Towards a Model for User Adoption of Enterprise ... - IEEE Xplore

1

Towards a Model for User Adoption of Enterprise Systems in SMEs Isabel Jansen van Vuuren, and Lisa F. Seymour

Abstract—Small and medium-sized enterprises are seen to be the future of emerging economies and the driving force in the global economy. Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems have recently been developed for this sector but their successful implementation is a challenge. One of the major factors contributing to this challenge is user adoption. This paper presents an overview of user adoption constraints affecting two medium sized South African organisations when adopting an ERP system. Two qualitative in-depth case studies were analysed using the grounded theory method. The 11 direct and 3 indirect user adoption constraints identified were categorized under organisational conditions, facilitating conditions, implementation actions, system expectations and system perceptions. User communication was the dominant constraint and was found to be influenced by organisational culture and reseller value. Many conditions and experiences were found to be distinct from previous research typically performed in large organisations in developed economies. It is hoped that the model presented will be able to assist SMEs within emerging economies in improving the success of their ERP implementations. Index Terms—emerging economy, enterprise systems, ERP, SMEs, user adoption

I. INTRODUCTION

S

MEs in emerging economies lack information management and often lack systems and procedures [1]. Research has shown that many small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) fail within the first three to five years as a result of these weaknesses [2]. Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems are seen to be the solution to these problems and are able to provide SMEs with the opportunity to align and integrate all business processes and units into one information system [3]. ERP systems are packaged enterprise systems that cover most core business functions including finance, accounting, sales, operations management, purchasing, and human resource management [4]. An ERP system can provide SMEs with a strategic tool which could give them a global competitive advantage [5]. This work was supported in part by the South African National Research Foundation (NRF). L.F. Seymour is a Research Associate of the Centre for IT and National Development (CITANDA), Department of Information Systems, University of Cape Town, Private Bag x3, Rondebosch, 7700, South Africa (e-mail: [email protected]). I. Jansen van Vuuren did this research for the Centre for IT and National Development (CITANDA), Department of Information Systems, University of Cape Town, Private Bag x3, Rondebosch, 7700, South Africa. She is now with Pricewaterhouse Coopers (e-mail: [email protected]).

At the same time, ERP vendors have realised that the next area of sales growth lies within the SME sector [6]. Therefore they are customising their products to cater for the growing demand in the SME sector. While SMEs hope to reap the potential benefits of ERP systems they must first understand the impact of the implementation. The nature of the technology-mediated organisational change undertaken during an ERP implementation is complex and lengthy [7]. Hence the implementation requires high quantities of resources and entails high risks [8]. Due to resource poverty, the adoption of ERP systems holds a greater risk to SMEs [6]. While ERP systems have been widely implemented in developed countries, ERP implementations in emerging economies are increasing but still lag far behind those of developed economies [2]. Developing countries have also shown high rates of ERP failure. The high failure rate of ERP adoption by SMEs and the resultant impact on SMEs and consequently national development is a cause for concern. These failures have been partially attributed to poor fit between the information systems design and the organisational setting into which that system is being introduced [9]. For example, a western developed ERP system when implemented in an emerging economy can impact negatively on adoption due to cultural differences between the software vendor and the adopting organisation [10]. While ERP and User Adoption in large organisations in developed countries has been widely researched, the adoption in SMEs is understudied and even less research has been conducted in emerging economies [11]. Hence the focus of this research is on ERP implementations in SMEs within an emerging economy context. II. THE ERP MARKET FOR SMES Generally, the cost of ERP applications is falling and financially-strained SMEs are now finding it more affordable to implement ERP systems [12]; [13]. This is reflected in Worldwide ERP applications license, maintenance and subscription revenue growth between 2008 and 2013 which is seen to be dominated by medium (5.5 percent) and small (5 percent) sized businesses, with large businesses only showing revenue growths of 2.6 percent [14]. According to the ARC Advisory Group [15], there are over 55 suppliers in the ERP SME space, and this market will remain fragmented with various vendor opportunities available. Contrary to common perception, Gartner research analysing mid-market ERP as a

