End-User Satisfaction in ERP Post-Implementation: An Investigation of Maintenance Activities, User Support Services and System Integration
Daphne Rich University of Bern Switzerland
[email protected]
Jens Dibbern University of Bern Switzerland
[email protected]
Abstract In past years, many organizations have implemented an ERP system. In the post-implementation phase it becomes apparent that the full potential of the system can only be achieved if the end-users are satisfied. Therefore, this paper aims to explain variation in end-user satisfaction by acknowledging that a combination of service and system attributes as perceived by the user is decisive in the post-implementation environment. Existing literature ignores relationships between service and system level and considers them independent of each other. The proposed framework links “User Support Services” and “Maintenance Activities” to the elements of the IS Success Model by integrating “Users’ Support Attitude” and “Users’ Maintenance Attitude” as moderating constructs. Beyond the well known factors of the IS Success Model the framework adds “Integration Quality” as a third construct on the system level.
Keywords: ERP, post-implementation, user support services, maintenance activities, system integration, IS Success Model
Fifth Pre-ICIS workshop on ES Research, St Louis 2010
1
INTRODUCTION In recent years, many companies have decided to invest in the implementation of an integrated Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system. In the post-implementation phase (PIP) following system go-live, it becomes increasingly apparent that a successful technical implementation project does not automatically lead to system success. The full potential of the system installed can only be exploited if the employees are satisfied with their direct system interaction (DeLone and McLean 1992; Bhattacherjee 2001; Au, Ngai et al. 2008). If high end-user satisfaction (EUS) is achieved, employees are more likely to support the system, experiment with additional functions, and explore new ways of using the technology (Wang and Butler 2006). Therefore, it is important for companies to know how they can positively influence the EUS in the post-implementation stage. While a rich body of research exists on the selection and implementation of ERP systems, few studies have systematically examined the PIP. Furthermore, existing research typically concentrates on macro-level variables that are likely to be relevant in the PIP: ERP success or benefits at company or plant level (e.g. Gattiker and Goodhue 2005; Häkkinen and Hilmola 2008; Häkkinen and Hilmola 2008; Seddon, Calvert et al. 2010), organizational performance (e.g. Nicolaou and Bhattacharya 2006), or ERP-assimilation at company level (e.g. Liang, Saraf et al. 2007). As one of the first studies the paper of Morris and Venkatesh (2010) analyze job satisfaction at the level of the individual in the ERP PIP context. In existing research it is acknowledged that services in connection with an ERP system have a direct positive influence on users’ attitude toward the system and on EUS (e. g. Nah, Faja et al. 2001; DeLone and McLean 2003). However, the available studies do not sufficiently recognize the fact that the purpose of all offered services is first and foremost to improve the system and to enhance users’ understanding for and handling of the system. Traditionally, the “Service Quality” construct has therefore been modeled in isolation with no linkages to constructs connected to the ERP system. This is the first study to explicitly acknowledge the linkages between constructs on the service level and constructs on the system level. User Support Services and Maintenance Activities are connected to the attributes of Seddon’s (1997) IS Success Model by simultaneously integrating users’ attitude toward these services. Besides System Quality and Information Quality, Integration Quality is added as third system construct because newer studies show that the
Fifth Pre-ICIS workshop on ES Research, St Louis 2010
2
technological integration of an ERP system into the surrounding system landscape is essential for ongoing EUS, too (Au, Ngai et al. 2008; Seddon, Calvert et al. 2010). As employees’ ERP system use is often compulsory in organizations, the paper focuses on mandated environments. The following key research question is addressed: How is the impact of service level factors on system level factors influencing end-user satisfaction in ERP post-implementation?
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ERP post-implementation ERP PIP is the stage starting with the “go live” in the lifecycle of an ERP system. In a first phase, also called “Shakedown Phase” or “Stabilization”, bugs are fixed, system performance is balanced and end-users are retrained. This first post-implementation stage lasts about four to ten months until “normal operations” are achieved. Afterwards a time of system improvement follows where the ERP system and the business processes are adapted in line with experiences gained (Markus and Tanis 2000; Ross and Vitale 2000; Shanks 2000). The existing literature does not reach a unanimous verdict on the duration of the ERP PIP. Markus and Tanis (2000) define the completion at the time when the system “[…] is replaced with an upgrade or a different system”. In contrast, Nicolau and Bhattacharaya (2006) constrain the duration to a period of two years with the argument that after this time frame the desired performance benefits are feasible. This study focuses on the time period right after the Shakedown Phase when the ERP system is running more or less stable and users have familiarized themselves with the basic functions of the system.
IS Success Models Literature provides several definitions and measures of information system (IS) success. However, the IS Success Model developed by DeLone and McLean (1992) “is still the dominant basis of IS success measurement” (Urbach,
Fifth Pre-ICIS workshop on ES Research, St Louis 2010
3
Smolnik et al. 2009) and many recent studies draw upon the according constructs (e.g. Wang 2008; Petter and McLean 2009; Gorla, Somers et al. 2010). The theoretical model underlying this paper is developed along the lines of Seddon’s (1997) adapted framework of DeLone and McLean’s IS Success Model. The framework developed by Seddon (1997) is divided in two parts: the IS Success Model and the Partial Behavioral Model of IS Use. As it is assumed that system use is mandated, the IS use part is not included in this study, rather the focus is set on EUS as the key dependent variable (DeLone and McLean 1992). Different authors claim that, in addition to the constructs “System Quality” and “Information Quality”, the quality of services provided in connection with an implemented IS needs to be added to the IS Success models. They adapt the SERVQUAL measurement instrument from marketing to the IS context and integrate it as a construct named “Service Quality” (Kettinger and Lee 1994; DeLone and McLean 2003; Kettinger and Lee 2005). Despite heavy criticism concerning e.g. the overlap among the five dimensions, the poor predictive and convergent validity, and the unstable dimensionality (e.g. Van Dyke, Prybutok et al. 1999) the IS-adapted SERVQUAL has shown high practical relevance (Jiang, Klein et al. 2002). Activities included in “Service Quality” regarding IS differ from study to study. Focusing on user support provided by an organization, this paper distinguishes between maintenance activities and support services. Service Quality is usually modeled to have an impact on “Usefulness” and “User Satisfaction”, while possible links to the other quality constructs “System Quality” and “Information Quality” are not explored (DeLone and McLean 2003). However, such links may be important for end-users. If, for example, bugs are fixed the system is easier to use and the response time of the system can be accelerated; and, by implementing a change request the information format can be improved so that Information Quality can be enhanced. These examples show that in this paper’s context it is likely that both maintenance activities and support services are linked to both Service Quality and Information Quality. In the following, all elements of IS Success Model will be adapted to the context of post-implementation. Each of the respective variables reflects actual experiences made by the users. This is in contrast to the studies conducted in the implementation phase, which by necessity mostly comprise estimations and assumptions of the users.
Fifth Pre-ICIS workshop on ES Research, St Louis 2010
4
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK The theoretical framework presented in figure 1 is new in as much as it acknowledges that a combination of service and system attributes as perceived by the user in the ERP PIP is decisive for explaining variation in ERP user satisfaction. As such, it links “User Support Services” and “Maintenance Activities” to the elements of the IS Success Model by integrating “Users’ Support Attitude” and “Users’ Maintenance Attitude” as moderating constructs. Beyond the well known factors of the IS Success Model the framework additionally adds “Integration Quality” as third system construct. In the following sections of the paper the applied variables are explained and the hypotheses are derived.
SERVICE LEVEL
SYSTEM LEVEL
Users‘ Support Attitude
System Quality
Usefulness
User Support Services Integration Quality Maintenance Activities
Overall EUS Information Quality
IS Success Modell (Seddon, 1997)
Users‘ Maintenance Attitude
Figure 1: Theoretical Framework
Fifth Pre-ICIS workshop on ES Research, St Louis 2010
5
Overall End-User Satisfaction (EUS) EUS has been used as a measure for IS success for about 40 years and is still one of the most widely used measures in assessing the success of IS. The reasons lie in the high degree of face validity of satisfaction and in the weak conceptualization or empirically difficult validation of other measures (Au, Ngai et al. 2008). In particular, if the use of an IS is mandated and user behavior can not be analyzed directly, measurement of success in terms of EUS is adequate (DeLone and McLean 1992). Also in recent IS research EUS is intensively studied in very different contexts: e.g. social networks (Zhang 2010), web sites (Schaupp 2010) and learning management systems (Klobas and McGill 2010). In this paper EUS is defined as the extent to which the user believes that the ERP system meets his or her requirements (Sabherwal, Jeyaraj et al. 2006).
Usefulness Usefulness is defined according to the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) as the degree to which an end-user believes that using the system enhances his or her productivity and job performance. The experienced system usefulness is shown to influence overall EUS (Davis, Bagozzi et al. 1989; Sabherwal, Jeyaraj et al. 2006): H1: A higher degree of Usefulness leads to a higher degree of overall EUS.
SYSTEM LEVEL System Quality System quality as a construct of the IS Success Model (DeLone and McLean 1992) was adapted to many studies using different construct definitions and including diverse and sometimes overlapping measures. Addressing this inconsistency in their survey, Gable et al. (2008) conceptualized System Quality as a “multifaceted construct designed to capture how the system performs from a technical and design perspective”. This paper adopts their
Fifth Pre-ICIS workshop on ES Research, St Louis 2010
6
definition and the proposed 15 measures, which fit to the ERP environment including new quality aspects. As stated by the IS Success Model, System Quality clearly influences user’s work performance and also their satisfaction with the ERP system (e. g. Wixom and Todd 2005; Lin, Hsu et al. 2006; Wu and Wang 2006): H2a / H2b: A higher degree of System Quality leads to a higher degree of Usefulness and overall EUS.
Information Quality Information Quality is a measure of the quality of IS output (Pitt, Watson et al. 1995) and is particularly essential for ERP end-users (Ng 2001). Many empirical studies have validated the IS Success Model and the relationships Information Quality – Usefulness and Information Quality – EUS were found to be significant in most cases (Rai, Lang et al. 2002; DeLone and McLean 2003). Adapting these findings to the ERP post-implementation environment, we state: H3a / H3b: A higher degree of Information Quality leads to a higher degree of Usefulness and overall EUS.
Integration Quality When adopting an ERP system, organizations usually do not abandon all their existing systems. Several applications (e.g. legacy systems) often co-exist alongside enterprise systems (Themistocleous, Irani et al. 2001; Alshawi, Themistocleous et al. 2004). Therefore, system integration with surrounding applications and newly added system components is critical for obtaining organizational benefits through the implemented ERP system (Seddon, Calvert et al. 2010). Three classes of integration objects can be distinguished: data, applications, and processes (Bunjes, Friebe et al. 2002). In this paper, therefore, Integration Quality is defined as the quality of linkage of the ERP system’s data, applications and processes with other relevant systems in the organization. System integration saves human effort used to resolve uncertainty about the accuracy and comparability of information sourced from various systems and avoids updating multiple systems. The greater information visibility gained trough high integration quality improves decision-making by reducing end-user’s time and effort required to Fifth Pre-ICIS workshop on ES Research, St Louis 2010
7
discover and access valuable information (Seddon, Calvert et al. 2010). Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed: H4a: A higher degree of Integration Quality leads to a higher degree of Information Quality. Running interfaces with other applications lead to a higher ERP performance and a more coherent system; e. g. by minimizing redundancies and setting standards, the system accuracy observed by users is enhanced (Boles, Friebe et al. 2004; Mantzana and Themistocleous 2004). This leads to a second hypothesis: H4b: A higher degree of Integration Quality leads to a higher degree of System Quality. Determining whether the output from an ERP system is useful to the end-user depends on integration quality (Au, Ngai et al. 2008): H4c: A higher degree of Integration Quality leads to a higher degree of Usefulness.
SERVICE LEVEL Maintenance Activities System maintenance is traditionally defined as “the activity associated with keeping operational computer systems continuously in tune with the requirements of users, data processing operations, associated clerical functions, and external demands from government and other agencies.” (Riggs 1969). It can be classified into three main categories (Swanson 1976; Nah, Faja et al. 2001):
Corrective maintenance: activities to correct errors in design, coding, and implementation
Adaptive maintenance: activities carried out to suit changes in the processing or data environment and to meet new user requirements
Perfective maintenance: activities to enhance processing efficiency, performance, or maintainability and to better meet user requirements
Fifth Pre-ICIS workshop on ES Research, St Louis 2010
8
The actually experienced quality of each of these three maintenance activities is assumed to vary between users. For example, one user group focuses on getting it’s work done as quickly as possible without contributing a lot of personal effort. This group may be especially interested in corrective maintenance quality, e. g. that bugs are fixed, templates are accurate and system performance is high. Other users may have new ideas to enhance system functions and therefore are most interested in the quality of change request handling and the dealing with system upgrades. As the goal of continuous system maintenance is to enhance ERP system and information quality by e. g. fixing bugs, correcting data or fulfilling change requests (Ng 2001): H5a / H5b: A higher degree of Maintenance Activity Quality leads to a higher degree of System Quality and Information Quality. Maintenance work also tries to optimize the integration of the ERP system with other IS. By regularly checking interfaces, application functions, data exchange and data models for compatibility and conducting necessary adjustments, Integration Quality experienced by end-user’s can be increased (Schmidt, Otto et al. 2010): H5c: A higher degree of Maintenance Activity Quality leads to a higher degree of Integration Quality.
User Support Services Besides technically focused maintenance activities, user support services are recognized to be essential for persistent EUS and ERP system success (e. g. Abran and Nguyenkim 1993; Brehm 2004; Häkkinen and Hilmola 2008). In the existing literature many different definitions of the construct exist. In some studies of maintenance research, support services are defined as a category of system maintenance (e. g. Abran and Nguyenkim 1993; Nah, Faja et al. 2001). Authors focusing on system success or acceptance often include support services in the construct “Service Quality” (e. g. Kettinger and Lee 1994; Pitt, Watson et al. 1995; DeLone and McLean 2003), “facilitating conditions” (e. g. Sabherwal, Jeyaraj et al. 2006; Chang, Cheung et al. 2008) or use it as a separate construct (e. g. Robinson, Marshall et al. 2005). Existing research is also inconsistent regarding the number of services included in the constructs. It ranges from an extremely broad view, including hardware, software, training and information to very narrow views including only one service, e. g. training.
Fifth Pre-ICIS workshop on ES Research, St Louis 2010
9
A precise definition of User Support Services is essential for this study, especially to differentiate from the construct “Maintenance Activities”. Therefore, User Support Services embrace all services offered by the organization to support end-users in their daily application of and interaction with the system; including trainings, user manuals, key-user support and help desks. User Support Services do not include activities where the system has to be adjusted or system changes need to be initiated. High quality training, documentations and skilled support employees help end-users to better understand their interaction with the system and comprehend information provided by the system (Amoako-Gyampah and Salam 2004; Sabherwal, Jeyaraj et al. 2006; Häkkinen and Hilmola 2008). Therefore, it is hypothesized: H6a / H6b: A higher degree of User Support Service Quality leads to a higher degree of System Quality and Information Quality. User Support Services do also have an direct impact on Usefulness perceived by end-users. By better understanding the ERP system, they better see how the system enhances their work effectiveness (Ngai, Poon et al. 2007): H6c: A higher degree of User Support Service Quality leads to a higher degree of Usefulness.
Users’ Support and Maintenance Attitude Attitude is a person’s consistently favorable or unfavorable evaluation, feeling, and tendency toward an object, behavior, or idea (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). Following the research of Barki and Hartwick (1994) Users’ Support and Maintenance Attitude is defined as the psychological state of ERP end-users reflecting their affective or evaluative feelings concerning user support services or maintenance activities. The framework (figure 1) suggests that users’ maintenance attitude has a positive moderating effect on relationships H5a-H5c and users’ support attitude on H6a-H6c. Users being interested in support and maintenance tasks benefit from trainings attended, attentively read user manuals and challenge help desk employees and key-users. Therefore, they are able to better qualify provided user support services as well as the related impact on System and Information Quality, and they can clearly observe accomplished increases in ERP usefulness. Users with a high maintenance attitude explicitly articulate their requests for system modifications and attentively follow the progress of change requests. These
Fifth Pre-ICIS workshop on ES Research, St Louis 2010
10
employees provide a basis for system improvement and therefore actively influence ERP system quality, quality of information provided by the system and integration quality.
RESEARCH METHOD AND OUTLOOK The theoretical framework presented above will be initially validated and adjusted using an exploratory research approach. It is planned to focus on organizations in the Swiss and Liechtenstein financial sector having implemented the ERP system Avaloq. This selection seems reasonable, because the correlation between satisfied users and work performance is particularly pronounced in the service industry (Au, Ngai et al. 2002) and a lot of financial services organizations are currently at ERP PIP. Beyond exploring the dimensions and the relationships of the framework, the goal is to gain deeper insights into the following issues:
What are the relevant Maintenance Activities and User Support Services for ERP end-users?
Which aspects of System Integration are important for ERP end-users? Are they directly confronted with integration problems?
Can different user groups be identified (besides key-users and end-users without special function) and how can they be classified? Do they have different maintenance and support interests?
Subsequently, the adapted model is planned to be tested by conducting a field study, yielding valuable quantitative data regarding the ERP PIP. Such data are rare as the bulk of existing research is based on a case study approach.
Fifth Pre-ICIS workshop on ES Research, St Louis 2010
11
References Abran, A. and H. Nguyenkim (1993). "Measurement of the Maintenance Process from a Demand-based Perspective." Journal of Software Maintenance: Research and Practice 5(2): 63-90. Alshawi, S., M. Themistocleous, et al. (2004). "Integrating diverse ERP systems: a case study." The Journal of Enterprise Information Management 17(6): 454–462. Amoako-Gyampah, K. and A. F. Salam (2004). "An extension of the technology acceptance model in an ERP implementation environment." Information & Management 41(6): 731-745. Au, N., E. W. T. Ngai, et al. (2002). "A critical review of end-user information system satisfaction research and a new research framework." Omega 30(6): 451-478. Au, N., E. W. T. Ngai, et al. (2008). "Extending the Understanding of End User Information Systems Satisfaction Formation: An Equitable Needs Fulfillment Model Approach." MIS Quarterly 32(1): 43-66. Barki, H. and J. Hartwick (1994). "Measuring User Participation, User Involvement, and User Attitude." MIS Quarterly 18(1): 59-82. Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). "UNDERSTANDING INFORMATION SYSTEMS CONTINUANCE: AN EXPECTATION-CONFIRMATION MODEL." MIS Quarterly 25(3): 351-370. Boles, C., J. Friebe, et al. (2004). "Typische Integrationsszenarien und deren Unterstützung durch Web Services und andere Technologien." EAI-Workshop 2004 - Enterprise Application Integration, Tagungsband des GI-/GMDS-Workshops EAI'04, OFFIS: 57-67. Brehm, L. (2004). Postimplementierungsphase von ERP-Systemen in Unternehmen: Organisatorische Gestaltung und kritische Erfolgsfaktoren Frankfurt, Lang, Peter 2004. Bunjes, B., J. Friebe, et al. (2002). "Integration von Daten, Anwendungen und Prozessen am Beispiel des Telekommunikationsunternehmens EWE TEL." Wirtschaftsinformatik 44(5): 415-423. Chang, M.-K., W. Cheung, et al. (2008). "Understanding ERP system adoption from the user's perspective." International Journal of Production Economics 113(2): 928-942. Davis, F. D., R. P. Bagozzi, et al. (1989). "USER ACCEPTANCE OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY: A COMPARISON OF TWO THEORETICAL MODELS." Management Science 35(8): 982-1003. DeLone, W. H. and E. R. McLean (1992). "Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable." Information Systems Research 3(1): 60-95. DeLone, W. H. and E. R. McLean (2003). "The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update." Journal of Management Information Systems 19(4): 9-30. Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. MA: Addison-Wesley. Gable, G. G., D. Sedera, et al. (2008). "Re-conceptualizing Information System Success: The IS-Impact Measurement Model." Journal of the Association for Information Systems 9(7): 377-408. Gattiker, T. F. and D. L. Goodhue (2005). "WHAT HAPPENS AFTER ERP IMPLEMENTATION: UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACT OF INTER-DEPENDENCE AND DIFFERENTIATION ON PLANT-LEVEL OUTCOMES." MIS Quarterly 29(3): 559-585. Gorla, N., T. M. Somers, et al. (2010). "Organizational impact of system quality, information quality, and service quality." The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 19(3): 207-228. Häkkinen, L. and O.-P. Hilmola (2008). "ERP evaluation during the shakedown phase: lessons from an after-sales division." Information Systems Journal 18(1): 73-100. Häkkinen, L. and O.-P. Hilmola (2008). "Life after ERP implementation: Long-term development of user perceptions of system success in an after-sales environment." Journal of Enterprise Information Management 21(3): 285 - 310. Jiang, J. J., G. Klein, et al. (2002). "MEASURING INFORMATION SYSTEM SERVICE QUALITY: SERVQUAL FROM THE OTHER SIDE." MIS Quarterly 26(2): 145-166.
Fifth Pre-ICIS workshop on ES Research, St Louis 2010
12
Kettinger, W. J. and C. C. Lee (1994). "Perceived Service Quality and User Satisfaction with the Information Services Function." Decision Sciences 25(5-6): 737-766. Kettinger, W. J. and C. C. Lee (2005). "ZONES OF TOLERANCE: ALTERNATIVE SCALES FOR MEASURING INFORMATION SYSTEMS SERVICE QUALITY." MIS Quarterly 29(4): 607623. Klobas, J. and T. McGill (2010). "The role of involvement in learning management system success." Journal of Computing in Higher Education 22(2): 114-134. Liang, H., N. Saraf, et al. (2007). "ASSIMILATION OF ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS: THE EFFECT OF INSTITUTIONAL PRESSURES AND THE MEDIATING ROLE OF TOP MANAGEMENT." MIS Quarterly 31(1): 59-87. Lin, H.-Y., P.-Y. Hsu, et al. (2006). "ERP Systems Success: An Integration of IS Success Model and Balanced Scorecard." Journal of Research and Practice in Information Technology 38(3): 215228. Mantzana, V. and M. Themistocleous (2004). "Identifying and Classifying Benefits of Integrated Healthcare Systems Using an Actor-Oriented Approach." Journal of Computing and Information Technology 12(4): 265-278. Markus, M. L. and C. Tanis (2000). The enterprise systems experience-from adoption to success. Framing the Domains of IT Management: Projecting the Future Through the Past. R. W. Zmud, Pinnaflex Education Resources, Inc: 173-207. Morris, M. G. and V. Venkatesh (2010). "JOB CHARACTERISTICS AND JOB SATISFACTION: UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION." MIS Quarterly 34(1): 143-161. Nah, F. F. H., S. Faja, et al. (2001). "Characteristics of ERP software maintenance: a multiple case study." Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice 13(6): 399-414. Ng, C. S. P. (2001). "A decision framework for enterprise resource planning maintenance and upgrade: A client perspective." Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice 13(6): 431-468. Ngai, E. W. T., J. K. L. Poon, et al. (2007). "Empirical examination of the adoption of WebCT using TAM." Computers & Education 48(2): 250-267. Nicolaou, A. I. and S. Bhattacharya (2006). "Organizational performance effects of ERP systems usage: The impact of post-implementation changes." International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 7(1): 18-35. Petter, S. and E. R. McLean (2009). "A meta-analytic assessment of the DeLone and McLean IS success model: An examination of IS success at the individual level." Information & Management 46(3): 159-166. Pitt, L. F., R. T. Watson, et al. (1995). "Service Quality: A Measure of Information Systems Effectiveness." MIS Quarterly 19(2): 173-187. Rai, A., S. S. Lang, et al. (2002). "Assessing the Validity of IS Success Models: An Empirical Test and Theoretical Analysis." Information Systems Research 13(1): 50-69. Riggs, R. (1969). "Computer Systems Maintenance." Datamation 15: 227-235. Robinson, J. L., G. W. Marshall, et al. (2005). "Sales force use of technology: antecedents to technology acceptance." Journal of Business Research 58(12): 1623-1631. Ross, J. W. and M. R. Vitale (2000). "The ERP Revolution: Surviving vs. Thriving." Information Systems Frontiers 2(2): 233-241. Sabherwal, R., A. Jeyaraj, et al. (2006). "Information System Success: Individual and Organizational Determinants." Manage. Sci. 52(12): 1849-1864. Schaupp, L. (2010). " Web Site Success: Antecedents of Web Site Satisfaction and Re-use." Journal of Internet Commerce 9(1): 42-64. Schmidt, A., B. Otto, et al. (2010). "Integrating information systems: case studies on current challenges." Electronic Markets 20(2): 161-174.
Fifth Pre-ICIS workshop on ES Research, St Louis 2010
13
Seddon, P. B. (1997). "A Respecification and Extension of the DeLone and McLean Model of IS Success." Information Systems Research 8(3): 240. Seddon, P. B., C. Calvert, et al. (2010). "A MULTI-PROJECT MODEL OF KEY FACTORS AFFECTING ORGANIZATIONAL BENEFITS FROM ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS." MIS Quarterly 34(2): 305-A311. Shanks, G. (2000). "A model of ERP project implementation." Journal of Information Technology (Routledge, Ltd.) 15(4): 289-303. Swanson, E. B. (1976). "The Dimensions of Maintenance." Proceedings 2nd International Conference on Software Engineering: 422-497. Themistocleous, M., Z. Irani, et al. (2001). "ERP and application integration: Exploratory survey." Business Process Management Journal 7(3): 195-204. Urbach, N., S. Smolnik, et al. (2009). "The State of Research on Information Systems Success." Business & Information Systems Engineering 1(4): 315-325. Van Dyke, T. P., V. R. Prybutok, et al. (1999). "Cautions on the Use of the SERVQUAL Measure to Assess the Quality of Information Systems Services." Decision Sciences 30(3): 877-891. Wang, W. and J. E. Butler (2006). "System deep usage in post-acceptance stage: a literature review and a new research framework." Int. J. Bus. Inf. Syst. 1(4): 439-462. Wang, Y.-S. (2008). "Assessing e-commerce systems success: a respecification and validation of the DeLone and McLean model of IS success." Information Systems Journal 18(5): 529-557. Wixom, B. H. and P. A. Todd (2005). "A Theoretical Integration of User Satisfaction and Technology Acceptance." Information Systems Research 16(1): 85-102. Wu, J.-H. and Y.-M. Wang (2006). "Measuring ERP success: the ultimate users’ view." International Journal of Operations & Production Management 26 (8): 882-903. Zhang, Z. (2010). "Feeling the Sense of Community in Social Networking Usage." IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 57(2): 225-239.
Fifth Pre-ICIS workshop on ES Research, St Louis 2010
14
