Analysis Measurement of Implementation

Enterprise Resource Planning on Human

Resource Management in University XYZ
Henry Antonius Eka Widjaja Meyliana* Erick Fernando Surjandy
Information Systems Information Systems Information Systems Information Systems
Department Department Department, Department
School of Information Systems, School of Information Systems School of Information Systems, School of Information Systems,
Bina Nusantara University Bina Nusantara University Bina Nusantara University Bina Nusantara University
2020 6th International Conference on Computing Engineering and Design (ICCED) | 978-1-7281-9189-8/20/$31.00 ©2020 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/ICCED51276.2020.9415764

Jakarta, Indonesia 11480
haew@binus.edu
A.Raharto Condrobimo
Information Systems
Department,
School of Information System,
Bina Nusantara University
Jakarta, Indonesia 11480
acondrobimo@binus.edu
Jakarta, Indonesia 11480
meyliana@binus.edu
*Corresponding Author
Denardo Grady
Information Systems
Department
School of Information Systems,
Bina Nusantara University
Jakarta, Indonesia 11480
denardogrady@yahoo.com
Jakarta, Indonesia 11480
erick.fernando001@binus.ac.id
Bellarika Liejaya
Information Systems
Department,
School of Information Systems,
Bina Nusantara University
Jakarta, Indonesia 11480
bellarika1703@gmail.com
Jakarta, Indonesia 11480
surjandy@binus.ac.id
Mareta Puspa Siwi
Information Systems
Department
School of Information Systems,
Bina Nusantara University
Jakarta, Indonesia 11480
Maretapuspasiwi@yahoo.co.id

Abstract This study analyzes the measurement of the
implementation of enterprise resource planning
technology (ERP) systems at a university and their
application to the human capital management (HCM)
section. The analysis was done by building a model with
a model approach that was developed by Yu on the
success measurement model for the ERP system, the
theory of the IS success model DeLone & McLean and
the conceptual model to measure the quality benefits
from Deshmukh, Thampi and Kalamkar became an
ERP model Quality The analysis was carried out with
smart pls software, and conducted questioners on 32
respondents in the institution. The results showed that
the measurement results of the instrument had met the
validity and reliability tests. Factors affecting the
implementation of ERP systems on HCM are based on
testing factors that have a partial effect on perceived
ERP benefits are system quality, information quality,
vendor quality, top management support, project
management. However, other variables (training,
hardware and software and skill of workforce) have less
effect on perceived ERP benefits. Simultaneous
hypothesis testing, all variables studied (ERP quality)
affect the perceived ERP benefit. There is a positive and
significant influence on the variable perceived ERP
benefit on the success of the ERP system.
Keywords: Enterprise Resource Planning, Human
Capital Management, ERP Quality models
I. INTRODUCTION
Current technological developments affect
several types of sectors, one of which is the Education
sector. In the education sector, technology is not just a
complement to the process to help all activities and
accelerate a process. One of the technologies used and
even widely used in various sectors is enterprise
resource planning technology (ERP). ERP is an
application system used by many companies or
organizations that are used to integrate all the
information so that each commercial area can be
coordinated through the use of an integrated database
system [1], [2].
The use of ERP systems has been widely
applied to many business processes in organizations
or companies. The implementation of ERP systems
has been carried out in less than 682 companies [3]. A
business process that uses an ERP system is the
human capital management (HCM) section. HCM is a
part of the organization that focuses on improving the
performance of an organization and its employees.
The implementation of the ERP system in HCM is
implemented in several processes that include:
application selection, salary management, payroll,
work schedule, planning, travel expenses,
recruitment, benefits administration, compensation
management, staff development, management of
funds and positions, staff time management, time
evaluation, shift planning, training[4].
In the education sector, one of the
implementations is the university XYZ, the ERP
implementation for HCM occurs in several business
centers that include: Employee Self-Service, Time
Management (TM), Payroll and Benefit (PB),
Organizational Management (OM), Personnel
Administration (PA)) The implementation process
carried out within HCM within the university to
adjust the available commercial centers is a barrier.
These obstacles are obtained from the literature and
field observations in university XYZ, these obstacles
are in the form of development time that is too long to
adjust, the system display system is even less easy to
use, many browsers are not compatible with the
system, in the implementation process that is very
expensive due to limited expert resources in the