978-1-4673-6412-6/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE

2 unique process framework found that medium-sized enterprises have a core set of business processes that are more complex than those of large enterprises [4]. Due to globalisation, mid-market ERP vendors are increasing their international presence, yet to successfully market ERP products, vendors must ensure that the correct localisation, legal and statutory requirements are met before their products are deployed to smaller countries [4]. Vendors also need to familiarise themselves with local country specific operations and processes to implement them effectively [16]. In the long term, it is predicted that vendors will adopt the right product development strategies, and target the correct regions and countries [15]. According to AMR Research [17], emerging markets such as Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) will be the major area of growth for future ERP markets and the majority of the companies would be SMEs. While the South African SME sector is a large and growing one, its approach tends to be a very entrepreneurial one, and as such, its spend on new technology is usually related to how IT pertains to its core business [18]. While organisations all hope to reap the benefits of ERP systems, they must first understand the impact that the implementation will have on their employees [19]. III. USER ADOPTION FACTORS The way ERP systems are perceived, treated and integrated within a business plays a critical role in the successful adoption of the system [10]. Research has shown that social factors determine the successful usage of an ERP system [20] and that management experience user resistance [21]. Various forms of research have attempted to study the adoption of ERP systems from the organisational, technical and user perspectives. There are two main streams of research on IT adoption: research which focuses on technology acceptance at an individual level and research which focuses on implementation at an organisational level [22]. Adoption is defined as “a mechanism for acquainting us with changes in the environment” [23] and user adoption is influenced by various factors such as the capability of the user, the innovativeness of the user, support activities and the gap between the user, the organisation and the technology” [24]. For example, Wang, Klein and Jiang [25] refer to potential misfits at a country, organisational and individual level; highlighting the problems with implementing ERP systems originating from a different country. It seems that user concerns dominate in emerging economies. User adoption constraints identified during an ERP implementation in Jordan include dissatisfaction regarding lack of involvement during the implementation process, inaccurate data available on the new system and low levels of use, post-implementation [9]. Emphasising the user perspective, a study in Southern Poland identified that user adoption issues are the number one cause of implementation failure [10]. Problems described include fear, anxiety and lack of acceptance from employees. Knowledge and training problems were identified as the main cause of the majority of difficulties. More critically, Al-Mashari & Zairi [26] identified

key factors that led to a failed ERP implementation in a major Middle Eastern manufacturing company. Results indicate that a main cause of failure relates to early user resistance during the design of the implementation which increased anxiety during the implementation process. Management failed to take action to support user concerns and a lack of communication increased user resistance after the implementation process. Table I summarises the User Adoption factors identified in the literature. TABLE I SUMMARY OF USER ADOPTION FACTORS Category

Factors

Facilitating Condition

Training, Support and Documentation BPR Project Communication Shared Beliefs Top Management Support Consultation Requirements User Communication Planning Testing End User Involvement Ease of Use Performance Expectancy Effort Expectancy Performance – outcome instrumentality Outcome valence Instrumentality Meaningful Independence Valuable Procrastination Access Learning Efficiency improvement Procedure management Levels of use Computer literacy levels Affect Near-term consequences Long-term consequences Organisational culture, country culture

Implementation Actions

System Perceptions

Job Impact

Affective Response Cultural Constraints

References [11]; [19];[27];[6]; [28]; [29]; [10]; [7]. [30] [21]; [26]; [31]; [9]; [28];[29] [32]. [21]; [31]; [28]. [26]; [19]; [9]; [32].

[21]; [19]; [33]; [9]; [28]; [29]. [32]. [34]

[21]; [11];[35]; [9]; [36]; [29];[37]

[19]; [28]. [10]; [2].

Various theoretical models were reviewed as part of this research, such as the user adoption model [28]; the ERP system adoption model [19]; the ERP implementation outcome model [35] and the UTAUT model [11]. Using the theoretical categories, adoption constraints identified in the literature have been categorized (Table I). Most of the factors were classified under Facilitating Conditions, Implementation Actions, System perceptions and Job Impact, but some factors were due to affect and culture. This research then attempted to identify factors relevant to SMEs in emerging economies. The next section presents the research methodology. IV.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This research applied multiple research methods. The two methods include Action Research (AR) and Case Study research strategy. There has been an increased call to make

978-1-4673-6412-6/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE

3 Information Systems research more practical and relevant [38]. In most research, researchers aim to study a phenomenon but do not intend to make any changes as part of the research process. AR is one way to improve the practical relevance of Information Systems research [39]. AR aims to create organisational change and to study the process of creating this change [40]. AR was applied to research User Adoption constraints during an ERP implementation. Once constraints were identified, actions were taken to assist the organisations to overcome these user constraints. The AR form that was chosen for this research was Canonical Action Research (CAR). CAR is an iterative, rigorous and collaborative process and focuses both on organisational development and the generation of knowledge; the combination of these characteristics makes CAR unique among all forms of AR [41]. CAR was selected as the appropriate research method because it allowed the researchers to make changes as part of the research process and study the effects of these changes on the users. CAR includes five stages these include the diagnosing, action-planning, action-taking, evaluating and specifying learning stage. In this paper only the initial diagnosing phase in two action cycles is presented. So while this research consisted of two longitudinal studies, only the cross-sectional initial diagnosis and analysis of adoption factor prior to the ERP “go-live” date is presented. A. Sampling Strategy The target population during this study was SMEs about to implement an ERP in South Africa in the city of the researcher. Two medium sized organisations were selected. These two organisations within the business services and manufacturing industry sectors were implementing the same ERP package at the time of this research. Medium sized organisations in services and manufacturing have less than 200 employees [42] and are still viewed as owner/managercontrolled [43]. These organisations are now described. B. Company I – Financial Industry Sector For the first case, a medium-sized organisation with 131 permanent staff members in two branches in Johannesburg and Cape Town was selected. The organisation specialises in service delivery (business services industry) through the provision of learning resources to various clients in South Africa. Management of this organisation decided to replace their legacy system with a new ERP system. The previous system had been used within the organisation since 1989. The new system sought to integrate all the business units into one new ERP package, and thereby combine the stock, financial and sales business units into one integrated platform. C. Company II – Manufacturing Industry Sector The organisation selected for the second case study was a medium-sized manufacturing firm in South Africa with 170 permanent staff members. Most of the internal processes of the organisation had remained the same since the creation of the organisation and a manual system was still in place. This manual system was kept as a backup to do stock checks and to

