Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Procedia
Available Computer
online Science 00 (2017) 000–000
at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Procedia Computer Science 121 (2017) 859–865

CENTERIS - International Conference on ENTERprise Information Systems / ProjMAN -

CENTERIS
International - International
Conference Conference
on Project on ENTERprise
MANagement / HCist -Information Systems
International / ProjMAN
Conference -
on Health
International
and Social CareConference
InformationonSystems
Project and
MANagement / HCist
Technologies, - International
CENTERIS Conference
/ ProjMAN / HCiston Health
2017, 8-10
and Social Care Information Systems and Technologies,
November CENTERIS
2017, Barcelona, Spain / ProjMAN / HCist 2017, 8-10
November 2017, Barcelona, Spain
User resistance in ERP implementations: A literature review
User resistance in ERP implementations: A literature review
Moutaz Haddaraa*, Henrik Moenb
Moutaz Haddaraa*, Henrik Moenb
ab
Westerdals Oslo School of Arts, Communication & Technology, Christian Kroghs Gate 32, Oslo 0186, Norway.
ab
Westerdals Oslo School of Arts, Communication & Technology, Christian Kroghs Gate 32, Oslo 0186, Norway.

Abstract
Abstract
User resistance is a paramount factor in the implementation of enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems, but a large amount of
previous
User research
resistance is has focused solely
a paramount factoroninuser
the acceptance.
implementationThisofreview seeksresource
enterprise to identify, summarize,
planning (ERP)and better understand
systems, but a large the factors
amount of
that couldresearch
previous cause users to resist.solely
has focused Therefore,
on userthis review summarizes
acceptance. This review theseeks
current literature
to identify, on user resistance
summarize, within
and better the ERP
understand thedomain,
factors
and could
that attempts to users
cause adapttoexisting information
resist. Therefore, thissystems’ concepts and
review summarizes the theories into the on
current literature context of ERP implementations.
user resistance Three
within the ERP domain,
theoretical
and attemptsperspectives for userinformation
to adapt existing resistance have been concepts
systems’ identified: thetheories
and people-,intosystem- and interaction-oriented
the context approaches,
of ERP implementations. in
Three
addition, perceived
theoretical risk and
perspectives habit resistance
for user has been found to be identified:
have been a key reason thefor why users
people-, resistand
system- information systems, such
interaction-oriented as, an ERP.
approaches, in
Some strategies
addition, to overcome
perceived user resistance
risk and habit are also
has been found to identified, and these
be a key reason can be
for why usersplaced within
resist two main
information categories:
systems, suchparticipative
as, an ERP.
and directive
Some strategies.
strategies to overcomeFurther,
userstrategies
resistanceadapted
are alsofrom the fieldand
identified, of these
marketing
can besuch as: differentiation,
placed within two maincost minimization,
categories: timing
participative
and top management
directive commitment,
strategies. are suggested
Further, strategies adaptedto from
be useful for ERP
the field practitioners
of marketing suchinas:
order to reduce or cost
differentiation, overcome user resistance.
minimization, timing
and top management commitment, are suggested to be useful for ERP practitioners in order to reduce or overcome user resistance.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
© 2017
© 2017 The
The Authors.
Peer-review under
Authors. Published
Published by
responsibility by Elsevier
of Elsevier B.V. committee of the CENTERIS - International Conference on ENTERprise
the scientific
B.V.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the CENTERIS - International Conference on ENTERprise
Information Systems
Peer-review / ProjMAN of
under responsibility - International
the scientificConference
committee on Project
of the MANagement
CENTERIS / HCist -Conference
- International International
onConference
ENTERprise on
Information Systems / ProjMAN - International Conference on Project MANagement / HCist - International Conference on
Health and
Information Social
SystemsCare/ Information
ProjMAN - Systems and
International
Health and Social Care Information Systems and Technologies. Technologies.
Conference on Project MANagement / HCist - International Conference on
Health and Social Care Information Systems and Technologies.
Keywords: ERP; Implementations; User Resistance; Literature Review
Keywords: ERP; Implementations; User Resistance; Literature Review

