See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/338797061

Implementation of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) using Integrated

Model of Extended Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) 2: Case Study of PT.
Toyota Astra Motor

Conference Paper · November 2019

DOI: 10.1109/CITSM47753.2019.8965342

CITATION READS

1 1,207

4 authors, including:

Muharman Lubis Wahjoe Witjaksono

Telkom University Telkom University
125 PUBLICATIONS   458 CITATIONS    30 PUBLICATIONS   28 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Anik Hanifatul Azizah

Universitas Esa Unggul
16 PUBLICATIONS   34 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Project Management Issues and Challenges: Business Intelligence View project

Development of Zakat Management System View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Muharman Lubis on 22 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Implementation of Enterprise Resource Planning
(ERP) using Integrated Model of Extended
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) 2: Case
Study of PT. Toyota Astra Motor
1st Ike Wahyuning W., 2nd Muharman Lubis, 3rd Wahjoe Witjaksono, 4th Anik Hanifatul Azizah
1,2,3School of Industrial Engineering

Telkom University
Bandung, Indonesia
4Faculty of Computer Science

Universitas Esa Unggul

Jakarta, Indonesia
ikewahyuningw@gmail.com, muharmanlubis@telkomuniversity.ac.id, witjaksonowahjoe@telkomuniversity.ac.id,
anikhanifazizah@gmail.com