control the information flow within the organisation. Management decided to implement a new ERP package. The previous ERP system had only been used in their Accounts department and partially in the manufacturing section of the organisation. The new system integrated the entire organisation. D. Data Collection Strategy The data collection methods during case study research include documents, interviews, direct observations and participant observations [44]. Multiple data collection methods were used during this case study; this ensured triangulation, which included cross-checking for internal consistency and reliability of the data, throughout this study. The primary data gathering techniques were participant observations and semistructured interviews. Qualitative interviews are the most important data gathering tool in qualitative research. These interviews allowed the researcher to see and examine phenomena and view the things, which could not usually be seen through quantitative analysis [45]. Semi structured interviews were taped and transcribed. Secondary data collected included written cases [46]. Table II presents an overview of the users interviewed in both cases. TABLE II RESPONDENTS

Respondent (case) 1 case 1 2 case 1 3 case 1 4 case 1 1 case 2 2 case 2 3 case 2

Years in the Organisation/Education 11 years (Marketing Diploma) 17 years (Secretarial Certificate) 5 years (Matriculated) 7 years (Matriculated) 24 years (Financials) 25 years (Matriculated) 31 years (Technical College)

E. Actions Taken Once the Research Client Agreement (RCA) was signed, the researcher started the diagnosis [41]. During the diagnosing phase, a clear understanding of the environment and the context needs to be established. This information is necessary to plan for changes which should be implemented during the action-taking phase [9]. The actions taken included assisting with the prototype of the ERP system, developing user documentation, putting together user diagrams and training users on the ERP package. The theoretical findings from the first case were used to assist the second organisation. F. Data Analysis The mixed grounded theory method (GTM) was used to analyse the data [47]. The goal of grounded theory is to develop a theory which is closely and directly relevant to a particular setting under study [48]. The Mixed Grounded theory approach was used as part of this research as the researcher considered a priori theory from the literature during the latter analysis and to explain the considerations. Eisenhardt [49: 536] argues that, “A priori specification of constructs can also help to shape the initial design of theory building in research.” Open coding, axial coding and selective coding

978-1-4673-6412-6/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE

4 were applied to the data. In open coding concepts and categories were identified in the data. Constant comparison took place during this phase, and these concepts formed the building blocks of the theory. G. Concept Categories Table III identifies the categories and concepts identified. The number of interview analysis text excerpts for each concept is added as counts. The six categories identified included system perceptions, system expectations, facilitating conditions, implementation actions, organisational conditions and reseller value. Reseller Value was not an explicit theme identified in the interviews and therefore does not appear in Table III. Category System perceptions System expectations Facilitating conditions Implementati on actions Organisation al conditions

TABLE III CONCEPTS WITH INTERVIEW COUNTS Concept Case 1 Case 2 Workload and task 5 1 completion Confidence among users 10 11 Value of the new system 21 15 Shared beliefs among users 8 3 Improved technology 10 8 User communication 11 0 Hierarchical communication 8 7 Training quantity 10 14 Consultation with users 12 8 User documentation 0 4 Project control 4 0 Resource constraints Organisational culture

2 0

5 2

Total 6 21 36 11 18 11 15 24 20 4 4 7 2

The next sections provide the results and discussion which include data evidence for each of the concepts identified during this research and the axial links between categories. V. SYSTEM PERCEPTIONS System perception adoption factors include confidence in the new system and workload and task completion. A. Workload and Task Completion During the first case users were concerned about an increase in workload as a result of information which would not be readily available in the ERP system. This was due to historical client information not being transferred to the new system and so users needed to work from paper and perform additional tasks to complete their work. A user highlighted the following: “…so what we need to do is to print out all the contact on a separate excel spread sheet and make time to update that information…so it is not as if we are going to go back and forth to the new system, so we are going to be working off pages and that is going to be challenge…I will have to stay a little bit later every night and just prioritise clients…” [Respondent 4, case 1]. Management did not discuss an increase of workload with users or assign additional tasks to employees. The users assumed that they would have to do additional work in order to perform their daily task. It was clear that there would be additional tasks and work which would need to be performed in order to get users on track when the new system went ‘live’.