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +47-2205-75-50.
* E-mail address:author.
Corresponding hadmoa@westerdals.no
Tel.: +47-2205-75-50.
E-mail address: hadmoa@westerdals.no
1877-0509 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review
1877-0509 ©under
2017responsibility
The Authors. of the scientific
Published committee
by Elsevier B.V.of the CENTERIS - International Conference on ENTERprise Information Systems /
ProjMAN - International
Peer-review Conference
under responsibility onscientific
of the Project MANagement / HCist
committee of the - International
CENTERIS Conference
- International on Health
Conference onand Social CareInformation
ENTERprise InformationSystems
Systems/
and Technologies.
ProjMAN - International Conference on Project MANagement / HCist - International Conference on Health and Social Care Information Systems
and Technologies.

1877-0509 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the CENTERIS - International Conference on ENTERprise Information
Systems / ProjMAN - International Conference on Project MANagement / HCist - International Conference on Health and Social
Care Information Systems and Technologies.
10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.111
860 Moutaz Haddara et al. / Procedia Computer Science 121 (2017) 859–865
Haddara & Moen / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000–000 2

1. Introduction

Enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems make it possible for organizations to reduce costs, share data and
information, and enhance management of business processes, by seamlessly integrating and coordinating processes
and functions that were previously supported by legacy systems 1. ERP systems are considered cross-functional and
process-centred and are designed to improve key operations such as e.g. finance, accounting, human resources,
purchasing, manufacturing and sales. Within ERP systems, these key operations are called modules and organizations
traditionally purchase these modules individually based on their needs 2.
The existing literature indicates that user resistance is one of the biggest challenges in large-scale information
systems (IS) implementations 3,4, such as ERP systems, in organizations around the world. After implementing an
ERP system, there will be many social and technological system changes, which could make user resistance even
more significant 3. Users may resist the new ERP causing e.g. over-budget spending, delays in the project or
underutilization of the system 4.
There is much research that have focused on user acceptance in a voluntary context, but this is rather limited in
explaining user resistance in a mandatory context 5,6 such as during ERP implementations. Hence, this paper aims to
contribute to the body of knowledge by reviewing existing literature on that specific topic. The objective of this review
is multifold, first, to identify and summarize the issues that might cause user resistance during ERP implementations.
Second, to present the strategies in literature, which could potentially minimize resistance.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: in the following section we present the research methodology and
overview of the articles. In section 3, we present the main review findings. Section 4 provides a discussion of our
findings, followed by conclusions and suggestions for future research in section 5.

2. Research methodology and articles overview

Literature reviews represent a well-established method for accumulating existing knowledge within a domain of
interest. In this article we have applied a systematic review approach 7. This approach is characterized by adopting
explicit procedures and conditions which minimize bias 7. To find relevant articles for this review, various keyword
searches in the ACM, Google Scholar, and IEEE Xplore databases have been conducted. In table 1, an overview of
the included articles in this research are presented.
The period of publishing was set to the years between 2000-2017 in order to narrow down the search. A
combination of different keywords such as e.g.: “ERP” with “User resistance”, “User acceptance” and “Resistant
behaviour” were used in order to find relevant articles for the chosen topic. However, very few articles were identified
that target ERP in specific. Hence, the term “Enterprise systems” was added as a keyword in order to widen the search
criteria. The articles’ abstracts then were carefully read by both authors to check their relevance for the review. Only
articles directly addressing user resistance in ERP (and enterprise systems) as a main theme were selected.