Abstract— ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) is an
integrated information system that can accommodate information
system needs specifically for different departments in a company.
The use of ERP makes all systems within a company into a system
that is integrated with one database so that some departments
become easier in sharing data and communication. PT. Toyota
Astra Motor is a company that has implemented an ERP system
since 2000, but the success rate is still around 75% and 25%
failure. Therefore, this study was designed to analyze what are the
determinants of success that can be used as reference materials to
make PT. Toyota Astra Motor is a better company and can improve
the sales and customer service system. To analyze the determinants
of the success of ERP implementation at PT. Toyota Astra Motor
researchers used the Extended Technology Acceptance Model
(TAM) 2 model to integrate the combined Technology Acceptance
Model and the IS success model. This study uses quantitative
design with hypotheses and analyzes using IBM AMOS software.
Based on the results of the study using the Extended Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM) 2 to find out success factors it is known
that the influential variables are job relevance, compatibility,
perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, function, internal
support and intention to use, which means if the variable can be
used as a determining factor for the success of ERP
implementation by PT. Toyota Astra Motor.
Keywords— Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), Critical
Success Factors, Extended Technology Acceptance Models (TAM)
2.
I. INTRODUCTION
Global competition increases as the number of
companies in the world increases. Global competition is so
tight that companies that do not have competitiveness, are
slow and produce fewer quality products that will be eroded
in the market. In the end, the company will go bankrupt.
Companies that can compete and always improve product
quality and the internal company will be able to develop.
Companies that enter into the global competition must be able
to maintain their competitive advantage. One way to achieve
company success is by implementing and integrating
information systems. Information systems are needed to help
and support company performance. The purpose of
information systems is to meet the general information needs
of all managers in the company or the company's sub-units.
The ERP concept is a system that integrates the processes of
each line in company management transparently and has high
accountability [1]. To enter the international market, ERP is
one of the basic pre-conditions for the company. Indonesia is
a developing country, where its economic base relies on the
business sector, so its efficiency is one of the important
factors in every company.
By implementing ERP, it is expected that the system can
provide a fairly useful evaluation for the company and deliver
useful and important information about the effect and
relevant factors that bring to the efficiency within the
business process. For this case, PT. Toyota Astra Motor is
one of the companies in Indonesia which since 2000 has been
using the SAP ERP system and is fairly successful in
implementing and able to assist its business processes [2]
while the other company has struggled upon the
implementation phases. It is not a short time for a company
to understand and know how a company can continue to grow
and innovate well. Therefore, we need an understanding of
what factors determine the success that has been carried out
by PT. Toyota Astra Motor. That way, it can be developed
again into a more advanced company evaluation considering
the ERP system that they implement. Critical success factors
are the most critical or the most important internal
organizational factors, which may be used by an organization
in an industry as the main tool to deal with opportunities and
threats Adar can survive and win the competition [3]. Critical
success factors are a set of critical factors or activities needed
to ensure the success of a business. Also, besides the critical
success factors are defined as an element in the organization's
activities that are the center of the success of the organization
in the future. It is an important aspect of a business that is
important to achieve or maintain. Thus this study aims to
investigate and analyze the general conditions that occur in
most ERP projects within the organization and determine the
areas that have the key to success compared to those that
contribute to failure.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) is a software to
integrated business processes to accommodate information
system requirements specifically for different departments of
a company. The use of ERP makes all systems within a
The 7th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM 2019)
company into a system that is integrated with one database so
that several departments become easier in sharing data and
communication. ERP is intended for goods and services
companies whose role to connect every relevant aspect of
operations, production and distribution in the company by
managing all company activities including production, human
resources, marketing, finance, supply chain, purchasing, and
logistics [4]. Critical Success Factors (CSF) is a field and
operational tools that must be focused primarily on achieving
the most satisfying results of ERP system implementation [5].
It is a set of characteristics, conditions and variables that must
be maintained, maintained, or managed adequately to
influence the success factors of an organization that competes
in a particular industry [10]. Thus, CSF must be used in three
important areas including project management (63.49%),
information system implementation (49.21%), and
requirements (47.62%) [11][12].
In term of operation and logistics, ERP has bring many
benefits such as creating the differentiated product, improving
the interaction business of customers and suppliers within
long-time period, increasing the planning and programming in
term of production, maintaining the utilization of the resource
by simplifying the level of inventory to improve decision-
making capacity [13]. Initially, the concept of ERP was based
on a traditional approach that allowed simple automation, then
after decade, the ERP vendors have added modules and
capabilities that extend the system to enable integration,
transformation and collaboration to increase the business
performance. In addition, the new concept was developed by
using an Internet-based environment, and SOA has become
the standard used by ERP vendors to allow different operating
systems and components to communicate with each other. In
addition, industry integration is taking place between major
ERP companies such as Oracle, Microsoft, and Sage, by
adding features such as scheduling and forecasting, capacity
planning, storage, and logistics. Finally, the idea of extending
ERP is a more sophisticated concept that evolved by
addressing all non-ERP functions such as knowledge
management, project management, workflow management,
HR management and CR management [15].
In summary, at around the 1990 decade, the ERP has a
specific concept that focused primarily on the planning of raw
materials for the need of supplies and distribution together
with accounting and inventory control mechanism within a
conventional type of system. Therefore, in 2000, ERP has
implemented variety type of modules and functions within
software framework to expand the capabilities of the systems
focus on integration, transformation and collaboration of the
business value chain. Meanwhile, the new ERP concept in
2001 utilized the benefit of Internet-based environment, then
in 2004, SOA became the main standard used by ERP
providers. The software architecture created different systems
to interact with every relevant party easily. In 2005, there was
an industrial consolidation between big ERP-based companies
like Oracle, Microsoft and Sage due to the expansion of the
function and capacity based on programming, forecasting,
capacity planning, storage and logistics. In addition, the idea
of expanding ERP become more comprehensive concept that
accommodates every business function within the business
process spectrum, such as knowledge management, project
management, flow management work, human resources
management, customer relationship management, integrated
finance for processes and logistics.
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is one theory
about the use of information technology systems that are
considered very influential and are generally used to explain
the individual acceptance of the use of information
technology systems [6]. The most important advantage of
TAM is that TAM is a parsimony model, which is a simple
but valid model. In addition, TAM has also been tested with
a lot of research which results in TAM being a good model,
especially when compared to the TRA (Theory of Reasoned
Action) and TPB (Theory of Planned Behavior). In TAM,
user acceptance in the use of information systems is
influenced by two constructs, namely usefulness (perceived
usefulness) and ease of use (perceived ease of use). The two
constructs are the most striking differences that exist in TAM
when compared to TRA and TPB. Besides that, in TAM there
is also no construct of subjective norms (subjective norm) and
behavioral control (perceived behavioral control). The
success model of information technology systems developed
by DeLone & McLean [7] is a relationship of dependence
between independent variables or independent variables with
dimensions of success as the dependent variable. A
dimension of success cannot be measured by just one aspect,
but many aspects can be used. The aspects was divided into
six main categories, namely system quality, information
quality, usage, user satisfaction, individual impact and
organizational impact, which can look with different
perspective and dimension in order to develop new
measurement model [23][24]. For example, additional
service quality to reflect the importance and support in a
successful e-commerce system by measuring the intention as
non-variable to be used to measure user positions as an
alternative measure of use [24]. Researchers should also
consider the nature, level, quality, and suitability of the
system. The nature of the use of the system can be overcome
by determining whether the full functionality of the system is
used for the intended purpose [25].
Business needs change rapidly, and new requirements,
whether based on market analysis or empirical speculation,
often influence decision making because companies want to
maintain their position with market leaders constantly and
immediately gain a competitive advantage [26].
Unfortunately, the quality of a solution that has been adopted
or implemented is often as bad as an ERP project because
there is no analysis and definition in the project charter and
user specifications. ERP systems are implemented worldwide
to improve the efficiency of business processes, which are
expected to typically provide many benefits to the company,
however, reports show many successful applications. In
many cases, the cause of the problem is a variety of strategic
views on the implementation of ERP systems, which must use
this type of problems as motivational reasons and contextual
arrangements to identify and understand the important
success factors as a major driver of ERP leadership in the
organization [30].
III. RESEARCH METHOD
The literature review is used to strengthen the ideas in this
study through journals or books available in online databases.
 The 7th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM 2019)