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Liverpool. Downloaded on May 25,2021 at 14:52:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 system All obstacles that occur due to the ERP system information system model. Wei, Loong, Leong, and
in the HCM implementation process include Ooi, the concept of the ERP success model, illustrates
administrative, strategic, technological, operational a conceptual model where the dependent variable as a
and organizational components. Then, in this study, measure of quality shows a correlation with the
an analysis was made of the measurement of the independent variable[14]. The conceptual model is
success of an organization in the implementation of used to measure the success of ERP implementation.
ERP systems. This research addresses several models, To evaluate the quality of the HCM ERP system used
including the model developed by Yu on the success by its current users, this research uses the Delone &
measurement model for the ERP system[5], and the McLean (2003) model as the basis of the
theory of the IS success model DeLone & McLean [6] measurement model. This study also integrates the
that results in the emergence of an ERP quality ERP success model of Wei, Loong, Leong and Ooi
research model. The quality measurement model of [6] with the conceptual model to measure the quality
this ERP system, the educational sector dedicated to benefit from Deshmukh, Thampi and Kalamkar [15]
universities, can get an idea of the scope of the which has been modified to measure usage
benefits of its application. satisfaction of the HCM ERP system.
II. THEORY AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT
III. METHODOLOGY
A. Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
This study uses an explanatory and quantitative
ERP is a software that integrates all business research approach to explain the causal relationship
processes and business functions of an information between the variables that exist in the hypothesis-
and technology architecture using a shared and based research model. This research was carried out
integrated database[7] [9]. The implementation of the with the ERP quality model with the development of
ERP system can be integrated into several parts of the hypotheses[16] that have been developed in previous
organization or company. The implementation of ERP studies.
provides many benefits, such as reducing operating
costs, improving production processes, reducing
errors and providing the required information in a
timely and consistent manner [10].
B. Human Capital Management
Process of acquisition, training, management, and
retention of employees so that they can contribute
effectively to processes within the organization[11],
so that each business that needs employees to support
marketing, supply chain management In each
functional area of the organization, in other words,
each business must hire, train, evaluate and
remunerate employees [8]. The organization realized
that experience, a trained workforce, so many
organizations began using the Human Capital
Management (HCM) policy to explain the tasks
related to the administration of the organization's Fig. 1. Research Mode ERP quality model[16]
workforce. The hypothesis developed from the ERP quality
model is as follows:
C. IS Success Model
Measuring the success of information systems
according to DeLone & McLean in 1992, they can be
identified by several categories, namely "System
quality", "Information quality", "Consumption (use)",
"User satisfaction" , "Individual impact" and
"Organizational impact" [12]. The development of
this model began in 1992 and then was developed in
2003 [13] by adding the category "Quality of service"
and combining several categories into "Net profit",
"Use" and "Satisfaction".
D. Conceptual ERP Success Model
The conceptual model of ERP success is
constructed from the DeLone & McLean Success
Model that is used to measure the success of the

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Liverpool. Downloaded on May 25,2021 at 14:52:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A. Demographics of the respondents
This research process uses a questionnaire that
was distributed to the respondents for the sample
analysis. Sampling-based on the literature if the total
target population is less than 100 people, then the
entire population is sampled [17]. The respondents in
this study from university XYZ were 32 respondents.
The demographics of the respondents in this study
explain the number of respondents according to age,
sex and the level of intensity of the use of the HCM
ERP system by respondents at this time. There are 32
respondents in this study. Demographic data of these
respondents according to age: there are 2 users of the
system (7%) with age under 25 years, 19 users of the
system (59%) with ages ranging from 25 to 35 years,
10 users of the system (31% ) with ages ranging from
36 to 45 years and 1 system users (3%) from 46 to 55
years. The users of the system are dominated by
women with 19 people (59%) and the remaining 13
people (41%) are male users. The duration of the use
of the system since the use of the system once a week,
4 people (13%) who use 2 times a week, 2 people
(6%) who use the system 3 times, 1 person (3%) use
the 4 times system, 6 people (19%) used the system 5
times, 2 people (6%) used the system 6 times, 3
people (9%) used the system 7 times and 10 people
(31%) used more than 7 times a week.
B. Measurement of research instruments
The measurement of this study with the
construction of the measurement model through
measuring instruments through indicators that have
been developed based on previous research[16].
Measurements were made with a Likert scale,
measurements starting from point 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
C. Evaluation of validity and reliability
Analysis of this study by testing the validity and
reliability to evaluate the instrument or indicator.
Reliability Test is a testing instrument that gives
consistent results. Assessment using the assessment of
Cronbach's alpha value and Composite Reliability
with greater than 0.6 - 0.7, and AVE (Average
Variance Extracted) with a value greater than 0.5
[18]. The reliability test can be seen in table 1.
Validity testing by ensuring that each indicator is part
of the variable by evaluating the value of the cross-
loading factor above 0.6 can be seen in table 2.