This would be the responsibility of all the sales people since they knew which information they require and for their specific sales. As a result the new implementation would increase the workload for all the users working in the sales department which negatively affected adoption. B. Confidence in the New System Many of the respondents commented on the lack of resources available within their organisation and they felt that the new implementation did not happen at the correct time. Overall the users did not feel that it was financially feasible for the implementation to take place. A second problem identified was regarding the conversion from the legacy system to the new system, which created anxiety among the users. It seemed problematic because of the large amount of data which had to be re-entered into the new system and a one-week parallel conversion would not provide the users with enough time to recapture the information which they needed into the new system. A respondent said the following when they heard that there might not be any parallel conversion: “...at the moment, what we heard and what quite upset the applecart is that the new system and the existing system are not going to be available at the same time...” [respondent 4, case 1]. VI. SYSTEM EXPECTATIONS System expectation adoption factors include value of the new system, shared beliefs among users and the expected improved technology of the new system. A. Improved Technology All users were very positive and excited to move away from the legacy system. A user said the following: “So how does it make me feel? I am excited about it” [respondent 4, case 1]. Most of the initial positive user expectations were created by top management and users overall embraced the idea of the new system. The following quote identifies the expectations of the system pre-implementation: “Yes, and what I like about it, it is a web-based program so I can login wherever and I can access it from an ADSL or a 3G” [respondent 1, case 1]. The new interface of the system was seen to be much more user-friendly and colourful when compared to the previous system and there were expectations of improved technology. Users working on a manual system had expectations of improved technology: “… I think the manual system was a very good system, but as I was saying … technology … we need to be conscious and it is not like the old days...” [case 2, respondent 3]. B. Value of the new System Most of the users in the first case expected the new system to be similar to the previous system or to at least improve the way in which they had been completing their daily tasks. A user stated the following”... but just the little bit I have seen from the new system, it is going to help us and benefit us a great deal” [respondent 3, case 1]. Users overall were positive about the value of the new system, since their previous system

978-1-4673-6412-6/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE

5 was 17 years old and created many problems. A user commented on the following “... It is positive because we as the users of the previous system we have been experiencing a lot of problems with it, so I think…” [respondent 1, case 1]. During the second case, users were not as positive as compared to the first case. A user commented as follows: “… I just hope that the new system will be as good as the old system…” [case 2, respondent 2]. The different roles users had within the organisation and their hierarchy influenced the way they perceived the system and its value. It was clear that not everyone saw the value of the new system. “… It was still interesting, but is very different to what we normally do. It gives a lot of headaches and a lot of problems” [case 2, respondent 3]. However these user expectations were unrealistic. During the training session, user expectations changed within the group once the users were exposed to the new system; “respondent 1, case 1” who has been an employee for 11 years submitted her resignation at the end of the first day of training. As a result, one-third of the employees did not return to the second day of training made available by the consultant. Tension was high during these training sessions, which increased anxiety among users. C. Shared Beliefs among Users The benefit of an Information System in an organisation can be complex and subtle; users form beliefs about these benefits as individuals and shared beliefs with other users and managers [50]. Most of the respondents were very positive and excited to use the new system. Users were ready to move away from the legacy system which they were using since it did not integrate with the rest of the applications within the organisation. Users also clearly realised the benefits that the new system would have for the managers. Improved report writing and increased audit trails would improve management decision-making. “In the new system I believe that a lot more information will be available to the managers…” [respondent 1, case 1]. VII. FACILITATING CONDITIONS Various user constraints related to facilitating conditions were identified. These include limited user communication, hierarchical communication, and training quantity. A. User Communication – frequency and accuracy The researcher observed that all of the respondents had different information as to when the implementation would take place and users were notified at different intervals prior to the implementation. User communication impacted on adoption. In case 1, it was clear that users overall were very positive prior to the implementation. This was as a result of frequent positive communication from the unit manager who was directly involved with the users. However, it was evident that decisions about the implementation and the time frame for the implementation changed constantly. This created mixed ideas and subsequently, inaccurate information was given to the users pre-implementation. During the second case there