Table 1: Overview of the articles

Author(s) Title Year Outlet

Change management strategies for successful ERP (Journal)
Aladwani 2001
implementation Business Process Management Journal
Enterprise Resource Planning Implementation: (Book Chapter)
Allen and Kern 2001
Stories of Power, Politics, and Resistance The Social and Organizational Perspective, Springer
User Resistance Strategies and The Problems of
Griffith and Blanket Prescriptions: A Case Study of Resistance (Conference)
2006
Light Success. European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS)

User resistance and strategies for promoting (Journal)

Jiang et al. 2000
acceptance across system types Information & Management
Investigating User Resistance to Information
Kim and (Journal)
Systems Implementation: A Status Quo Bias 2009
Kankanhalli MIS Quarterly
Perspective
 Moutaz Haddara et al. / Procedia Computer Science 121 (2017) 859–865 861
Haddara & Moen / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000–000 3

Examining User Resistance and Management (Conference)

Klaus et al. 2007
Strategies in Enterprise System Implementations SIGMIS CPR ’07
Klaus and User resistance determinants and the psychological (Journal)
2010
Blanton contract in enterprise system implementations European Journal of Information Systems
(Conference)
Mahdavian Identifying main resistance factors in ERP Electrical Engineering/Electronics, Computer,
2012
et al. implementation: A case study Telecommunications and Information Technology (ECTI-
CON)
Salih and User Resistance Factors in Post ERP (Journal)
2013
Dahlan Implementation Journal of Information Systems Research and Innovation

Dual Strategy For Managing User Resistance With (Journal)

Shang 2011
Business Integration Systems Behaviour & Information Technology

Managing User Resistance in Enterprise Systems (Conference)

Shang and Su 2004
Implementation Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS)

3. Findings

All in all, we were able to identify only eleven articles that directly address user resistance in ERP or ES domains.
Based on the existing literature, it is suggested that one of the key factors for ERP implementations’ failures or hurdles
is user resistance 4-6,8,9. User resistance is defined by Klaus and Blanton (2010, p. 627) as “the behavioural expression
of a user’s opposition to a system implementation during the implementation”, and they suggest that since user
resistance involves individuals to interact with a system it is more specific than overall resistance to change. Similarly,
Kim and Kankanhalli (2009, p. 568) have defined user resistance as “opposition of a user to change associated with a
new IS implementation”. Therefore, it is important for organizations to understand the reasons for why users are
resisting, in order to plan for the right strategies and communication to reduce or overcome resistance.
Some literature indicate that honest and effective communication during ERP implementations may reduce user
resistance 10. Other research (e.g. 9) suggest three theoretical perspectives for user resistance: (1) people-oriented; (2)
system-oriented; and (3) interaction-oriented. The people-oriented approach suggests that internal factors to
individuals or groups can cause users to resist a technology. These internal factors can be for example, age, gender,
background, traits, values and attitude toward the new system. The system-oriented approach suggests that resistance
emerges because of external factors in the system. This can be e.g. technological factors such as performance, user-
interface, ease of use, reliability and realization of requirements. The interaction-oriented approach attributes user
resistance to the interaction between individuals and the system. User resistance may rise because of e.g. change in
social structure, power relationships and/or job structure 5,9. The interaction-oriented approach argues that neither the
people or system characteristics cause users to resist the system, but the reason may be because people are afraid that
the implementation of a new system might take away their social growth or their power. Therefore, it suggests that
users’ perceived values, before and after the implementation, are the reasons for users to resist the new system 9.
As previously mentioned, researchers found indications that user resistance is a paramount challenge for
organizations that are implementing large systems such as ERPs 4. One reason for this could be because the system
failed to deliver anticipated benefits. Furthermore, this implies that a better understanding of user resistance is needed,
as well as strategies or tools for reducing it 5. In addition, a previous report of 186 organizations implementing a large
ES system found that user resistance was the second most important factor for influencing time- and over-budget
spending, and the fourth most important challenge for the overall implementation 5,6.
In existing literature, it is not clear whether user adoption and resistance are separate concepts that focus on negative
and positive outlooks of system’s use and implementation 11. Even though user resistance has been described as a
possible form of non-adoption in the adoption literature, however, there are reasons to believe that in a system
environment, not all the users adopt the system willingly, and not all the non-users resist the system 6. In the context
of ERPs, the users will most likely not have another choice than to use the system. Researchers also found sources of
attitude towards change, such as e.g.: ease of use and usefulness; individual characteristics; prior expectations; and
862 Moutaz Haddara et al. / Procedia Computer Science 121 (2017) 859–865
Haddara & Moen / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000–000 4