TABLE I. RELIABILITY TEST

Variable AVE Composite Reliability

ERP System success 0.746 0.915 0.936
Hardware and software 0.565 0.804 0.865
Information Quality 0.606 0.869 0.902
Perceived ERP benefit 0.650 0.921 0.936
Project Management 0.951 0.948 0.975
Skill of Workforce 0.738 0.649 0.849
System Quality 0.512 0.683 0.806
Top Management Support 0.670 0.835 0.890
Training 0.970 0.970 0.985
Vendor Quality 0.790 0.933 0.950

TABLE II. VALIDITY TEST WITH CROSS-LOADING FACTORS

ES HS IQ PB PM SW SQ TM TR VQ
ES1 0.847 0.739 0.812 0.816 0.637 0.499 0.717 0.589 0.789 0.719
ES2 0.876 0.573 0.719 0.843 0.655 0.500 0.658 0.660 0.601 0.592
ES3 0.809 0.494 0.600 0.758 0.459 0.445 0.581 0.444 0.393 0.355
ES4 0.851 0.712 0.737 0.758 0.712 0.478 0.533 0.593 0.627 0.705
ES5 0.898 0.690 0.734 0.825 0.611 0.502 0.574 0.640 0.551 0.673
HS1 0.615 0.736 0.598 0.587 0.557 0.349 0.536 0.330 0.563 0.443
HS2 0.564 0.787 0.461 0.534 0.427 0.309 0.246 0.604 0.375 0.526
HS3 0.611 0.824 0.530 0.634 0.635 0.503 0.313 0.716 0.507 0.721
HS4 0.436 0.649 0.436 0.461 0.312 0.402 0.335 0.483 0.287 0.325
HS5 0.609 0.804 0.580 0.591 0.631 0.406 0.351 0.491 0.606 0.652
IQ1 0.659 0.493 0.761 0.613 0.290 0.410 0.673 0.336 0.558 0.301
IQ2 0.565 0.399 0.764 0.504 0.181 0.331 0.517 0.337 0.451 0.361
IQ3 0.641 0.403 0.775 0.589 0.283 0.509 0.641 0.381 0.475 0.509