was no manager available to communicate with users during the implementation. One user on the shop floor in the factory made the following comment: “…To be honest I was not informed, officially. I just heard about this via the grapevine…” [case 2, respondent 3]. B. Hierarchical Communication This concept refers to the level of user communication within the organisation. It was clear to the researcher that not all the users within the organisations received the same amount of information. Users lower in the hierarchy within the organisations received less information compared to users higher up in the organisation. Users in different departments received different information regarding the implementation. This is clearly a user constraint since this created distortion among users within different departments. During preimplementation, the users each spent time with the on-site consultant. “…we have got training scheduled next week you know the sixth and the seventh to go you know into detail how it is going to work. So far they have just told us the fields and how it is going to make our lives easier” [case 1, respondent 1]. This specific user was an employee in the Accounts department in the organisation which received frequent information regarding the implementation. C. Training Quantity During case 1, the project plan and budget allowed for a planned two-day training session. During the second case, a user stated the following “… A minimum amount of training was given to us in a short space of time” [case 2, respondent 3]. The researcher observed that training of users was given very low priority during both cases; the budget allocation for training was very small compared to the other sections in the project budget such as data imports and set-ups (technical concerns). D. Facilitating Conditions affecting System Expectations During interviews conducted, the one researcher realised the overall excitement among users regarding the new technology was mainly a result of user communication. This causal axial link was therefore added to the model. In the quote below, a user highlights the expected benefit that the new technology would have in their organisation but more importantly how the system will meet her individual need of working from home, which was not possible with the legacy system that was being replaced. "Yes, our manager mentioned that before that this is going to be web-based so when you have to work from home and your child is ill and you have to stay at home, you can still access information and do some work on the system. So that is a plus for me." VIII. IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS The dominant implementation actions that affected user adoption included consultation with users, project control and providing user documentation.

978-1-4673-6412-6/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE

6 A. Consultation with Users It was clear to the researcher that there was confusion regarding the decisions that were being made and that the users had limited opportunity to contribute or voice their opinions regarding top management decisions. The lack of user involvement during the projects contributed to negative emotions among the users. A limited amount of time was used to plan for the business process re-engineering and the changes that would take place post-implementation. A user commented as follows: “…Where am I going to fit in, what more responsibility will be added to the new system? I would also like a brief description of what the new system will do and detail of the system” [case 2, respondent 2]. B. User Documentation No help files were available to the users in either of the implementations which took place. During the first case there was also no user documentation. During the training session and prior to the implementation, users made the following comments regarding the user documentation which was not available to them: “To have a manual would be great. I know that people learn differently, but to have a manual … something someone can refer back to on your own time.” [case 1, respondent 2]. After identifying this constraint the researcher created some user documentation for the 2nd case. However, the lack of help files was still a concern “…There is no help section. There are no manuals on how to solve the problems we face” [case 2, respondent 1]. C. Project Control It was clear during the meetings prior to the first implementation that there was no planning regarding how the business processes would change post-implementation. Most of the planning involved technical issues and decisions regarding the transfer of data from the legacy system to the new database. The system went ‘live’ two weeks after the planned ‘go-live’ date, and as a result users could not remember the training that took place two weeks earlier. Accurate planning and incorporating users during the implementation process would have improved the control of the project and would have reduced user adoption constraints. The management of the host organisation and the consultants did not consider involving the users at this stage, since the financial constraints and budget overruns posed a greater threat to implementation failure. The budget which was planned pre-implementation was overrun and the time that it would take to fix the technical issues were unknown. It was thus not feasible for the organisation to plan for any further training and it was clear that this posed a great threat for the users overall. At this point in time, a user had resigned and a second one was looking for other employment. It would have been appropriate for management to have encouraged users and to have taken a controlling role in the project at this point.

IX. ORGANISATIONAL CONDITIONS Two organisational conditions were found to have a large indirect impact on user adoption, organisational culture and resource constraints. A. Organisational Culture South Africa is one of the most unequal countries in the world, with a culture of high-power distance [51] and a low computer culture. The computer culture of an organisation refers to the company’s history of computing, the employee’s attitudes towards computing and the organisational dependence on computers [2]. A company with a strong computer organisational culture will have better understanding of the application functionality and data management. In the second case high-power distance and low computer culture were strongly prevalent. Users also had poor education and this combined with cultural determinants appeared to contribute to their fear of losing their jobs. Consequently users did not communicate or share their knowledge with one another. This was in contrast to the observations made during the first implementation where users were more transparent and easily assisted fellow colleagues when necessary. B. Resource Constraints Due to resource poverty, the adoption of ERP systems is known to hold a greater risk to SMEs [6]. This was the case in both organisations studied. In both cases the project budget ran out and certain planned activities had to stop. “…I think maybe they could have spent more time on doing that and asking us how we experienced the interface” [Respondent 1, case 1]. C. Organisational Conditions affecting Facilitating Conditions The organisational culture appeared to negatively influence user adoption during the second case therefore this axial link was added to the model. The researcher observed the users for a period of three months. It was clear that the lack of communication between management and users within the organisation increased adoption constraints. The lack of user communication and hierarchical communication was influenced by their culture and resulted in the users on the factory floor and management never communicating. Communication throughout the organisation was very low. The training quantity was also influenced by resource constraints. During case 1, the project plan and budget allowed for a planned two-day training session. At the time the training took place, the project budget was overrun and did not allow for any further consultation with the users. As a result of this, two group sessions took place and no hours or budget was available for individual training. This caused frustration among users. In case 2 the budget was overrun and very little training was given: “a minimum amount of training was given to us in a short space of time…” [Respondent 3, case 2].