the implementation as a political process 9. Nevertheless, it is argued that the research within user resistance has not
investigated if the reasons for resistance differ across system types, or if strategies for user acceptance are equally
effective amongst different types of systems. Typically, different types of systems are related to certain functions and
users. This implies that the reasons for users to resist a system might vary between different types of systems. If
organizations are aware of this, they might be able to align their strategies to reduce user resistance based on what
kind of system they are implementing, such as ERPs.
User resistance has been also defined as the interaction between system characteristics and the social context of its
use. When the power distribution in the organizations change because of the implementation, this can result in user
resistance because individuals feel that they lose power 4. User resistance has also been claimed to take various forms
because of employees losing power, their job changed considerably, and some employees had to unlearn the old
system, as well as, relearn the new system. Organizational change is required for an ERP implementation because
often it will change the skills, tasks, processes, organizational structure, tools, values and beliefs within the
organization 3. Other sources to resistance are e.g. the users internal and external influences that may lead to negative
expectancies, which in turn can result in user resistance. Some users may respond with resistance if they associate it
with a threat 4. Previous research has also discussed other determinants for user resistance. These determinants are,
amongst others, e.g.: job insecurity; lack of communication channel; misalignment of the system with the organization;
perceived risk of adoption; interface and process changes; and a lack of understanding 5.
Aladwani (2001) drew similarities between the perspectives of ERP and marketing. The perspectives do have
differences, but the similarity between them are stronger than their inequality. Because of this, it is suggested that the
ERP field could benefit from the experiences within the marketing field in terms of reducing or overcoming user
resistance to new ERPs. It was also found that perceived risk and habit where two significant sources for user
resistance towards innovations such as ERPs. Perceived risk refers to the individuals perceived risk that comes along
with the decision to accept innovations such as ERPs. While habit refers to the routines individuals do, or current
practices that are done on a daily basis 8. Therefore, it is suggested that organizations and top management must
understand these sources and engage appropriate strategies to reduce user resistance, such as appropriately marketing
the ERP to the employees 6,8. Furthermore, top management needs to have strategies ready so that the negative effects
of user resistance are controlled to a minimum. Without strategies for user resistance organizations could mistakenly
punish or promote the wrong employees. Or even worse, organizations could end up with taking no action to address
resistance 6.
12
classified resistance behaviours into three main types; 1) non-destructive, 2) proactively destructive, and 3)
passively destructive. Each of these types underlie several behaviours, for example, request a job transfer or Increased
absenteeism during or post implementation would be classified as non-destructive resistance. Intentionally disrupting
work process or making inconsiderate mistakes fall under the proactively category. And finally passively destructive
behaviours include the refusal to cooperate with peers and neglecting work assignments. User resistance should not
necessarily just be seen as a negative characteristic, because it can provide valuable feedback to the implementers.
Problems within the change that has been unresolved can now be addressed, and managers can get an understanding
of why users resist the ERP. And thus, providing valuable information to the success of the ERP implementation 5,6.
Furthermore, user resistance is highly important for the success of the implementation because minor resistance can
slow the process of change down, and major resistance can cause the implementers, or organization, to cancel the
implementation 5. If the current ERP implementation is cancelled and e.g. the organization decides to change to a new
system, a lot of time and resources has been spent on a system that is not even finished. For large ERP implementations
this could be catastrophic because there has been spent such huge amount of resources. Another study conducted on
Iranian organizations 13, compiled a list of 38 factors that could lead for user resistance in ERP implementation. The
list’s top five factors that could lead to resistance are: unclear vision; weak project management; not perceiving
change, lack of clarity of change nature and reasons.
While there have been literature reviews on user resistance in IS (e.g., 14, 15), there is still an apparent lack of
reviews that specifically target the ERP domain.