The researcher used studies related to TAM and IS success EB3 <--- EB 1,349 ,660 ,224 6,014 *** Valid
PS1 <--- PS 1,000 ,691 Valid
models as reference material. After that, make a research PS2 <--- PS 1,100 ,764 ,143 7,711 *** Valid
instrument in the form of a survey distributed to PT. Toyota PS3 <--- PS ,564 ,444 ,126 4,487 *** Invalid
Astra Motor in Jakarta uses a simple random sampling PS4 <--- PS ,682 ,376 ,178 3,825 *** Invalid
technique. The number of samples obtained is 100. Therefore PS5 <--- PS ,375 ,320 ,115 3,251 ,001 Invalid
PS6 <--- PS 1,139 ,847 ,136 8,367 *** Valid
this study uses IBM AMOS because the IBM AMOS PS7 <--- PS ,904 ,673 ,135 6,684 *** Valid
procedure using Maximum Likelihood (ML) requires a large PS8 <--- PS ,455 ,388 ,115 3,962 *** Invalid
number of samples 100-200 so that it is very satisfying for FT3 <--- FT 1,000 ,292 Invalid
FT2 <--- FT 2,302 ,546 ,922 2,497 ,013 Valid
explorative research. The next step is inferential analysis FT1 <--- FT 2,646 ,525 1,071 2,470 ,014 Valid
based on the data obtained. In this step, the results of AMOS IS4 <--- IS 1,000 ,802 Valid
testing on regression weights are used to test the hypothesis. IS3 <--- IS ,566 ,440 ,151 3,761 *** Invalid
The method used in AMOS is SEM analysis. Finally, draw IS2 <--- IS ,628 ,504 ,181 3,480 *** Valid
IS1 <--- IS ,770 ,561 ,199 3,874 *** Valid
conclusions based on the results of general hypothesis testing CS5 <--- CS 1,000 ,759 Valid
to measure feasibility in harmony with the framework. CS4 <--- CS 1,260 ,920 ,128 9,858 *** Valid
CS3 <--- CS 1,239 ,928 ,126 9,825 *** Valid
IV. DISCUSSIONS CS2 <--- CS ,896 ,706 ,124 7,230 *** Valid
CS1 <--- CS ,715 ,582 ,122 5,846 *** Valid
A. Instrument (Measurement Model) RD2 <--- RD 1,542 ,552 ,834 1,849 ,064 Valid