978-1-4673-6412-6/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE

7 D. Organisational Conditions affecting Implementation Actions Resource constraints was found to influence the lack of user documentation, therefore this axial link was added to the model. In the first case the project had not considered user documentation. However, in the second case, one researcher had created documentation and had printed this out for some users. However due to resource constraints the organisation was not able to photocopy the documentation so only some users were given this and others had to share.

The three indirect causes of low user adoption were found to be limited reseller value, organisational culture and resource constraints. The limited value resellers offer medium sized organisations in terms of project management, process redesign and change management threatens the successful implementation of ERPs this is further exacerbated when SMEs embark on ERP implementations without the necessary financial resources to be able to afford the implementation. Within the medium sized organisations studied high-power distance and low computing culture was found to be a negative indirect determinant of user adoption.

X. RESELLER VALUE Reseller Value was not an explicit theme identified in the interviews and was not a direct influence on adoption. Hence the theme does not appear in Table III. However the researchers considered why the project in the first case did not even consider the importance of user adoption and the value of user documentation or user consultation in improving user adoption. It clearly appeared to be due to the limited role the reseller played. The ERP system in this case was from a vendor which had recently moved from the small organisational space and was selling in the medium sized space. The implementation model was through Value added resellers (VARs). Implementation partners for ERP systems in the large organisational space add a lot of value in terms of project management and implementation methodologies. However it seems in this research that both resellers limited their value to providing a technical solution with damaging consequences for the organisations involved. XI. MODEL OF USER ADOPTION In line with the literature, this research study found that significant constraints exist in SMEs during ERP system adoption [6]. Fig. 1 shows the categories and concepts identified with the axial coding links added. The underlined concepts highlight those that the researchers felt were most important based on the observations made and feedback from users during case 1 and case 2. These include concepts that emerged from observations as well as the concept counts from interview analysis. The three dominant constraints were user communication, user consultation and expectations of improved value. Unrealistic perceptions of improved value were a strong constraint as the resistance from users was extreme when they realised that their expectations would not be met. During this research, users were not consulted by management and received a limited amount of time with the resellers to discuss customisation which resulted in low user adoption and a technically inferior or even dysfunctional system. Consulting with end users and understanding their expectations is a known means for organisations to minimise user dissatisfaction and poor system quality. Finally, user communication was seen to be the most critical constraint especially when communication was infrequent and inaccurate.

Fig. 1. Factors Influencing User Adoption

XII. CONCLUSION User adoption needs to be addressed in order for ERP implementations to be more successful. Resellers and managers alike should realise that if an ERP system is only technically successful and integrated within an organisation it does not necessarily mean that the entire ERP project will be a success as users need to adopt the system to use it effectively. The outcome of this research is a model of categories and the relationships between them. The theory aims at supporting and enriching the existing body of knowledge on ERP implementations in emerging economies, more particularly for SMEs in a South African context. The model identifies factors which influence user adoption constraints pre-implementation. The 11 direct and 3 indirect user adoption constraints identified pre-implementation were categorized under reseller value, organisational conditions, facilitating conditions, implementation actions, system expectations and system perceptions. The most important user adoption constraint identified was user communication which was influenced by the organisational culture and reseller value, user communication in turn influenced system expectations. The three indirect causes of low user adoption, limited reseller value, organizational culture and resource constraints were argued to be contextual to medium sized organisations in emerging economies. The findings of this research are both of practical and theoretical importance. This research is a starting point to emphasise the large amount of User Adoption constraints faced by users during ERP implementations in emerging economies. These research findings are important to SMEs in a country such as South Africa and other emerging economies.