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Liverpool. Downloaded on May 25,2021 at 14:52:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 ES HS IQ PB PM SW SQ TM TR VQ
IQ4 0.736 0.666 0.870 0.766 0.689 0.554 0.546 0.651 0.782 0.767
IQ5 0.540 0.669 0.646 0.593 0.646 0.424 0.450 0.509 0.644 0.673
IQ6 0.700 0.497 0.776 0.739 0.569 0.512 0.600 0.561 0.553 0.670
PB1 0.565 0.372 0.558 0.681 0.442 0.148 0.466 0.448 0.542 0.338
PB2 0.713 0.527 0.686 0.754 0.403 0.479 0.654 0.643 0.455 0.523
PB3 0.670 0.394 0.552 0.789 0.621 0.572 0.536 0.532 0.575 0.433
PB4 0.853 0.594 0.788 0.885 0.778 0.586 0.588 0.581 0.792 0.696
PB5 0.792 0.726 0.602 0.794 0.560 0.537 0.546 0.730 0.524 0.662
PB6 0.836 0.730 0.723 0.840 0.833 0.608 0.596 0.640 0.801 0.781
PB7 0.815 0.611 0.756 0.919 0.781 0.608 0.657 0.713 0.829 0.711
PB8 0.656 0.636 0.670 0.695 0.571 0.426 0.465 0.601 0.588 0.569
PM1 0.681 0.723 0.595 0.755 0.970 0.558 0.397 0.673 0.731 0.772
PM2 0.715 0.613 0.577 0.789 0.973 0.575 0.439 0.605 0.722 0.699
SQ1 0.638 0.532 0.609 0.639 0.511 0.291 0.774 0.317 0.618 0.605
SQ2 0.391 0.222 0.476 0.444 0.321 0.378 0.722 0.227 0.436 0.221
SQ3 0.471 0.250 0.410 0.427 0.229 0.355 0.689 0.217 0.369 0.304
SQ4 0.495 0.249 0.594 0.460 0.088 0.476 0.654 0.353 0.331 0.449
SW1 0.446 0.283 0.416 0.486 0.397 0.828 0.443 0.466 0.380 0.339
SW2 0.522 0.580 0.607 0.596 0.588 0.889 0.443 0.622 0.621 0.776
TM1 0.599 0.514 0.544 0.658 0.458 0.464 0.405 0.826 0.463 0.603
TM2 0.542 0.697 0.536 0.592 0.538 0.472 0.351 0.776 0.585 0.748
TM3 0.526 0.552 0.387 0.548 0.493 0.336 0.130 0.872 0.285 0.602
TM4 0.560 0.502 0.535 0.690 0.641 0.768 0.372 0.791 0.617 0.602
TR1 0.472 0.513 0.578 0.590 0.621 0.515 0.430 0.505 0.871 0.735
TR2 0.432 0.481 0.539 0.568 0.614 0.507 0.422 0.446 0.881 0.719
TR3 0.742 0.537 0.772 0.793 0.610 0.457 0.666 0.535 0.743 0.473
VQ1 0.678 0.744 0.600 0.692 0.794 0.581 0.396 0.736 0.638 0.847
VQ2 0.679 0.655 0.699 0.698 0.633 0.549 0.674 0.702 0.733 0.913
VQ3 0.662 0.589 0.645 0.689 0.659 0.607 0.532 0.713 0.661 0.892
VQ4 0.546 0.516 0.686 0.594 0.679 0.681 0.497 0.573 0.726 0.880
VQ5 0.577 0.640 0.619 0.647 0.580 0.574 0.473 0.763 0.605 0.896

D. Evaluation of Structural Model TABLE IV. VALUE EFFECT SIZE (F2)

Evaluation of the structural model is very important to
Variable Variable Effect Explanation
describe the model formed fit to be able to be
Exogen Endogen Size
analyzed. The fit model is described by the
relationship of variables with a value of "coefficient HS PB 0.012 Weak
of determination" (R2) of more than 0.5 can be seen IQ PB 0.335 Medium
in table 3, when evaluating the value of "Path PB ES 7.714 Strong
Coefficient" can be seen in table 5, and In addition to PM PB 0.763 Strong
evaluating the R2 values of all endogenous constructs, SW PB 0.013 Weak
the effect size value (f2) is also used to evaluate SQ PB 0.446 Strong
whether when an exogenous variable is omitted, it has TM PB 0.673 Strong
a substantive impact on the endogenous variable[19] TR PB 0.038 Weak
can be seen in table 4. VQ PB 0.276 Medium
EQ PB 5.440 Strong
TABLE III. NILAI R2 SETIAP FAKTOR LATEN ENDOGEN PB ES 7.948 Strong
Endogen latent variable R2 Explanation (simultaneous)
ERP system success 0.885 Good TABLE V. PATH COEFFICIENT
Perceived ERP benefit 0.924 Good
ERP system success 0.888 Good Path Coefficient Original Sample (O)
(simultaneous) HS PB 0.050
Perceived ERP benefit 0.845 Good IQ PB 0.319
PM PB 0.415
SQ PB 0.295
SW PB - 0.046
TM PB 0.428