4. Discussion

As mentioned earlier, user resistance has been found to be a key factor for why many ERP implementations fail or
 Moutaz Haddara et al. / Procedia Computer Science 121 (2017) 859–865 863
Haddara & Moen / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000–000 5

face difficulties. User resistance has also been found to be a salient reason for ES’ low return on investments (ROI),
furthermore, resistance can still exist for several months after the ERP implementation. When organizations decide to
do such large scale changes as implementing an ERP, user resistance is a normal reaction or phenomenon. It is
important that the organization recognize and understand resistance so that they can deal with it accordingly to reduce
problems. Ignoring resistance can cause future problems for organizations 5.
Three theoretical perspectives have been suggested by researches: the people-, system- and interaction-oriented
approaches 5,9. The people-oriented and system-oriented approach are different, but researchers believes that user
resistance comes simultaneously from internal and external factors. This means that both the users (e.g. middle
managers) and system features (e.g. user interface) should be considered simultaneously. On the other hand, the
interaction-oriented approach believes that the real reasons for resistance are because of the users perceived values
and social content gain or loss, and not because of the characteristics of the system or the users 9.
Aladwani (2001) suggested some questions that should be answered so that organizations can get a good starting
point to identify different sources of user resistance towards the ERP. The questions can be formulated as for example
this: Who are resisting (individuals/groups)? What needs do they have? What values and beliefs do they have? It is
believed that beliefs, values and facts about employees are good indicators for what may cause their resistant to
change, and these indicators can very well be applied to the context of an ERP implementation 8. As an example, some
users may believe that the ERP system will jeopardize their job, or that the implementation of an ERP will make their
work harder because they do not have sufficient computer skills, also referred to as self-efficacy 5,8. Changes in
organizations, like the implementation of an ERP, will in some cases create unnecessary jobs that previously were
necessary, as well as creating new roles in the organization. For employees that gets affected and reassigned to a new
role, it is important to encourage them to help them see this as an opportunity to learn something new and that they
help bring the company in a new strategic direction 16. Klaus and Blanton (2010) found that uncertainty arises because
the future are often unclear and the users view the system as a threat towards their work. Likewise, employees who
already have control and/or power in the organization might feel that the implementation of a system takes away this
control and power, thus making them resist.
Perceived risk and habit has been found to be a significant source for user resistance, and it is argued that top
management needs to understand these sources so they are able to engage appropriate strategies such as e.g.
marketing/communicating the ERP to the users 8,17. Researchers have suggested various strategies for overcoming or
reducing user resistance. These can be placed within two main categories: participative and directive strategies.
Participative strategies include e.g.: creating user support services, encouraging self-organizing entities 3, proper
training for the new ERP 17, allowing employees time to experiment with the new system, encourage to open
communication between employees and management, and to encourage participation in the design process. Directive
strategies are those who are set by the management includes e.g.: job reassignment, financial incentives for the use of
the new system, role modifications, job elimination, top management support and power redistribution 9. Jiang et al.
(2000) found that participative strategies were most desired, and that the directive strategies were generally viewed as
more negative by the subjects. Other research defined two different categories of users that should be approached by
different strategies. The two user categories are operational and managerial users 18. The research findings show that
operational users may resist a new system because of self-interest related issues and that participative strategies are
proven more effective with this category of users 18. On the other hand, managerial users may resist the system if they
doubt that the system will introduce any benefits to the organization, and directive strategies are more likely to be
effective in this case 18.
By gathering knowledge about the users, top management can coordinate strategies that are most suited to reduce
or overcome user resistance to the ERP. Usually, one blanket resistance control strategy will not fit all types of
stakeholders involved in the project 11. Furthermore, the strategies should also convince as many users as possible to
adopt the ERP. An effective strategy is communication, by informing the users about the ERPs benefits, and thus,
building anticipations for the system 8. During implementation of systems such as ERPs, there are often a lack of
communication, and therefore, the users will not be convinced or understand the “whys” of the organizational change
5
. However, when communicating to the potential users, one need to be aware of unrealistic expectations because this
might strengthen the resistance instead of reducing it 8. Likewise, training users to be ready for the ERP is also
important because user resistance can escalate if for example, the users feel like there is a lack of training, trainers are
incompetent or the training are perceived as a waste of time 3,5. Further, training on the ERP provides hands-on
864 Moutaz Haddara et al. / Procedia Computer Science 121 (2017) 859–865
Haddara & Moen / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000–000 6

