Nama : Thufail Qolba Aufar

NIM : 1907421025
Kelas : TMJ 6

Abstract (Paragraph 1)
1. This study thus attempts to explain behavioral intention and actual usage of ERP
implementation based on the technology acceptance model (TAM). (Simple present
tense-General truth)
2. The model also incorporates additional behavioral constructs, top management support,
computer self-efficacy (CSE) and computer anxiety. (Simple present tense-General
truth)
3. The Lisrel package of structural equation modeling is used in this study to verify the causal
relationships between variables. (Simple present tense; Passive)
4. CSE had an insignificant affect on perceived usefulness (Simple past tense)
5. Perceived ease of use was found to directly affect behavioral intention. (Simple Past
Tense; Passive)
6. Finally, behavioral intention positively and directly affects actual usage (Simple Present
Tense; Meaning And Implication)
7. The implications of these findings for researchers and practitioners are discussed (Simple
Present Tense; Passive)

Main Idea:
In this paragraph the main idea is to explain behavioral intention and actual usage of ERP
implementation based on the technology acceptance model (TAM).

Introduction (Paragraph 2)
1. Minimizing the cost and maximizing the profit is necessary to enhance competitive
advantage, and implementing the ERP system is one means to achieve these objectives.
(Simple present; General Truth)
2. An enterprise resource planning (ERP) system is a packaged business software system that
provides a totally integrated solution for organizational information-processing needs, and
efficiently and effectively manages resources (materials, human resources, finances, etc.)
(Shih, 2006). (Simple present; General truth)
3. Implementing an enterprise resource planning system generally is expensive and risky, and
thus researchers and companies have been trying to find factors that influence the
information system success. (Simple Present; General Truth, Present Perfect
Continuous Tense)
4. In fact, as described by Amoako-Gyampah and Salam (2004) numerous factors influence
information system success, especially individual acceptance or resistance. (Simple past)
5. In this area, technology acceptance model (TAM; Davis, 1989) is one of the most widely
used models for explaining the behavioural intention and actual usage, and can improve
our understanding of how influence on actual usage should help increase the probability
of successful ERP implementation. (Simple Present)

Main Idea:
The main idea of the paragraph is that ERP systems can lower production costs and increase
profits.

2.1 (Paragraph 3)
1. Recently, three review articles comprised all the prior research on ERP. (Simple past)
2. The first is Esteves and Pastor (2001), who briefly summarized each journal and conference
article and also provided a complete list of references during 1997–2000. (Simple present;
General truth, Simple past)
3. Second, Botta-Genoulaz et al (2005) analyzed the literature for the years 2003 and 2004 to
classify ERP systems research into six categories: ERP implementation, ERP optimization,
ERP management, ERP software, ERP in supply chain management and case studies.
(Simple past)
4. Moon (2007) also conducted a review of work published in various journals on Enterprise
Resource Planning (ERP) between January 2000 and May 2006. (Simple past)
5. Her research aimed to understand the questions addressed by ERP, and six major themes
were ERP imple - mentation, using, extension, value, trends, and educations. (Simple past)

Main Idea : The main idea of this paragraph is to explain the research that has been done
previously on ERP
 2.2 (Paragraph 4)

1. The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) of Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) and the
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) of Davis’s (1989) provide a theoretical means of
measuring beliefs and attitudes for predicting future behavior patterns. (Simple Present ;
General truth)
2. Two particular beliefs, perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU), are
crucial in the TAM for predicting information technology user acceptance behavior.
(Simple Present ; General truth)
3. TAM postulated that computer usage is determined by behavioral intention to use a
system, while system usage intention is jointly determined by individual attitude towards
system use and individual perceptions of its usefulness. (Simple Present Passive)
4. The TAM was adapted from the TRA and provided a basis for previous research on IS
dealing with IT related behavioural intentions and usage (e.g., Davis et al, 1989). (Simple
Past Passive, Simple Past)
5. Davis (1989) defined PU as “the degree to which individuals believe that using a particular
system can enhance their job performance”, and defined PEOU as “the degree to which
individuals believe that using a particular system will be effortless”. (Simple Past)
6. Among these beliefs, perceived ease of use is hypothesized to be a predictor of perceived
usefulness. (Simple past Passive)

Main Idea :
The main idea of this paragraph is to explain about TAM adapted from TRA which provides
the basis for previous research.