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Liverpool. Downloaded on May 25,2021 at 14:52:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 TR PB 0.085 ERP benefits. This is because the path coefficient and
VQ PB - 0.365 t-statistics are below the minimum values, which are
PB ES 0.941 0.085 and 0.798. That is, hypothesis H4 is rejected.
EQ PB 0.919 Hypothesis 5: hardware and software to perceived
ERP benefits, namely hardware and software factors
PB ES 0.942
that have a less significant effect on perceived ERP
(simultaneous)
benefits. This is because the value of the path
E. Hypotheses Test coefficient and t-statistics are below the minimum
In testing hypotheses, it is determined whether the value, which is equal to 0.050 and 0.399.
Hypothesis 6: top management support to
hypotheses proposed previously can be accepted or
perceived ERP benefit. That is, the top management
rejected. To analyze whether the hypotheses are
support factor influences perceived ERP benefits. This
accepted or rejected, the standard used as a reference
is because the value of the path coefficient and t-
is the path coefficient value above 0.1, and the t-
statistics value is greater than 1.96 which indicates the statistics are above the minimum value, which is equal
level of significance in hypothesis testing. Table 6 to 0.428 and 3.168.
Hypothesis 7 Skill of Workforce to Perceived ERP
shows the test results for each hypothesis(H) in the
benefit, ie, Skill of Workforce Factor, has a less
research model.
significant effect on perceived ERP benefit. This is
because the value of the path coefficient and t-
TABLE VI. RESULT HYPOTHESIS TEST statistics are below the specified minimum value,
which is -0.046 and 0.478.
H Path Original T- Result
Hypothesis 8 project management to perceived
coefficient Sample Statistic
ERP benefit that is project management factors
H1 SQ PB 0.295 2.264 Significant significantly influence the perceived ERP benefit. This
H2 IQ PB 0.319 2.144 Significant is because the value of the path coefficient and t-
H3 VQ PB -0.365 1.998 Significant statistics are above the minimum value, which is equal
H4 TR PB 0.085 0.798 Not to 0.401 and 3,586.
Significant Hypothesis 9 ERP quality to perceived ERP
H5 HS PB 0.050 0.399 Not benefit that is ERP quality factor has a significant
Significant effect on perceived ERP benefit. This is because the
H6 TM PB 0.428 3.168 Significant value of the path coefficient and t-statistics are above
H7 SW PB -0.046 0.478 Not the minimum value, which is equal to 0.919 and
37.541.
Significant
Hypothesis 10: perceived ERP benefit to ERP
H8 PM PB 0.401 3.586 Significant system success, namely perceived ERP benefit factor,
H9 EQ PB 0.919 37.541 Significant significantly influences ERP system success. This is
H10 PB ES 0.941 & 32.300 Significant because the value of the path coefficient and t-
0.942 & statistics are above the minimum value, which is equal
30.772 to 0.941 and 32,300.
The following conclusions are obtained from the V. CONCLUSION
results of testing the hypothesis of the research model
based on table 4: This study explains that the results of
Hypothesis 1: system quality to perceived ERP measurements that have been made are that the data
benefit, namely, system quality factor (SQ), has a that we have processed have met the validity and
significant positive effect on perceived ERP benefit reliability tests. This is based on all outer loading
(PB). This is because the path coefficient and t- values, AVE, cross-loadings, Cronbach's alpha,
statistics are above the minimum values, which are composite reliability, and fulfill the requirements.
0.295 and 2.264. Factors that partially influence in this study on
Hypothesis 2 information quality to perceived ERP perceived ERP benefits are system quality,
benefit, namely the information quality factor, has a information quality, vendor quality, top management
significant positive effect on perceived ERP benefit. support, project management. However, other
This is because the value of the path coefficient and t- variables (training, hardware and software and skill of
statistics are above the minimum value, which is equal workforce) have less effect on perceived ERP benefits.
to 0.319 and 2.144. Simultaneous hypothesis testing, all variables studied
Hypothesis 3 vendor quality to perceived ERP (ERP quality) affect the perceived ERP benefit. There
benefit that is vendor quality factor significantly is a positive and significant influence on the variable
influences perceived ERP benefit. This is because the perceived ERP benefit on the success of the ERP
value of the path coefficient and t-statistics are above system. Based on the Delone & McLean model in
the minimum value, which is -0.365 and 1,998 if Wei, Loong, Leong, & Oei, that in the conceptual
vendor quality is improved, HC staff's perception of model of ERP system success, the perceived ERP
the benefits of the ERP system will decrease. benefit variable can positively and significantly
Hypothesis 4: training to perceived ERP benefit. influence ERP system success. Measuring the level of
That is, the training factor has less effect on perceived significance of the relationship between variables