According to Campbell and Fiske [14], the validity and In the results of the validity test above, it can be seen that the
reliability of latent constructs were tested through standardized estimate of the indicator variable meets the
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to analyze whether an criteria of value which is above 0.5 so that it can be said that
indicator is a construct of the variable under study [8]. the indicator is valid. However, several indicators do not meet
the validity test requirements such as P3 (operational
• Validity
efficiency), JR2 (clear scope), SR1 (updated information),
On measuring the validity test can be seen from the value SR3 (relevant information), SR5 (accurate information), RD3
of loading factors. An indicator is said to be valid if the value (standardized data management), SN1 (obedience strategy),
of the loading factor is greater than 0.5. The loading factor SN2 (executive appreciation), PU1 (increased performance),
worth above 0.5 indicates that the indicator has a part of the PE2 (increased productivity), IU1 (compatibility between
latent variable. By looking at the numbers in the Estimate function and target), IU2 (number of transaction), IU3
column that shows the factor loading of each indicator towards (benefits offered), PS3 (business process reengineering), PS4
the latent variable. This validity test uses the Convergent (internal conflict), PS5 (quality assurance), PS8 (readiness
validity test, which is to test the construct (indicator) to assessment), FT3 (support function) and IS3 (complementary
determine whether or not the proportion of variance is high or training). However, because this research is an exploratory
not. With the criteria, if the indigo is C.R> 1.96, while analysis, all indicators that reflect each endogenous are the
"Loading Factor" or in the Amos application is "Standardized indicators that are examined and can be used to measure other
Loading Estimate"> 0.5. indicator variables. Thus, further analysis can be done on all
TABLE I. VALIDITY TEST FULL MODEL AMOS
indicators that have good values and meet convergent validity.
Variable Estimate Standardize S.E. C.R. P Label
Regression
• Reliability
Weight
P4 <--- OP 1,000 ,633 Valid
Reliability tests can be determined using indicator data
P3 <--- OP -,044 -,023 ,211 -,206 ,837 Invalid based on the Average Variant Extracted (AVE) and Construct
P2 <--- OP 1,161 ,702 ,219 5,297 *** Valid Reliability (CR) formulas with the indicators of variables are
P1 <--- OP 1,356 ,839 ,273 4,968 *** Valid
JR4 <--- JR 1,000 ,523 Valid
called reliable if the AVE value is ≥ 0.5 and CR ≥ 0.7. By
JR3 <--- JR 1,126 ,502 ,327 3,450 *** Valid calculating the value of construct reliability that comes from
JR2 <--- JR 1,172 ,467 ,351 3,337 *** Invalid the square of the total value (sum) of the standard loading
JR1 <--- JR 1,474 ,772 ,378 3,898 *** Valid divided by the square of the total value of the loading standard
SR5 <--- SR 1,000 ,432 Invalid
SR4 <--- SR 2,490 ,784 ,737 3,378 *** Valid plus the sum value of the error.
SR3 <--- SR ,733 ,257 ,363 2,020 ,043 Invalid
TABLE II. RELIABILITY TEST FULL MODEL AMOS
SR2 <--- SR 2,601 ,750 ,735 3,538 *** Valid
(sum(load
SR1 <--- SR ,334 ,125 ,326 1,024 ,306 Invalid Variable Estimate Error CR Label
ings))^2
RD3 <--- RD 1,000 ,312 Invalid
RD1 <--- RD 1,727 ,594 ,994 1,736 ,082 Valid P4 <--- OP 0,633 0,135 4,6268 0,877152 Reliable
CP3 <--- CP 1,000 ,716 Valid P3 <--- OP -0,023 0,318
CP2 <--- CP ,763 ,599 ,211 3,620 *** Valid P2 <--- OP 0,702 0,125
CP1 <--- CP ,854 ,536 ,229 3,729 *** Valid P1 <--- OP 0,839 0,07
SN1 <--- SN 1,000 ,373 Invalid JR4 <--- JR 0,523 0,115 5,1257 0,902142 Reliable
SN2 <--- SN ,685 ,258 1,341 ,511 ,609 Invalid JR3 <--- JR 0,502 0,163
PU1 <--- PU 1,000 ,338 Invalid JR2 <--- JR 0,467 0,214
PU2 <--- PU 1,635 ,603 ,410 3,987 *** Valid JR1 <--- JR 0,772 0,064
PU3 <--- PU 1,818 ,555 ,469 3,879 *** Valid SR5 <--- SR 0,432 0,125 5,5131 0,872174 Reliable
PU4 <--- PU 1,350 ,570 ,353 3,824 *** Valid SR4 <--- SR 0,784 0,112
PE3 <--- FE 1,000 ,581 Valid SR3 <--- SR 0,257 0,218
PE2 <--- FE ,516 ,272 ,218 2,366 ,018 Invalid SR2 <--- SR 0,75 0,151
PE1 <--- FE 1,632 ,840 ,429 3,800 *** Valid SR1 <--- SR 0,125 0,202
IU1 <--- IU 1,000 ,338 Invalid RD3 <--- RD 0,312 0,287 2,12576 0,77279 Reliable
IU2 <--- IU 1,466 ,291 ,496 2,956 ,003 Invalid
RD1 <--- RD 0,552 0,168
IU3 <--- IU 1,098 ,461 ,292 3,762 *** Invalid
CP3 <--- CP 0,594 0,17 3,4262 0,854371 Reliable
EB1 <--- EB 1,000 ,566 Valid
CP2 <--- CP 0,716 0,146
EB2 <--- EB 1,567 ,770 ,252 6,217 *** Valid
The 7th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM 2019)