2.3 (Paragraph 5)

1. Bandura (1977) identified self-efficacy as relating to individual beliefs in their ability to

perform a task, and is expected to influence task effort, persistence, expressed interest, and
the level of goal difficulty selected for performance (Gist, 1987). (Simple Past, Simple
Present;Passive)
2. Generally, individuals with high efficacy expectations are more likely to succeed in a given
task (Oliver and Shapiro, 1993). (Simple Present)
3. Wood and Bandura (1989) indicated that high self-efficacy individuals work harder and
longer than low self efficacy individuals. (Simple Past)
4. Researchers have frequently found that performance improves with the self efficacy level
(Bandura et al, 1982). (Present Perfect Tense)

Main Idea :
Self-efficacy and the effects on performance level

5.1 (Paragraph 6)
1. The procedure was used to test the fitness of the measurement model and the hypotheses
proposed in Section 3 was tested using the Lisrel package (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1993).
(Simple past (passive))
2. A matrix of correlation between the variables was input to Lisrel using the maximum
likelihood estimate. (Simple past (passive))
3. As suggested by Bagozzi and Heatherton (1994), each scale was divided to provide two
indicators of each latent variable. (Simple past)
4. In the analysis, equation errors for the determinants of intention were specified as free
parameters, and co-variance of the independent constructs was permitted. (Simple past
(passive))

Main Idea:
In the analysis, equation errors for the determinants of intention were specified as free
parameters, and co-variance of the independent constructs was permitted.

5.3 (Paragraph 7)
1. The fit statistics indicate that the TRA model provides a good fit to the data (2 560= 745.35,
p < 0.001; Norm Chi-square=1.33; CFI=0.92; NNFI=0.90; RMSEA = 0.051). (Simple
present; General truth))
2. In terms of predictive power, the variance in all four dependent variables (R2 BI, R2
Usage, R2 PU, R2 PEOU, R2 SE and R2 Anxiety ) of the proposed model equals 0.41,
0.25, 0.54, 0.86, 0.32 and 0.33, respectively. (Simple present)
3. The path coefficients are shown in Figure 2, which are as hypothesised in each case (p <
0.05 in all instances). (Simple present (passive))
Main Idea:
In terms of predictive power, the variance in all four dependent variables R BI, R Usage, R PU,
R PEOU, R SE and R Anxiety of the proposed model equals .

Paragraph 8
1. According to Table 3, the analytical result is consistent with Hypothesis 1b, perceived ease
of use had a strong direct effect on behavioural intention. (Present simple (general truth))
2. Furthermore, in accordance with Hypothesis 2a, perceived usefulness significantly and
directly affected behavioural intention (β=0.4, p≤0.001). (Simple past)
3. Hypothesis 2b that the relation between perceived usefulness and actual usage was not
supported. (Simple past)
4. Finally, consistent with H3, behavioural intention directly affected actual usage (β=0.35,
p0.001). (Simple past)
5. Table 3 also demonstrates (simple present - general truth) that 41% of the variance of
behavioural intention was explained (simple past - passive) by all antecedent variables
and 25% of the variance of actual usage was explained (simple past-passive) by the
model.

Main Idea:
According to Table 3, the analytical result is consistent with Hypothesis 1b, perceived ease of
use had a strong direct effect on behavioural intention.

1. 6 (Paragraph 9)
2. Improving understanding of how influence on actual usage can help increase the
probability of successful ERP implementation, and this work extended previous research
by incorporating the determinant of top management support as the external factor
influencing computer self-efficacy, computer anxiety, perceived ease of use, perceived
usefulness and actual usage of ERP implementation. (Past simple)
3. Furthermore, this study also employed structural equation modelling to assess overall
model fit to verify the causal relationships between variables. (Past simple)
4. Finally, for cross validation, this study adopted the suggestion of Cudek and Browne’s
(1983) suggestion , using cross-validation tfo assess the model fit. (Past simple)
5. Most respondents were randomly assigned to a calibration sample of 130, while the
remainder were assigned to a validation sample -> (Past simple (passive))
Main Idea:
Improving understanding of how influence on actual usage can help increase the probability of
successful ERP implementation.