IS as surrogates for objective
performance”, Information & Management, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 87-101.
Goodhue, D. and Thompson, R. (1995), “Task-technology fit and individual performance”, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 213-233.
Guimaraes, T., Staples, S. and McKeen, J. (2007), “Assessing the impact from information systems
quality”, The Quality Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 15-30.
Gummesson, E. (1999), Qualitative Methods in Management Research, Sage, London.
Gupta, M. and Kohli, A. (2006), “Enterprise resource planning systems and its implications for
operations function”, Technovation, Vol. 26 Nos 5/6, pp. 687-696.
Hellens, L., Nielsen, S. and Beekhuyzen, J. (2005), Qualitative Case Studies on Implementation of
Enterprise Wide Systems, Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA.
Hong, K. and Kim, Y. (2002), “The critical success factors for ERP implementation:
an organizational fit perspective”, Information & Management, Vol. 40 No. 1,
pp. 25-40.
Ifinedo, P. (2011), “Examining the influences of external expertise and in-house computer/IT
knowledge on ERP system success”, The Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 84 No. 12,
pp. 2065-2078.
Jane, F., Ulric, J.G. Jr, Catherine, U. and George, H. (2004), “Twelve tips for successfully integrating
enterprise systems across the curriculum”.
Jarmoszko, A.T. and Michael, G. (2004), “Choosing an ERP-type system for a Belarus enterprise”,
Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol. 15 No. 3, p. 255.
Judith, P. (2005), “Good enough! IT investment and business process performance in higher
education ECAR”, Key Findings, Vol. 6, June, pp. 1-14.
Kallunki, J.P., Laitinen, E.K. and Silvola, H. (2011), “Impact of enterprise resource planning
systems on management control systems and firm performance”, International Journal of
Accounting Information Systems, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 20-39.
King, P., Kvavik, R. and John, V. (2002), “Enterprise resource planning systems in higher
education”, EDUCAUSE, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 1-5.
Klaus, H., Rosemann, R. and Gable, G. (2000), “What is ERP?”, Information Systems Frontiers,
Vol. 2, pp. 141-162.
Kobelsky, K. (2000). “The impacts of information technology and direct labor practises on high
tech manufacturing performance: the disk drive industry”, unpublished PhD dissertation,
University of California, Berkeley, CA.
 Kositanurit, B., Ngwenyama, O. and Osei-Bryson, K. (2006), “An exploration of factors that Impact of ERP
impact individual performance in an ERP environment: an analysis using multiple
analytical techniques”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 556-568.
systems in
higher
Kvavik, R., Katz, R., Beecher, K., Caruso, J. and King, P. (2002), “The promise and performance of
enterprise systems for higher education”, Educause, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 5-123. education
Kwahk, K. and Ahn, H. (2009), “Moderating effects of localization differences on ERP use: a socio-
technical systems perspective”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 186-198. 61
Kwasi, A. (2007), “Perceived usefulness, user involvement and behavioral intention: an empirical
study of ERP implementation”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 1232-1248.
Lee, Y.W., Strong, D.M., Kahn, B.K. and Wang, R.Y. (2002), “AIMQ: a methodology for
information quality assessment”, Information & Management, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 133-146.
Lope Ahmad, R., Othman, Z. and Mukhtar, M. (2011), “Campus ERP implementation framework
for private institution of higher learning environment in Malaysia”, WSEAS Transactions
Downloaded by CAIRO UNIVERSITY At 07:58 06 March 2015 (PT)

on Advances in Engineering Education, Vol. 1 No. 8, pp. 1-12.