CP1 <--- CP 0,599 0,16

SN1 <--- SN 0,536 0,278 0,39816 0,45392 Not Reliable
SN2 <--- SN 0,373 0,232
PU1 <--- PU 0,258 0,247 4,26836 0,855835 Reliable
PU2 <--- PU 0,338 0,236
PU3 <--- PU 0,603 0,142
PU4 <--- PU 0,555 0,226
PE3 <--- FE 0,57 0,115 2,86625 0,880501 Reliable
PE2 <--- FE 0,581 0,119
PE1 <--- FE 0,272 0,202
IU1 <--- IU 0,84 0,068 1,1881 0,711395 Reliable
IU2 <--- IU 0,338 0,106
IU3 <--- IU 0,291 0,315
EB1 <--- EB 0,461 0,061 3,98401 0,897904 Reliable
EB2 <--- EB 0,566 0,156
EB3 <--- EB 0,77 0,124
PS1 <--- PS 0,66 0,173 20,277 0,904819 Reliable
PS2 <--- PS 0,691 0,234
PS3 <--- PS 0,764 0,185
PS4 <--- PS 0,444 0,277
PS5 <--- PS 0,376 0,603
PS6 <--- PS 0,32 0,263
PS7 <--- PS 0,847 0,109
PS8 <--- PS 0,673 0,211
FT3 <--- FT 0,388 0,251 1,85777 0,790618 Reliable
FT2 <--- FT 0,292 0,127
FT1 <--- FT 0,546 0,147
IS4 <--- IS 0,525 0,218 5,32225 0,861171 Reliable
IS3 <--- IS 0,802 0,11
IS2 <--- IS 0,44 0,264
IS1 <--- IS 0,504 0,229
CS5 <--- CS 0,561 0,255 15,171 0,935904 Reliable
CS4 <--- CS 0,759 0,248
CS3 <--- CS 0,92 0,097
CS2 <--- CS 0,928 0,084
CS1 <--- CS 0,706 0,273

From the table above, it can be seen that all variables have
AVE values> 0.05 and CR> 0.07 except for variable
subjective norm (SN). However, the variance extracted testing
is conservative, reliability is acceptable even though the
extracted variance is less than 0.50 [9]. Thus, it can be said
that the convergence of these variables is sufficient.
B. Analysis of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Fig. 1. Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) Model
These results indicate that the model of most constructs
contained in the full analysis of SEM models has not met the TABLE III. GOODNESS FIT OF SEM MODEL
recommended criteria for the goodness of a fit. Therefore, it The goodness of Cut-off value Model Desc.
Fit Index Result
can be concluded that this research model is not fit model. The
AMOS output shows that the model is a recommended Chi Square Smaller is better 3381,876 poor fit
P (probability) ≥ 0,05 0,000 poor fit
modification in Modification Indices. By connecting and
RMSEA ≤ 0,08 [17] 0,122 poor fit
deleting the suggested variables, you can reduce the chi- GFI ≥ 0,90 0,452 poor fit
square value and increase the probability value. However, AGFI ≥ 0,90 [16] [18] 0,404 poor fit
variable modification can only be done if there is a strong CMIN/DF ≤ 2 [19], ≤ 5 [20] 2,476 poor fit
theory from previous research. Modifications can only be TLI ≥ 0,90 [21] 0,368 poor fit
made to error indicators on all endogenous and exogenous CFI ≥ 0,90 [22] 0,397 poor fit
variables. From the results of the tests carried out, the data NFI ≥ 0,90 0,291 poor fit
used did not fulfill the assumptions needed to proceed to the RMR ≤ 0,05 0,064 poor fit
hypothesis testing stage because the data used did not support IFI ≥ 0,90 0,408 poor fit
the existing model even though the hypothesis test was still RFI ≥ 0,95 0,258 poor fit
known.
C. Normality Test
The assumption of normality must be verified for many
statistical procedures as the parametric tests because the
validity depends on it. The normality test is done by
observing the value of skewness of the data used if the CR
value of the data skewness is in the range of ± 2.58 or at the
0.01 level of significance.
 The 7th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM 2019)

D. Outliers CR value of 2.107 and a probability value of 0.035, then

Outliers are observations of specific data that have unique hypothesis 2 is therefore acceptable.
characteristics that look very different from other data, which H3: The results demonstrability has a positive and significant
appear in the form of extreme values, both for single and impact on the perceived usefulness that has CR processed
combination variables [16]. Outliers evaluation is done by value of 1.411 and the probability value of 0.158, then
multivariate outliers that can be seen in the Mahalanobis hypothesis 3 is therefore rejected.
distance value based on the chi-square value on the number of
indicators free at the level of p <0.001. H4: Compatibility has a positive significant impact on the
perceived usefulness obtained from the results with data
E. Multicollinearity processing value of C.R 2,397 and probability value 0.017,
In actual, multicollinearity in the combination of variables then hypothesis 4 is acceptable.
among indicators can be seen if the correlation value between H5: The system reliability has a positive significant impact on
indicators of | x | equal or fulfill between 0.8 and 0.9. However, the perceived usefulness that results from a data processing
based on the processing of correlation data shown in the value of -1.800 and a probability value of 0.072, then it can be
sample correlation table shows the existence of a problem in said that hypothesis 5 is rejected.
multicollinearity so that the value criteria do not exceed the
value of 0.8 or 0.9. Thus, it shows that the data processed does H6: Perceived ease of use has a positive and significant impact
not have multicollinearity. on the perceived usefulness obtained from data processing
values C.R 3.034 and probability value 0.002. Therefore, we
F. Residual can conclude that hypothesis 6 is accepted.
Residual values are performed for model interpretation
and modifying models that do not meet the testing H7: Subjective norm has a positive and significant impact on
requirements. After the model has been estimated, the residual perceived usefulness with a C.R data processing value of
must have a small value or close to zero and the frequency 0.839 and a probability value of 0.402. Therefore, it can be
distribution of the residual covariance must be symmetric. If concluded that hypothesis 7 was rejected.
the model has a high residual covariance value, a modification H8: Subjective norm has a positive significant impact on
needs to be considered as long as there is a theoretical basis. It intention to use, obtained by the results of data processing CR
can be seen that there are residual values in the range of values value of -0.733 and a probability value of 0.463, then it can be
of -2.58 to 2.58, but it can be seen that there are also residual said that hypothesis 8 is rejected.
values> 2.58. Therefore, it must be considered modifying to
add a plot to the estimated model because this research model H9: Perceived ease of use has a positive and significant impact
does not require modification. on intention to use resulted from processing CR value of -
1,154 and a probability value of 0.248. Thus, it can be said
V. HYPOTHESIS TESTING that hypothesis 9 is rejected.
Hypothesis testing is done by looking at the value of the t- H10: Perceived usefulness has a positive and significant
value with a significance level of 0.05. The value of the t-value impact on intention to use process from the value of CR 2,416
is obtained from the value of C.R at regression weights if the and the probability value is 0.016 then hypothesis 10 is
value of C.R 96 1.96 and the probability value (P) ≤ 0.05 then accepted.
Ho is rejected (the hypothesis is accepted). H11: Function has a positive and significant impact on project
TABLE IV. HYPOTHESES MODEL success, obtained by the results of CR value 2.608 and a
Variables Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label probability value of 0.009. Thus, it can be concluded that
PU <--- OP ,057 ,044 1,279 ,201 Rejected hypothesis 11 is accepted.
PU <--- JR ,276 ,131 2,107 ,035 Accepted
PU <--- RD ,169 ,119 1,411 ,158 Rejected H12: Internal support has a positive and significant impact on
PU <--- CP ,156 ,065 2,397 ,017 Accepted project success, based on CR value of 2.437 and probability
PU <--- SR -,189 ,105 -1,800 ,072 Rejected values are 0.015. Thus, it can be concluded that hypothesis 12
PU <--- PE ,537 ,177 3,034 ,002 Accepted is accepted.
PU <--- SN ,311 ,371 ,839 ,402 Rejected
IU <--- SN -,232 ,316 -,733 ,463 Rejected H13: Consultant support has a positive and significant impact
IU <--- PE -,275 ,238 -1,154 ,248 Rejected on project success based on the data processing of the CR
IU <--- PU ,999 ,413 2,416 ,016 Accepted value of 1.685 and the probability value is 0.092. Thus, it can
PS <--- FT 3,896 1,49 2,608 ,009 Accepted be concluded that hypothesis 13 is rejected.
PS <--- IS ,387 ,159 2,437 ,015 Accepted
PS <--- CS ,125 ,074 1,685 ,092 Rejected H14: Project success has a positive and significant impact on
EB <--- PS -,179 ,059 -3,008 ,003 Rejected ERP benefit, obtained by data processing value of CR 3.008
EB <--- IU 2,216 ,577 3,839 *** Accepted and probability value of 0.003, then it can be concluded that
hypothesis 14 is rejected.
H1: The output has a positive and significant impact on the H15: Internal to use has a positive and significant impact on
perceived usefulness resulting from data processing with a ERP benefit resulted from CR value of 3.839 and the
C.R value of 1,279 and a probability value of 0.201, then probability value is 0.001. Thus, it can be said that hypothesis
hypothesis 1 is therefore rejected. 14 is accepted.
H2: The job relevance has a positive and significant impact on
the perceived usefulness that result from data processing with
The 7th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM 2019)
VI. CONCLUSION
This study aims to determine the determinants or relevant
factors of the success in the implementation of the Enterprise
Resource Planning (ERP) system of PT. Toyota Astra Motor
by using the Extended Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
2. The concept is adapted from the development of the TAM
model theory and the IS model starts from linking the structure
of factors and indicators, of course by doing some testing.
Tests carried out in this study were validity and reliability,
structural equation modeling (SEM), evaluation of structural
equation modeling (SEM) and hypothesis testing. The test was
conducted on 15 variables and 85 indicators based on 100
respondents' data. However, in testing, there was the
elimination of 1 data variable on the model because the data
could not be processed by AMOS software. The determinants
of success that play a significant role in the implementation of
ERP systems are the variables perceived ease of use on the
intention to use variable, the variables perceived ease of use
on the perceived usefulness variable, and the intention to use
a variable on the benefit variable. In the results of data
processing based on the hypothesis model, the variable is
accepted and other variables are rejected. It can be said that
these variables can be taken into consideration in determining
the success of ERP implementation at PT. Toyota Astra
Motor. After looking at the test results based on several
components such as validity, reliability, SEM analysis and
hypotheses based on the model being tested, it is
recommended to increase the number size of the data to
extract more accurate interpretation of generalized theory of
ERP actual use within the company to prevent inefficiency,
which shown implicitly from the standard goodness of fit
model in this case. Apparently, AMOS software is not suitable
for decision making especially if the amount used is below
100 while it can produce the good interpretation if the number
of respondents above 100 based on Maximum Likelihood.
REFERENCES
[1] S. Kumar and D. Kumar. “Antioxidant and Radical Scavenging
Activities of Edible Weeds”. African Journal of Food Agriculture
Nutrition and Development 9, 1174-1190, 2000.
[2] D. Purnama, B. Purwanto, and A.K. Irwanto. “Strategi Peningkatan
Kinerja Perusahaan Berdasarkan Keunggulan Kompetitif”. Jurnal
Manajemen dan Organisasi (JMO), pp. 22-34, 2018.
[3] S. Wibisono. “Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Solusi Sistem
Informasi Terintegrasi”. Teknologi Informasi DINAMIK Volume X,
No.3, 1-10, 2005.
[4] P.G.W. Hartawan, A.Y. Ridwan and W. Witjaksono. “Perancangan
Sistem Pengadaan (Procurement) Berbasis OpenERP Dengan
Menggunakan Metode Soft System Methodology (Studi Kasus: Rumah
Sakit Umum Daerah Al Ihsan)”. e-Proceeding of Engineering, 2 (2),
2015.
[5] E. Ziemba and T. Papaj. “Implementation of e-Government in Poland
with the Example of the Silesian Voivodship”. Informatyka
Ekonomiczna Business Informatics 3(25), 2012.
[6] Jogiyanto. “Sistem Informasi Keperilakuan”. Edisi Revisi. Yogyakarta:
Penerbit ANDI, 2008.
[7] W.H. Delone and E.R. McLean. “Information systems success: The
quest for the dependent variable.” Information Systems Research, 3 (1),
60–95, 1992.
View publication stats
[8] H. Latan. “Model Persamaan Struktural Teori dan Implementasi
AMOS 21.0”. Bandung: Alfabeta, 2013.
[9] E. Longino. “The Determinants of Sales Organization Effectiveness in
Pharmaceutical Industry”. Boca Raton, USA. 2007.
[10] J. Leidecker and A. Bylwo. “Identifying and Using Success Factors.”
Long Range Planning 17(1): 23–32, 1984.
[11] O. Al Askari, M. M. Ahmad and R. Rinedo-Cuenca. “Critical Success
Factors (CSFs) for Lean Tools and ERP Systems Implementation in
Manufacturing SMEs”. Int. J. Lean Enterprise Research 1 (2), 2014.
[12] J.J. Williams and A. Ramaprasad. “A Taxonomy of Critical Success
Factors”. European Journal of Information Systems 5, 250-260, 1996.
[13] S. Sadrzadehrafiei, A.G. Chofreh, N.K. Hosseini and R. Sulaiman.
“The Benefits of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System
Implementation in Dry Food Packaging Industry”. Procedia
Technology 11, 220-226, 2013.
[14] D.T. Campbell and D.W. Fiske. “Convergent and Discriminant
Validation by the Multitrait Multimethod Matrix”. Psychological
Bulletin, 56 (2), 81-105 1959.
[15] D.M. Bahssas, A.M. Albar and M.R. Hoque. “Enterprise Resource
Planning (ERP) Systems: Design, Trends and Deployment”. The Int.
Technology Management Review 5 (2), 72-81, 2015.
[16] J.F. Hair, G.T..M. Hult, C.M. Ringle and M. Sarstedt. “A Primer on
Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM)”.
Sage, 2 Edition, 2017.
[17] M.W. Browne and R. Cudeck. “Alternative Ways of Assesing Model
Fit”. In Testing Structural Equation Models, Newbury Park, CA: Sage,
136-162, 1993.
[18] J. Hulland. “Use of Partial Least Squares (PLS) in Strategic
Management Research: A Review of Four Recent Studies”. Strategic
Management Journal, 20 (2), 195-204, 1999.
[19] B.M. Byrne. “Multivariate Applications Book Series. Structural
Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic
Concepts, Applications and Programming”. NJ, US: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 1998.
[20] B. Wheaton, B. Muthen, D.F. Alwin and G.F. Summers. “Assessing
Reliability and Stability in Panel Models”. Sociological Methodology
8, 84-136, 1977.
[21] J.L. Arbuckle. “AMOS Users’ Guide, version 3.6.” Smallwaters
Corporation, Chicago, 1997.
[22] P.M. Bentler. “Comparative Fit Indexes in Structural Models”.
Psychological Bulletin, 107 (2).
[23] F. Bento and C.J. Costa. “ERP Measure Success Model: A New
Perspective”. Information Systems and Design of Communication, 16-
26, 2013.
[24] N. Urbach and B. Mueller. “The Updated DeLone and McLean Model
of Information System Success”. Information System Theory,
September 2011.
[25] W. Delone and E. McLean. “The DeLone and McLean Model of
Information Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update”. Journal of
Management Information System 19 (4), 9-30, 2003.
[26] S.A. Kronbichler, H. Ostermann and R. Staudinger. “A Comparison of
ERP-Success Measurement Approaches”. Journal of Information
Systems and Technology Management 7 (2), 281-310, 2010.
[27] A. R. Ahlan, M. Lubis and A. R. Lubis. “Information Security
Awareness at the Knowledge-Based Institution: Its Antecedents and
Measures”. Procedia Computer Science, vol. 72, pp. 361–373.
[28] M. Lubis, M. Kartiwi and S. Zulhuda, "Privacy and Personal Data
Protection in Electronic Voting: Factors and Measures,"
TELKOMNIKA, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 512-521, 2017.
[29] A.R. Lubis, M. Kartiwi and S. Zulhuda. “The Effect of Social Media
to Cultural Homecoming Tradition of Computer Students in Medan”.
Procedia Computer Science 124, 423-428, 2017.
[30] S. Chaveesuk and S. Hongsuwan. “A Structural Equation Model of
ERP Implementation Success in Thailand”. Review of Integrative
Business and Economics Research, 6 (3), 2017.