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Liverpool. Downloaded on May 25,2021 at 14:52:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 concluded that the training, hardware/software
variables and the skill of the workforce had a less
significant relationship to the perceived ERP benefit
variable. This is evidenced by the results of the
measurement of training variables with perceived ERP
benefit which has a value of 0.798 <1.96,
hardware/software variables on perceived ERP
benefits that have a value of 0.399 <1.96, then so is the
skill of workforce variable on the perceived ERP
benefit variable has a value of 0.478 <1.96 which
means it is less significant. The ERP quality model
provides measurements for universities XYZ that
implement ERP systems, especially in HCM, so they
know the extent to which factors influence the
performance generated by employees who use the
system.
REFERENCES
[1] T. H. Davenport, Putting the Enterprise into the
Enterprise System, Harvard Bus. Rev., vol. 76,
no. 4, pp. 121 131, Jul. 1998.
[2] S. Shang and P. Seddon, business benefits from
ES use are multidimensional, ranging from
operational improvements through decision-
making enhancement to support for strategic
goals, Inf. Syst. J. Iran. Love, vol. 12, pp. 271
299, 2000.
[3] Idatalabs, Companies using SAP ERP Human
Capital Management (HCM) and its
marketshare, 2017. [Online]. Available:
https://enlyft.com/tech/products/sap-erp-human-
capital-management-hcm. [Accessed: 31-Aug-
2019].
[4] J. Bratton and J. Gold, Human resource
management: theory, practice, efficiency.
Palgrave macmillian, 2017.
[5] C. S. Yu, Causes influencing the effectiveness
of the post-implementation ERP system, Ind.
Manag. Data Syst., vol. 105, no. 1, pp. 115 132,
2005.
[6] K. Su Wei and A. C. Loong, MEASURING
ERP SYSTEM SUCCESS: A Computational Sciences, 2019.
RESPECIFICATION OF THE DELONE AND
MCLEAN S IS SUCCESS MODEL, in
Symposium on Progress in Information &
Communication Technology 2009, 2009, pp. 7
12.
[7] P. Sudhaman and C. Thangavel, Efficiency
analysis of ERP projects-software quality
perspective, Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 33, no. 4,
pp. 961 970, 2015.
[8] E. F. Monk and B. J. Wagner, Concepts in
Enterprise Resource Planning Fourth Edition.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Liverpool. Downloaded on May 25,2021 at 14:52:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2019.
[9] C. J. Costa, E. Ferreira, F. Bento, and M.
Aparicio, Enterprise resource planning
adoption and satisfaction determinants,
Comput. Human Behav., vol. 63, pp. 659 671,
2016.
[10] Y. C. Shen, P. S. Chen, and C. H. Wang, A
study of enterprise resource planning (ERP)
system performance measurement using the
quantitative balanced scorecard approach,
Comput. Ind., vol. 75, pp. 127 139, 2016.
[11] A. Kuchar ková, E. Tokar ková, and M.
Bla ková, Human Capital Management
Aspect of the Human Capital Efficiency in
University Education, Procedia - Soc. Behav.
Sci., vol. 177, no. July 2014, pp. 48 60, 2015.
[12] W. H. Delone and E. R. McLean, The quest for
the dependent variable. Information Systems
Research, Inf. Syst. Res., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 60
95, 1992.
[13] W. H. DeLone and E. R. McLean, The DeLone
and McLean model of information systems
success: A ten-year update, J. Manag. Inf. Syst.,
vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 9 30, 2003.
[14] K. S. Wei, A. C. Y. Loong, Y.-M. Leong, and
K.-B. Ooi, Measuring ERP System Success: A
Respecification of the Delone and McLean s IS
Success Model, Symp. Prog. Inf. Commun.
Technol. 2009, pp. 7 12, 2009.
[15] P. D. Deshmukh, G. T. Thampi, and V. R.
Kalamkar, Investigation of quality benefits of
ERP implementation in Indian SMEs, Procedia
Comput. Sci., vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 220 228, 2015.
[16] H. Antonius, E. Widjaja, E. Fernando, and D.
Grady, Development and Validation of
Instruments Evaluation Enterprise Resource
Planning on Human Resource Management in
Higher Education sector, in The 3rd
International Conference on Informatics and
[17] Sugiyono, Metode Penelitian Bisnis
(Pendekatan Kuantitatif, Kualitatif dan R&D.
Bandung: Alfabeta, 2009.
[18] J. F. H. Jr, L. Hopkins, M. Georgia, and S.
College, Partial least squares structural
equation modeling ( PLS-SEM ) An emerging
tool in business research, 2008.
[19] J. F. Hair Jr, G. T. M. Hult, C. Ringle, and M.
Sarstedt, A primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM).
Singapore: Sage Publications, 2013.