Lucas, H. and Spitler, V. (1999), “Technology use and performance: a field study of broker
workstations”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 291-322.
McCredie, J. and Updegrove, D. (1999), “Enterprise system implementations: lessons from the
trenches”, Cause/Effect, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 1-10.
Mehlinger, L. (2006), “Indicators of successful enterprise technology implementations in higher
education”, unpublished doctorate thesis, Morgan State University, Baltimore, MD.
Nielsen, J. (2002), Critical Success Factors for Implementing an ERP System in a University
Environment: A Case Study from the Australian HES, Griffith University, Brisbane.
Noguera, H.J. and Watson, F.E. (2004), “Effectiveness of using an enterprise system to teach
process-centered concepts in business education”, Communication of AIS, Vol. 7 No. 8, pp 1-52.
Paul, H., Brendan, M. and Andrew, S. (2004), “Second wave ERP education”, PhD thesis, School of
Information Systems, Victoria University, Melbourne.
Petter, S. and McLean, E.R. (2009), “A meta-analytic assessment of the DeLone and McLean IS
success model: an examination of IS success at the individual level”, Information &
Management, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 159-166.
Pollock, N. and Cornford, J. (2001), “Customizing industry standard computer systems for
universities: ERP systems and the university as a ‘Unique’ organization”, Information
Technology and People, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 31-52.
Shank, G. (2006), Qualitative Research: A Personal Skills Approach, Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Sun, Y., Bhattacherjee, A. and Ma, Q. (2009), “Extending technology usage to work settings:
the role of perceived work compatibility in ERP implementation”, Information & Management,
Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 351-356.
Todd, J., Alden, C.L., James, M. and Jon, O. (2004), “A customized ERP/SAP model for business
curriculum integration”, Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol. 15 No. 3.
Urbach, N., Smolnik, S. and Riempp, G. (2009), “Development and validation of a model for assessing
the success of employee portals”, paper presented at the 17th European Conference on
Information Systems, available at: www.ecis2009.it (accessed January 29, 2010).
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D. (2003), “User acceptance of information
technology: toward a unified view”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 425-478.
Vevaina, P. (2007), Factors Affecting the Implementation of Enterprise Systems within Government
Organizations in New Zealand, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland.
 IJILT Wang, R. and Strong, D. (1996), “Beyond accuracy: what data quality means to data consumers”,
Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 5-34.
32,1
Watson, E. and Schneider, H. (1999), “Using ERP in education”, Communications of AIS, Vol. 1
No. 9, pp. 12-24.
Wu, J.-H. and Wang, Y.-M. (2007), “Measuring ERP success: the key-users' viewpoint of the ERP
to produce a viable IS in the organization”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 3,
62 pp. 1582-1596.
Wu, J.-H., Chen, Y.-C. and Lin, H.-H. (2004), “Developing a set of management needs for IS managers:
a study of necessary managerial activities and skills”, Information & Management, Vol. 41
No. 4, pp. 413-429.
Yvonne Lederer, A., Gail, C., Glenn, S. and Albert, L.H. (2004), “Enterprise systems education:
where are we? Where are we going?”, Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol. 15
No. 3, pp. 227-233.
Ziefle, M., Bodendieck, A. and Künzer, A. (2004), “The impact of user characteristics on the utility
Downloaded by CAIRO UNIVERSITY At 07:58 06 March 2015 (PT)

of adaptive help systems”, in Khalid, H.M., Helander, M.G. and Yeo, A.W. (Eds), Work with
Computing Systems, Damai Sciences, Kuala Lumpur, pp. 71-76.

Further reading
Arunthari, S. (2005), “Information technology adoption by companies in Thailand: a study
of enterprise resources planning system usage” unpublished PhD thesis, University of
Wollongong, Wollongong.
Botta-Genoulaz, V., Millet, P. and Grobot, B. (2005), “A survey on the recent research literature on
ERP systems”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 56 No. 6, pp. 510-522.
Wu, J. and Wang, W. (2006), “Measuring KMS success: a re-specification of the DeLone and
McLean’s model”, Information & Management, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 728-739.