experiences to the users, and thus making them appreciate the quality and potential benefits of the system. Users are
believed to be reluctant to the system if they do not know how it works. Therefore, management should teach each of
the various user groups how to operate the system and define the computer knowledge needed 8.
Aladwani (2001) suggests that the top management should draw upon the field of marketing for a successful ERP
implementation. One strategy that management can use from the marketing field is cost minimization, which
marketers use to help organizations survive in markets with a lot of competitors. It is argued that the users’ adoption
costs should be kept to a minimum if management wants users to accept the new ERP. This strategy should target
both the individual workers and the influential groups. The individual workers need to feel that the ERP is minimizing
the perceived cost for it to create a positive adoption attitude. The worker will most likely experience a positive interest
in the ERP if he or she realizes that the system is an opportunity to enhance the job, with minimal additional costs.
Likewise, the influential groups will also look at the “cost” of the implementation. A consequence of implementing
an ERP that will affect the influential groups are e.g. the change of power in the organization, which can make users
resist the system.
Differentiation is another strategy that could be used to convince users to adopt the ERP. If users think the system
is of high quality, it is likely to believe that this will have a positive impact for them to accept the ERP. Users are not
likely to measure the quality attributes of the system, but their real (or socially constructed) experience with the ERP
will determine whether or not they believe it is a high quality system. If the users believe the interface of the system
is terrible, they are more likely to associate the system with low-quality. Timing the introduction of a new system is
also a strategy that should be considered. It is argued that organizations should not implement an ERP if a big mass
of the employees feels forced to accept the system, or threatened by it. These problems need to be solved before
implementing an ERP, in order to get a chance of a successful implementation 8.
Top management commitment to the ERP implementation is considered critical to enhance organizational support
for the change, as well as to the success of the implementation process.

5. Conclusions and Future Research Avenues

This paper contributes to both research and practice through providing a literature review on user resistance in ERP
implementations. For practice, the paper sheds the light on the past and recent issues, challenges, and strategies that
can guide consultants, vendors, and clients in their future projects. For research, this review can aid researchers in
identifying the topics, findings, and gaps discussed in this paper.
User resistance has been found to be a key contributing factor for why many implementations fail or face
challenges. In the ERP context, users often have no choice but to use the system and there are various reasons for
users to resist. There have been identified sources for user resistance within the perspectives of people-, system- and
interaction-oriented approaches, such as, gender, values, user interface, performance, reliability and the interaction
between people and system. In addition, perceived risk and habit has been found to be a significant reason for user
resistance, and top management needs to be aware of this.
This research has also identified strategies in literature for overcoming or reducing user resistance: participative
(e.g. proper ERP training) and directive strategies (e.g. top management support). Further, strategies drawn from the
field of marketing has also been identified and adapted to the context of ERP implementations to help organizations
and top management to overcome/reduce user resistance, such as: differentiation, cost minimization, timing and top
management commitment.
This paper has it implications. First, it was challenging to find a sufficient number of articles that target user
resistance in the specific context of the ERP domain, in which we would call for more research within the ERP domain.
Second, user resistance is a relatively broad concept and the factors leading to resistance and the findings represented
in this paper might not apply to all organizations nor contexts. For example, this paper does not look into the difference
in user resistance between small-to-medium sized enterprises (SMEs) and large organizations. Hence, future research
should investigate if there are differences in leading factors to user resistance between SMEs and large organizations,
and how to properly apply suitable strategies based on the organization size.
Finally, we have provided our observations and future research suggestions that would enrich our knowledge in this
domain.
 Moutaz Haddara et al. / Procedia Computer Science 121 (2017) 859–865 865
Haddara & Moen / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000–000 7