978-1-4673-6412-6/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE

8 The research findings can assist practitioners (ERP resellers) to facilitate User Adoption in SMEs. The researchers are currently analyzing the adoption factors impacting users during the sustain phase of ERP implementations which is promising to show a deeper understanding of adoption. A similar study examining this subject in an even broader sample of organisations could further serve to extend the research findings. REFERENCES [1] [2] [3] [4]

[5] [6] [7] [8]

[9] [10] [11]

[12] [13]

[14] [15] [16]

[17]

[18]

M.S. Van der Walt, “A classification scheme for the organisation of electronic documents in small, medium and micro enterprises (SMEs),” Knowledge organisation, vol.31, no.1, pp. 26–38, 2004. Z. Huang and P. Palvia, P, “ERP implementation issues in advanced and developing countries,” Business Process Management Journal, vol.7, no.3, pp.276-284, 2002. Y.B. Moon, “Enterprise resource planning (ERP): a review of the literature,” International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 235-264, 2007. C. Hestermann, R.P Anderson and C. Pang, C (2010, Mar), Magic Quadrant for Midmarket and Tier 2-Oriented ERP for Product-Centric Companies. Gartner. [Online]. Available: http://www.gartner.com/technology/media- SAP. J. Esteves, A benefits realisation road-map framework for ERP usage in small and medium-sized enterprises. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, vol. 22, no.1, pp. 25-35, 2009. S. Laukkanen, S. Sarpola and P. Hallikainen, “Enterprise size matters: objectives and constraints of ERP adoption,” Journal of Enterprise Information Management, vol.2, no.3, pp.319–334, 2007. O. Volkoff, D. M Strong and M.B. Elmes, “Technological embeddedness and organisational change,”Organisation Science, vol.18, no.5, pp. 832-848, 2007. R. A. Carvalho, B. Johansson, B and R.S. Manhães, “Agile Software Development for Customizing ERPs. In S. Parthasarathy (Ed.),”Enterprise Information Systems and Implementing IT Infrastructures: Challenges and Issues, pp.20-39. 2010. A. Hawari and R. Heeks, “Explaining ERP failure in a developing country: a Jordanian case study,” Journal of Enterprise Information Management, vol.23, no.2, pp. 135-160, 2010. M. Srivastava and B. J Gips, “Chinese cultural implications for ERP implementation,” Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, vol.4, no.1, pp. 105-113, 2009. J. Anderson and P. Schwager, “SME Adoption of Wireless LAN Technology: Applying the UTAUT Model,” Proceedings of the 7th Annual Conference of the Southern Association for Information Systems, Georgia, USA, 2004, pp. 39-43. G. Gable, G. & G. Stewart. (1999). SAP R/3 implementation issues for small to medium enterprises, Proceedings of the 5th Americas Conference on Information Systems, Milwaukee, WI, pp. 779-81. R. Seethamraju, & J. Seethamraju. (2008). Adoption of ERPs in a Medium-sized Enterprise - A Case Study, Proceedings of the 19th Australasian Conference on Information Systems held in Sydney, Australia A. Pang, Worldwide ERP applications 2004−2008 forecast: first look at top 10 vendors. IDC, vol.1, 31269, pp. 1−14, 2004. ARC Advisory Group. (2008, Feb). Enterprise Resource Planning. Vision experience. [Online]. Available:http://www.arcweb.com/Research/Studies/Pages/ERP.aspx. SAP (2004, May). mySAP ERP: Globalization with Localization. SAP Global. [Online]. Available: http://www.sap.com/belgie/solutions/business/suite/erp/pdf/brouchers/B WP_SB_Global_Local.pdf AMR Research (2007, Mar). ERP Providers Serving the Midmarket. [Online]. Available: http://www.oracle.com/corporate/analyst/reports/ent_apps/mm/erpproviders-servingmidmarket.pdf. IBM, Energy Innovation: Controlling the carbon Footprint. IBM. [Online]. Available: http://www05.ibm.com/za/Africa/pdf/IBM_Mag_Issue_15_low.pdf, 2007.