Appendix

Constructs Measurement items Source

Task technology fit a Goodhue et al. (2000),

Locatability 1. It is easy to determine what application is available Goodhue and Thompson
and where to do my job (1995)
2. It is ease to locate the data in the ERP applications that
I use
Compatibility 1. ERP applications that I use are consistent with my
tasks
2. ERP applications fit with my work aspects
Meaning 1. The exact meaning of information obtained from the
ERP, relating to my task, is easy to find out
2. The correct meaning of the information is obvious and
clear on the ERP software
Adequacy 1. The ERP software that the university has meets my
task requirements
Table AI. 2. The ERP software is adequate to handle my work
Study instrument processing needs.
and measurement
items used in the
study (continued )
 Constructs Measurement items Source
Impact of ERP
systems in
IT support 1. I get the kind of quality computer-related training that
I need higher
2. The IT people I deal with understand my work education
objectives
3. It is easy to get IT support and advice from IT people
when I use ERP applications 63
Information qualityb DeLone and McLean
Accuracy 1. Our ERP system provides me with accurate (1992), (2003)
information
Relevancy 1. Our ERP system provides relevant information
Timeliness 1. Our ERP system provides me with the information
I need in a timely manner
2. The information in our ERP system is timely and
regularly updated
Downloaded by CAIRO UNIVERSITY At 07:58 06 March 2015 (PT)

3. Getting information from our ERP system on time

improves my work quality
Completeness 1. I can find complete information when I need it in our
ERP system
2. The information in our ERP system is sufficient to do
my work
Accessibility 1. The information in our ERP system is easily accessible
2. Information in our ERP system is easy retrievable
3. Convenience of information in our ERP system saves
my time in my job
Perceived usefulnessb Davis (1989), Davis et al.
1. Our ERP system is useful for my job performance (1989)
2. I cannot accomplish my job without the ERP system
3. Our ERP system supports me in attaining my overall
performance goals
4. Our ERP system makes it easier to do my job
Perceived ease of useb Davis (1989), Davis et al.
1. Our ERP system is user friendly (1989)
2. It is easy to learn how to use our ERP system
3. I find the ERP system is easy to use
System qualityb Goodhue et al. (2000),
Reliability 1. Our ERP system is reliable Goodhue and Thompson
2. Our ERP system has consistent information (1995)
Correctness 1. I find it easy to correct the errors related to my work
by using our ERP system
2. Our ERP system helps me reduce the errors in my job
Response 1. Our ERP system reacts and responds quickly when I
time enter the data
2. Our ERP system responds quickly to my inquiries
Integration 1. Our ERP system allows for integration with other
systems
2. Our ERP system effectively combines data from
different areas of the university
3. Our ERP system is designed for all levels of user
User performancea
Efficiency 1. I can accomplish my work quickly because of the ERP DeLone and McLean
system quality (1992), Goodhue and

(continued ) Table AI.

 IJILT Constructs Measurement items Source
32,1
2. Our ERP system lets me do more work than was Thompson (1995),
previously possible Amoako-Gyampah and
3. Our ERP system has a positive impact on my Salam (2004)
productivity
4. Our ERP system reduces the time taken to accomplish
64 my tasks
5. Our ERP system increases the cases I perform in my
job
6. Using our ERP system in my job enables me to
accomplish tasks more quickly
7. Overall, our ERP system improves my efficiency in my
job
8. Our ERP improves my performance quality
Effectiveness 1. Our ERP helps me solve my job problems
Downloaded by CAIRO UNIVERSITY At 07:58 06 March 2015 (PT)

2. Our ERP reduces performance errors in my job

2. Our ERP system enhances my effectiveness in my job
Creativity 1. Our ERP helps me to create new ideas in my job
2. Our ERP system enhances my creativity
3. Overall our ERP system helps me achieve my job
goals
Notes: aA seven-point Likert scale ranging from (1) “strongly disagree” to (7) “strongly agree”;
Table AI.
b
a five-point Likert scale ranging from (1) “strongly disagree” to (5) “strongly agree”

Corresponding author
Dr Ahed Abugabah can be contacted at: a.abugabah@yahoo.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com