References

1. Elragal A, Haddara M. The impact of ERP partnership formation regulations on the failure of ERP implementations. Procedia Technology.
2013;9:527-535.
2. Hustad E, Haddara M, Kalvenes B. ERP and Organizational Misfits: An ERP Customization Journey. Procedia Computer Science. 2016;100
:429–439.
3. Haddara M, Hetlevik T. Investigating the Effectiveness of Traditional Support Structures & Self-organizing Entities within the ERP Shakedown
Phase. Procedia Computer Science. 2016;100:507-516.
4. Kim H-W, Kankanhalli A. Investigating user resistance to information systems implementation: A status quo bias perspective. MIS quarterly.
2009:567-582.
5. Klaus T, Blanton JE. User resistance determinants and the psychological contract in enterprise system implementations. European Journal of
Information Systems. 2010;19(6):625-636.
6. Klaus T, Wingreen S, Blanton JE. Examining user resistance and management strategies in enterprise system implementations. Paper presented
at: Proceedings of the 2007 ACM SIGMIS CPR conference on Computer personnel research: The global information technology
workforce2007.
7. Bryman A. Social research methods: OUP Oxford; 2012.
8. Aladwani AM. Change management strategies for successful ERP implementation. Business Process management journal. 2001;7(3):266-275.
9. Jiang JJ, Muhanna WA, Klein G. User resistance and strategies for promoting acceptance across system types. Information & Management.
2000;37(1):25-36.
10. Allen D, Kern T. Enterprise Resource Planning Implementation: Stories of Power, Politics, and Resistance. In: Russo NL, Fitzgerald B, DeGross
JI, eds. Realigning Research and Practice in Information Systems Development: The Social and Organizational Perspective. Boston, MA:
Springer US; 2001:149-162.
11. Griffiths M, Light B. User resistance strategies and the problems of blanket prescriptions: a case study of resistance success. Proceedings of the
Fourteenth European Conference on Information Systems, 2006, Goteberg, pp 2184-2193.
12. Shang S, Su T. Managing user resistance in enterprise systems implementation. AMCIS 2004 Proceedings. 2004:23.
13. Mahdavian M, Wattanapongsakorn N, Azadeh M, et al. Identifying main resistance factors in ERP implementation: A case study. Paper
presented at: Electrical Engineering/Electronics, Computer, Telecommunications and Information Technology (ECTI-CON), 2012 9th
International Conference on 2012.
14. Ali M, Zhou L, Miller L, Ieromonachou P. User resistance in IT: A literature review. International Journal of Information Management.
2016;36(1):35-43.
15. Price K. Attempting to model what cannot be modelled? A review of the literature on user resistance to IS implementation. ISChannel-the
Information Systems Student Journal. 2006;1(1):23-26.
16. Bradford M. Modern ERP: select, implement, and use today's advanced business systems: Lulu. com; 2015.
17. Salih SH, Dahlan HM. User resistance factors in post ERP implementation. Journal of Information Systems Research and Innovation.
2013;3:19-27.
18. Shang SSC. Dual strategy for managing user resistance with business integration systems. Behaviour & Information Technology. 2012/09/01
2012;31(9):909-925.