[19] M. Chang, W. Cheung, C, Cheng and J. Yeung, “Understanding ERP system adoption from the user's perspective”, International Journal of Production Economics, vol.113, no.2, pp. 928- 942, 2008. [20] A. Beaudry and A. Pinsonneault, “Understanding user responses to information technology: A coping model of user adaptation,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 29, no.3, pp. 493-524, 2005. [21] A. M. Aladwani, “Change management strategies for successful ERP implementation,” BPMJ, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 266-275, Oct. 2001. [22] V. Venkatesh. M.G. Morris, G. B Davis, and F.D Davis, “User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view,” MIS Quarterly, vol.27, no.3, pp. 425–478, 2003. [23] P. Ullsperger and H.G. Gille, “The Late Positive Component of the ERP And Adaptation-Level Theory,” Biological Psychology, vol. 26, no.1-3, pp. 299-306, 1988. [24] N. Basoglu, T. Dain and O. Kerimoglu,” Organsitional adoption of enterprise resource planning systems: A conceptual framework,” Journal of High Technology Management Research, vol. 18, no.1, pp. 73-97, 2007. [25] E. T. G. Wang, G., Klein and J.J. Jiang, “ERP Misfit: Country of Origin and Organisational Factors,” Journal of Management Information Systems, vol. 23, no.1, pp. 263-292, 2006. [26] M. Al-Mashari and M. Zairi, “Information and Business Process Equality: The Case of SAP R/3 Implementation,” EJISDC, vol. 2, no.4, pp. 1-15, 2000. [27] M. Kennerley and A. Neely, “Enterprise resource planning: analysing the impact,” Integrated Manufacturing Systems, vol.12, no.2, pp.103– 113, 2001. [28] L.F. Seymour, W. Makanya and S Berrangé,“End-Users' Acceptance of Enterprise Resource Planning Systems: An Investigation of Antecedents,” in Proc. of the 6th Annual ISOnEworld Conference, 2007, Las Vegas, NV. [29] L.F. Seymour and J.D Roode, “Investigating affective response and job impact with ERP adoption,” South African Computer Journal, vol.40, pp.74-82, 2008. [30] Y. Yusuf, A. Gunasekaran, and C. Wu, “Implementation of enterprise resource planning in China”. Tech, vol. 26, no.12, pp.1324–1336, 2006. [31] V.B. Gargeya and C. Brady, “Success and failure factors of adopting SAP in ERP system implementation,” Business Process Management Journal, vol.11, no.5, pp. 501–516, 2005. [32] SME South Africa. (2011, Oct). ERP That Teaches People How To Use It. [Online]. Available: http://www.smesa.co.za/news.php?ERP-thatteaches-people-how-to-use-it-92. [33] E.E. Grandon and J.M. Pearson,” Electronic commerce adoption: an empirical study of small and medium US businesses,” Information & Management, vol.42, no.1, pp. 197–216, 2004. [34] E. T. K. Lim, S.L. Pan and C.W. Tan, “Managing user acceptance towards Enterprise Resource managerial policies,” European Journal of Information Systems, vol.14, no.2, pp. 135–149, 2005. [35] T. Federici, “Factors influencing ERP outcomes in SMEs: a postintroduction assessment”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, vol.22, no.1, pp. 81-98, 2009. [36] K. Hong and Y. Kim, “The critical success factors for ERP implementation: an organisational fit perspective,” Information & Management, vol.40, no.1, pp.25-40, 2002. [37] P. Soja and G. Paliwoda-Pekosz, “What are real problems in enterprise system adoption?” Industrial Management and Data Systems, vol.109, no.5, pp.610-627, 2009. [38] I. Benbasat and R.W. Zmud, “Empirical research in information systems: the practice of relevance,” MIS Quarterly, vol.27, no.2, pp.3– 16, 1999. [39] M. Baskerville, and M.D Meyers, “Special Issue on Action Research in Information Systems: Making IS Research Relevant To Practice Forward,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 329-355, 2004. [40] N.F. Kock, Information systems action research: An applied view of emerging concepts and methods. Springer-Verlag New York Inc, 2007. [41] R. Davison, R., Martinsons, M. G. and N. Kock, “Principles of canonical action research,” Information Systems Journal, vol. 14, no.1, pp. 65-86, 2004. [42] Republic of South Africa. (2003). National Small Business Amendment Act. No 29 2003. Cape Town: Republic of South Africa. [Online]. Available: http://www.info.gov.za/view/DownloadFileAction?id=68002. [43] Republic of South Africa (1995), "White paper on national strategy for the development and promotion of small business in South Africa", Government Gazette, Vol. 357 No.16317.

978-1-4673-6412-6/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE

9 [44] G. Walsham, “Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method”. EJIS, vol.4, pp. 74-81, 1995. [45] M.D Myers and M. Newman, “The qualitative interview in IS research: Examining the craft Information and Organisation”, vol.17, no.1, pp. 2– 26, 2007. [46] R.L. Baskerville, “Investigating information systems with action research,” Communications of the AIS, vol. 2, no.3, pp.1-32. 1999. [47] J. Mingers, John. "Combining IS research methods: towards a pluralist methodology." Information systems research 12.3, 240-259, 2001. [48] R. Baskerville and J. Pries-Heje, “Grounded action research: a method for understanding IT in practice,” Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, vol. 9, no.1, pp.1-23, Jan, 1999. [49] K.M Eisenhardt, “Building theories from case study research, “Academy of Management Review, vol.14, no.4, pp. 532–550. 1989. [50] K. Amoako-Gyampah and A. F. Salam, “An extension of the technology acceptance model in an ERP implementation environment,” Information and Management, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 731–745, 2004. [51] M. Frese, Success and Failure of Microbusiness Owners in Africa: A Psychological Approach; Edited by Michael Frese. Praeger Pub Text, 2000.

978-1-4673-6412-6/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE