Accounting beneﬁts and satisfaction in an ERP environment

International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 14 (2013) 209–234

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of AccountingInformation Systems

Accounting benefits and satisfaction in an ERP environment

Alexandra Kanellou, Charalambos Spathis⁎Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Department of Economics, Division of Business Administration, 54 124, Thessaloniki, Greece

a r t i c l e i n f o

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +30 231099645E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Kan

1467-0895/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2012.12.002

a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 5 July 2011Received in revised form 4 December 2012Accepted 11 December 2012

Over the past decade, organizations all over the world have adoptedenterprise resource planning (ERP) systems. There has been littleresearch at a global scale regarding the accounting benefits of adoptingenterprise systems. Moreover, there are virtually no studies thatexamine in detail the relation between accounting benefits and ERPuser satisfaction. Sutton (2006) addressed the need for empiricalresearch on the impact of ERP in terms of accounting advantages anddisadvantages. The principal aim of our study was to investigate theaccounting benefits that the adoption of an ERP system by companiesmay entail in relation to ERP user satisfaction. This study exploredthe impact that the ERP system has had on accounting informationand practice. This study also examined whether or not there aredifferences between accountants and IT professionals concerning howeach group assesses ERP accounting benefits and ERP user satisfaction.The participants of this study comprised 175 accountants and 96 ITprofessionals from 193 companies in Greece. The empirical evidenceconfirms a number of accounting benefits derived from ERP systemsparticularly for accounting process. No statistically significant differ-ences were found between the perceptions of accountants and ITprofessionals concerning ERP accounting benefits. Furthermore, thisresearch identifies factors related to accounting benefits and ERP costwhich affect the level of ERP user satisfaction. The implications of theseresults for practice and research are explored. The findings of this studywill be of value to any companies considering the inclusion of theiraccounting techniques and operations in an ERP system. Furthermore,the results of this studywill provide stimulus for consequent research inthe field in order to further examine and account for the accountingbenefits that can occur from ERP system implementation as well as theeffect of those benefits on ERP user satisfaction.

© 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:ERPAccountingBenefitsAccountantsIT professionalsSatisfactionGreece

2.ellou), [email protected] (C. Spathis)

All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2012.12.002

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2012.12.002

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/14670895

210 A. Kanellou, C. Spathis / International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 14 (2013) 209–234

1. Introduction

The most important and substantial information technology project that interacts with the accountingfunction in the last 15 years has been the implementation of enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems.Enterprise resource planning systems integrate several business procedures, applications and departmentswhile sharing one database and assist companies in responding to real-time information (Stefanou, 2002;Nicolaou, 2003; Rom and Rohde, 2006; Spathis, 2006). ERP systems have significantly changed the waybusiness data is collected, stored, disseminated and used. This change in information processing orientationaffects the accounting process (Sutton, 2006). Nevertheless, the focus of the relevant literature has been onERP systems in general and there is limited published scientific evidence on the ERP implementationprocesses and their effects on accounting in particular (Granlund andMalmi, 2002; Sutton, 2006). Nicolaouand Bhattacharya (2008) pointed out that “firms which implement an ERP system must be conscious ofand circumspect enough to realize that ERPs are different from other IT systems. They bring about globalchanges to firms’ business processes and as such their deployment presents not a finale but the startof post-implementation activities.” Overall, it seems that there is a positive relationship between ERPimplementation and operational efficiencies (Matolscy et al., 2005; Nicolaou and Bhattacharya, 2008).

However, there are also studies in the recent literature which are more critical concerning ERPimplementation and business performance. Davenport (1998) refers to companies (such as FoxMeyerDrug,Mobile Europe and Dell Computer) which faced problems (financial, organizational and technical) with theimplementation of their ERP systems. He states that some of these problems may have occurred due toenormous technical challenges of implementing enterprise systems, but even though these challenges may begreat, they are not the main reason for ERP implementation failure. He argues that the biggest problems arebusiness problems and that companies often fail to combine their business needs with the technologicalimperatives of the system. Dillard et al. (2005) argue that ERP systems include significant potential for“administrative evil,” because they have the ability to change organizational climate, structures and roles. Theystate that once an ERP system is introduced, organizational practices are replacedwith industry “best practices”which are already part of the software and that organizations can lose their unique characteristics and goals.Saatcioglu (2009) tried to identify the effects of benefits, barriers and risks on user satisfaction in ERP projectsand suggested that although ERPs provide a lot of benefits, there are barriers that businesses need to overcomeduring ERP implementations and that if these barriers are not overcome they can become drivers of risks.

These contradictory success and failure outcomes combined with the fact that there is no consensuson the impact of ERP implementation related to business performance is the reason why researchers,practitioners and academics are increasingly interested in analyzing factors which determine ERP successand ERP user satisfaction. Ifinedo (2007) suggests that there is no global agreement on the perception ofbenefits that an ERP systemmay entail and on specific factors which are critical for ERP success. In order toexamine accounting benefits and organizational performance in relation to ERP adoption, researchers haveconducted surveys looking either at direct process measures such as flexibility, accounting reporting,integration, decision-making (Granlund and Malmi, 2002; Scapens and Jazayeri, 2003; Spathis, 2006) orlooking at financial measures such as ROA, ROI, ROS, OIS (Nicolaou, 2004).

Moreover, there are many studies in the relevant literature that attempt to assess perceptionsregarding ERP success and performance between different stakeholder groups and choose IT staff as one ofthese groups (Sedera et al., 2004; Chang, 2006; Ifinedo and Nahar, 2007). However, there are no studieswhich examine perceptions regarding ERP accounting benefits and ERP user satisfaction between ITprofessionals and accountants. This study represents an attempt to fill this gap. Accountants have beenchosen as a group in the present study because previous research has shown that this group is affectedfrom ERP implementation and, also, the accounting profession is being transformed due to integratedtechnologies (Scapens and Jazayeri, 2003; Rom and Rohde, 2006; Järvenpää, 2007). The second group thathas been chosen in the present study comprises IT professionals who seem to be critical actors in modernorganizations as the use of information systems is growing and organizations realize the importanceof these systems in their operations and the importance of the IT expertise (Ifinedo and Nahar, 2007).Sutton (2006) addressed the need for empirical research on the impact of ERPs in terms of accountingadvantages. Overall, there has been little research at a global scale regarding the accounting benefits ofadopting ERP, how these perceived benefits are evaluated by different groups such asmanagers, accountants,IT personnel, CIOs, etc. and the interaction of such accounting benefits with ERP user satisfaction.

211A. Kanellou, C. Spathis / International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 14 (2013) 209–234

The principal purpose of our study was to investigate the accounting benefits that the adoption ofan ERP system by companies in Greece may entail as wells as the interaction of accounting benefits withERP user satisfaction level. Another objective of the present study was to examine whether or not thereare differences between accountants and IT professionals concerning how each group estimates ERPaccounting benefits and user satisfaction. In order to fulfill the objectives of the present study, we drew ontheories analyzed and discussed in previous studies in the area of accounting information and built uponresearch instruments proposed and developed by researchers in relevant studies. We also attempted tocombine proposed research instruments in order to explore new relationships between dimensions andvariables related to ERP benefits and ERP user satisfaction.

The findings of this study will be of value to any companies that are considering the inclusion of theiraccounting techniques and operations in an ERP system. Furthermore, the results of this study will providestimulus for consequent research in the field in order to further examine and account for the accountingbenefits that can occur from an ERP system implementation andwhether or not these benefits have impacton ERP user satisfaction.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 begins with a review of previous researchin the field and presents the research questions of our study. Section 3 justifies and describes themethodology employed for our study. Section 4 reports and analyses the results of our study. Finally, thepaper concludes with a summary; any limitations that apply to the particular research are addressed andsuggestions for future research are included.

2. Previous research

2.1. ERP and accounting benefits

In the relevant literature, there are research studies focusing on the interaction between ERP systemsand accounting. Spathis and Constantinides (2004) examined the reasons behind enterprises’ decision toreplace the traditionally information systems (IS) with completed ERP systems and explored the changesthat occur in terms of accountant applications. The results illustrated that the threemost importantmotivesthat led to ERP adoption were increased demand for real-time information, information generation fordecision-making and need for integration of applications. The most important benefits for accounting dueto ERP implementation were increased flexibility in information generation, increased integration ofaccounting applications, improved quality of reports – statement of accounts, improved decisions based ontimely and reliable accounting information and reduction of time for closure of annual accounts.

Research that has focused on the benefits derived from ERP adoption has shown that the implementationof these systems is usually followed by improvements of the decision-making process and enterpriseintegration (Colmenares, 2009). In the literature, there are also additional studies which indicate that ERPsystems improve the decision making process in an organization (Spathis, 2006; Kanellou and Spathis, 2007).Other benefits derived from ERP implementation are more accurate reports – statements of accounts andimproved service of accounts in accounting tasks (Velcu, 2007; Colmenares, 2009). Furthermore, Brazel andDang (2008) suggested that ERP implementation appears to reduce reporting lags. Gattiker and Goodhue(2004) analyzed the benefits that a company which had implemented an ERP system was experiencing.They pointed out that the system resulted in many benefits for the organization such as improvementsin coordination within the enterprise, and eliminations of reports and data entry chores. Chang (2006) notedthat ERP applications link traditional business functions like finance, production, warehousing and sales into asingle integrated system based on a shared database, eliminating multiple data entry and ensuring. Olhagerand Selldin (2003) suggest that companies which adopted an ERP system are experiencing improvementsin performancemainly from the information perspective. They explain that ERP implementation improves theavailability of information, the integration of business procedures and functions and thequality of information.

According to recent studies, the implementation of ERP systems affects the accounting processesand the accountants’ role. Booth et al. (2000) examined to which extent the application of an ERP systemcan lead to the adoption of new accounting practices by an enterprise. It was found that ERP systemsconstitute sources of data for new accounting practices and are able to support these practices. Morespecifically, Rom and Rohde (2006) found that ERP systems seem to be of assistance in terms of thecollection of data and the organizational breadth ofmanagement accounting. Thiswas further confirmed by


Järvenpää (2007), who noted that such systems lead to the adoption of new management accountingpractices and accountants are able to carry out routine activities more effectively, to handle large databasesmore quickly and to report in a faster and more flexible way. Granlund and Malmi (2002) also tried toexplore the effects of integrated, enterprise-wide information systems on management accounting and onmanagement accountants’ role. Their findings indicated that the most important benefit of ERPs related toaccounting, was the improved mass processing of documents, which gives management accountants moretime to focus on analysis and business support processes. These findings are also consistentwith the results ofScapens and Jazayeri's (2003) study, who found that the work of management accountants has been changeddue to ERP implementations froma traditional role (focusing on accounting activities) to amore interpretativerole and has put accountants in the position of consultants and analysts. The findings of another study(Hyvönen et al., 2008) which presented the development of a management accounting control system,suggested that IT accounting solutions in general force accountants to not only study the logic of the solution,but also to invent ways of combining accounting and management rationalities. Newman and Westrup(2005) also, using empirical evidence, demonstrated that even though the relationship of accountants andtechnologies such as ERPs has become increasingly intertwined, accountants continue to use their positionto reshape and advance their professional expertise. Grabski et al. (2011) noted that ERP systems are atransformative force on the accounting profession and that as organizations learn how to use these systemsand obtain value from them, there will be a significant change in the role of management accountants, thetasks they perform and the skills required by them. Against this backdrop, we are in the position to argue thatERP systems seem to have an effect on the accounting processes and on the accountants’ role.

O'Leary (2004) tried to analyse and measure ERP system benefits and whether or not they vary acrossdifferent industries. The benefits list that he used and the classification of benefits in tangible and intangiblethat he adopted were developed by Deloitte Consulting (1998) study. O'Leary (2004) added some additionalbenefits on the list. Some benefits under investigation were inventory reduction, financial close cyclereduction, personnel reduction, management improvements, IT cost reduction, on-time delivery, information/visibility, integration, flexibility, better decisions, financial controls, new reports – reporting capability.

In a study by Shang and Seddon (2002), a comprehensive framework for assessing the benefits derivedfrom ERP systems is proposed. This framework tries to classify ERP benefits into five dimensions: operational,managerial, strategic, IT infrastructure and organizational. Esteves (2009) based on this classification inorder to develop a benefits realization road-map for ERP usage in the context of small and medium-sizedenterprises (SMEs). His analysis suggests that ERP benefits realization dimensions are interconnected andthat managers should perceive this realization as a continuum cycle along the ERP post implementationperiod. Some of the benefits thatwere examined by Esteves (2009)were cycle time reduction, cost reduction,quality improvement, improved decision making, support organizational changes, increase IT infrastructurecapability and business flexibility.

Spathis (2006) adopted also Shang and Seddon's (2002) benefits classification in order to classifyand examine accounting benefits derived from ERP adoption. Spathis (2006) classified enterprise systems(ES) benefits into organizational benefits, operational benefits, managerial benefits and IT benefits. In hisanalysis, he hypothesized that perceived accounting benefits could be explained by the following variables:the number of reasons for ES implementation, the number of ES modules, ES cost as a percentage of salesand the company's total asset. According to this survey, the most important accounting benefits that occurfor a company due to the inclusion of the accounting department in the ERP system are increased flexibilityin information generation, increased integration of applications, improved quality of reports – statementsof accounts, improved decisions based on timely and reliable accounting information and reduction of timefor closure of annual accounts. These results are consistent with those of the Spathis and Ananiadis (2005)study and the Kanellou and Spathis (2007) study.

Nicolaou (2004) also tried to measure financial performance after the implementation of an ERPsystem using a set of eight different financial indicators, such as ROA (return on assets), ROI (return oninvestment), ROS (return on sales) and OIS (operating income over sales). He also measured four ERPimplementation indicators and one of themwas the “type of module implemented.” He classified modulesinto two categories: primary modules and support modules. The results of his study indicated that thetype of modules implemented had an effect on financial performance after ERP implementation. AlthoughERP benefits have been examined in the past, their direct impact on the accounting process has not yetbeen explicitly examined.


We can conclude from the relevant literature that enterprise resource planning systems’ implemen-tation has an impact on the accounting department of the enterprise. More specifically, ERP systemsseem to increase flexibility, integrate accounting applications and processes and improve gathering andprocessing of data. Nevertheless, there is a need for empirical research on the impact of ERP in terms ofaccounting advantages (Sutton, 2006). Summarized findings from previous literature analyzed in thissubsection regarding ERP and accounting benefits are provided in Table 1.

As a theoretical foundation for our research, we adopted Shang and Seddon's (2002) benefitsclassification and we compiled an accounting benefits list based on the ERP benefits lists adopted ordeveloped by Deloitte Consulting (1998), O'Leary (2004), Spathis (2006) and Esteves (2009). In ourbenefits list, we also added some other benefits which can be regarded as characteristics of an ERP system,such as “ERP is more flexible in general,” “ERP gathers data more quickly.” These items were also used byresearchers as benefits and factors that affect system performance and user satisfaction (Doll andTorkzadeh, 1988; DeLone and McLean, 2003). Although these benefits seem to be characteristics of an ERPsystem and not necessarily established accounting benefits, we believe that since an ERP system integratesall business functions, its characteristics affect every process of an organization, and thus affect also theaccounting processes.

Thus, the present study examines a complete list of ERP benefits related to accounting that theimplementation of an ERP system may entail and tries to identify specific factors derived from thosebenefits. More specifically the first research question of our study in relation to ERP system and accountingbenefits is as follows:

RQ1: What are the accounting benefits derived from the adoption of ERP systems and which are the mainfactors into which these benefits could be categorized?

Table 1ERP and accounting benefits.

Main objectives/findings Authors

Important motives for ERP adoption: need for real-time informationand integration, information generation for decision making

Spathis and Constantinides, 2004

ERPs improve decision-making process and enterprise integration Spathis and Ananiadis, 2005; Spathis, 2006;Kanellou and Spathis, 2007; Colmenares, 2009

ERPs produce more accurate reports/statements of accounts, improveservice of accounting tasks and reduce reporting lags

Velcu, 2007; Brazel and Dang, 2008;Colmenares, 2009

ERPs result in elimination of reports and multiple data entry Gattiker and Goodhue, 2004; Chang, 2006ERPs improve information quality Olhager and Selldin, 2003ERPs constitute sources of data for new accounting practices Booth et al., 2000ERPs help accountants carry out routine activities more effectively andgive accountants more time for analysis and business support processes

Granlund and Malmi, 2002; Rom andRohde, 2006; Järvenpää, 2007

Even though the relationship between accountants and ERPs has becomeintertwined, accountants continue to use their position to advancetheir expertise

Newman and Westrup, 2005

ERPs are a transformative force on the accounting profession and changeaccountants’ role from a traditional one to a more interpretative andhave put accountants on the position of consultants/analysts

Scapens and Jazayeri, 2003; Hyvönenet al., 2008; Grabski et al., 2011

Lists regarding ERP benefits were developed and used by researchers Deloitte Consulting, 1998; O'Leary, 2004;Spathis, 2006; Esteves, 2009

A comprehensive framework which classifies ERP benefits into operational,managerial, strategic, IT infrastructure and operational

Shang and Seddon, 2002

Researchers based on Shang and Seddon's (2002) classification in order toexamine benefits derived from ERPs

Esteves, 2009; Spathis, 2006

Researchers tried to assess financial performance after ERP adoption withfinancial indicators (ROA, ROI, ROS, OIS)

Nicolaou, 2004

Researchers used ERP characteristics (“ERP is more flexible in general,”“ERP gathers data more quickly”) as benefits/factors which affectERP performance and satisfaction

Doll and Torkzadeh, 1988; DeLone andMcLean, 2003

There is need for empirical research on the impact of ERP in terms ofaccounting advantages/benefits

Sutton, 2006


2.2. Differences in perspectives between accountants and IT professionals in an ERP environment

An enterprise resource planning system, unlike a traditional information system, includes manydifferent users/stakeholders, who have multiple and often diverse objectives and interests. Freeman(1984) tried to present and analyze the “stakeholder theory” and stated: “I have claimed that there is aneed for an inclusive definition of stakeholder, including as stakeholders, those groups who can affect orare affected by the achievement of an organization's purpose.” Researchers have noted the importance ofexamining the effectiveness or success of IT from multiple evaluator viewpoints within organizations(Hamilton and Chervany, 1981; Myers et al., 1997). Hamilton and Chervany (1981) argued that theevaluation of information systems’ effectiveness is a difficult task due to their multidimensionality, theirqualitative and quantitative aspects and the multiple and often diverse evaluator viewpoints. Myerset al. (1997) addressed the need for defining and evaluating performance, success and productivity ofinformation systems. Their study tried to update already existing models of IS success, so that thesemodels would include IS success dimensions related to service quality and work group impact and providea comprehensive method for organizing various measures of IS success. Although the importance ofexamining perceptions of information system success at multiple levels within organizations has beendiscussed, there is no universal agreement on which exactly are the distinctive stakeholders or in otherwords the “employment cohorts” (Sedera et al., 2004). Freeman (1984) described various stakeholdergroups of an organization, among which he also pointed out “employees.”

The stakeholder theory can be used to better understand and evaluate internal and external change(Freeman, 1984). As mentioned earlier in this study, enterprise resource planning systems’ implemen-tation has an impact on the accounting department of an enterprise. Sutton (2006) noted that ERP systemshave significantly changed the way business data is collected, stored, disseminated and used and that thischange in information processing orientation affects the accounting process. In addition, researchers havefound that the implementation of ERPs change the accounting process and the accountants’ role (as hasalready been discussed in Section 2.1). Due to the implementation of integrated technologies, suchas ERPs, accountants are asked to take on a broader role in order to report on non-financial measures,audit information systems, implement management controls within information systems and providemanagement consultant services (Grabski et al., 2011).

The relationship between information technology and management accounting seems to be quitecomplex and unpredictable (Sutton, 2006). Business and control functions should be studied in relation totechnology, in order for researchers and practitioners to understand the underlying infrastructure and the fullpotential and capability of ERP systems (Dechow and Mouritsen, 2005). In the recent literature, there arestudies such as those of Dechow andMouritsen (2005) and Quattrone and Hopper (2005)which contributedto the field based upon Actor-Network Theory in order to illustrate the variety of people and procedures thatare affected by ERPs’ adoption. Quattrone and Hopper (2005) attempted to gain insights into how ERPeliminates distance and its relation to management control. In order to meet their research purpose, theyinterviewed personnel in different locations and collected relevant documentation. Calàs and Smircich(1999) suggest that: “actor network theory provides a very good way of telling stories about “what happensout there” that defamiliarizes what we may otherwise take for granted (p. 663).” Granlund (2011) pointedout that the studiesmentioned above and applied actor-network theory: “…are after the widermanagementcontrol implications regardless of whether they are directly related to accounting controls or not. They arealso explicitly interested in other users of accounting related information than just the ones typicallypresumed…Such contributions open a new avenue for research by pointing out the limitations of casualassumptions regarding IT-MCS relationships (p. 10).” In this study we argue that different actors’ perceptionsregarding technological changes could add to knowledge and understanding of such issues.

Some other studies in the field focus on “hybridization” and on the role of accountants and othergroups of professionals (Caglio, 2003; Scapens and Jazayeri, 2003; Newman andWestrup, 2005). Granlund(2011) defines “hybridization” as a situation in which professional groups such as IT specialists and othernon-accountants start dealing with accounting processes because of new technology adoption includingERPs. He also suggests that it would be beneficial to have some direct link to the field of accountingpractice both from the accounting personnel and IT/IS personnel perspectives.

In addition, Rose and Kræmmergaard (2006), drawing on previous adaptations of discourse theory,provided a theoretical explanation for how one dominant technological discourse could be replaced by


another in an organization. They found that the new technological discourse enhanced the organizationalactors to perceive value in their work. They identified technology discourses as: “discourses pertaining to atechnology or computer system whether at an individual, group, organizational or societal level (p. 220).”They also suggest that congruence between perceptions, actions and outcomes could result in improvementsof technological practise.

In this study, we have taken as our point of departure “stakeholder theory,” “actor-network theory,”“discourse theory” and “hybridization” and tried to assess accounting benefits and user satisfaction fromthe perspective of two different groups/actors of employees/stakeholders.

We attempted to illustrate hidden potential and assumptions behind ERP implementation that mayprove interesting, concerning the degree of satisfaction of organizational actors with the technologies theyuse. Rose and Kræmmergaard (2006) suggested that research which focuses on organizational change andactors’ perceptions of evolving conditions is likely to reveal new and challenging insights and contributeto accounting information research. Furthermore, such research may urge functionalist researchers toreconsider and improve the prerequisites behind their work.

Accountants are chosen because (as mentioned above) previous research has shown that this group isaffected from ERP implementation and the accounting profession is being transformed due to integratedtechnologies. Grabski et al. (2009) note that management accountants are the appropriate users toevaluate and construct post-implementation benefits, tracking processes as part of the implementation.The second group that is chosen in the present study is IT professionals. IT professionals seem to be criticalactors in modern organizations. The reason why behind this is that the use of information systems isgrowing and organizations realize the importance of these systems in their operations and the importanceof IT expertise (Ifinedo and Nahar, 2007). Even though in the present study the benefits under examinationare exclusively related to accounting in certain cases, IT professionals were able to evaluate those, due tothe following factors: IT professionals in Greece have knowledge of financial issues because they often worktogether with accountants in an enterprise. Moreover, accounting and economics courses feature atundergraduate and postgraduate level, as part of computer science degrees offered by Greek universities.Thus, we are in the position to argue that IT professionals could comprehend and respond appropriately to thequestions included in the questionnaire of this study. Rose and Kræmmergaard (2006)mentioned that the ITdepartment's function changed frombeing solely technical to being both technical and business-oriented dueto ERP implementation. Furthermore,many studies in the literaturewhich try to assess perceptions regardingERP success and performance between different stakeholder groups choose IT staff as one of these groups(Sedera et al., 2004; Chang, 2006; Ifinedo and Nahar, 2007). However, there are no studies that examineperceptions regarding ERP accounting benefits and ERP user satisfaction between IT professionals andaccountants. This study tries to fill this gap in research.

We will now take a look at research studies which tried to examine differences in perspectives relatedto ERP benefits and satisfaction between different groups of users. Chang (2006) compared IS integrationin high-tech organizations from the IT and general management perspectives. All the organizations thatparticipated in the study had implemented an ERP system. The results demonstrated that IT and generalmanagement perceptions of IS implementation were very similar. Furthermore, ITs’ overall importantassessments of business functionsweremore strongly correlatedwith their overall level of implementationand they tended to rate system benefits and system reliability more highly.

Sayed (2006) focused on the mechanisms and dynamics of expertise constitution where it isunderstood as an accomplishment or achievement. He tried to study the interrelation of accountants andICTs in a modern technology environment. He found that there is no dilution of expertise in relation toICTs. Rather, some accountants are promoting themselves as a group of relevant experts in derivingbenefits from these systems. The results of this study indicate that accountants see ERPs as a chance forthem to expand their skills and knowledge. The objective of another study was to determine whetherdifferences exist in perceptions related to ERP performance between two organizational stakeholdergroups: business managers and IT professionals. The results indicated that no significant statisticaldifferences exist between the two groups with the exception of one dimension: ERP success, i.e. vendor/consultant quality (Ifinedo and Nahar, 2007). Esteves (2009) also tried to examine the differences in theperceptions of ERP benefits – related to the point of ERP post-implementation time – between businessmanagers and MBA students with work experience in SMEs. The results showed that the differencebetween the two data samples was not very significant in any ERP benefits dimension.


On the other hand, there are previous studies which tried tomeasure ERP satisfaction level among usersfrom different departments and found some statistically significant differences. Holsapple et al. (2006)tried to determine ERP success, in terms of user characteristics, ERP fitness factors and user satisfaction.This study indicated that ERP user satisfaction among management users was greater than amongnon-management users. Longinidis and Gotzamani (2009) also found that users from network departmentare less satisfied with ERP than are users from other departments (sales and supportive). They stated thatERP users from different departments use different functional modules and interact with differentinterfaces of the main ERP system. Table 2 highlights the most important contributions in the literatureconcerning perceptions between different groups/actors/stakeholders regarding technological changes.

Although previous studies have examined differences in perceptions concerning benefits and usersatisfaction, there are no academic studies that assess any differences in the perceptions betweenaccountants and ITs particularly in terms of accounting benefits and ERP satisfaction level related to ERPperformance. Thus, our study which investigates the accounting benefits and user satisfaction associatedwith the ERP application of an enterprise is based on empirically researched evidence. To this end, thesecond research question that the present study tries to investigate is as follows:

RQ2: Are there any differences in the responses between accountants and IT professionals concerninghow each group estimates ERP accounting benefits and ERP user satisfaction?

2.3. ERP and user satisfaction

Ιn the relevant literature, there are many studies which try to evaluate the success and overallperformance of an information system in general or an ERP system in particular through the measurement

Table 2Differences in perspectives between accountants and IT professionals in an ERP environment.


It is important to examine the success of IT from multiple evaluator viewpointswithin organizations

Hamilton and Chervany, 1981; Myerset al., 1997

ERPs force accountants to take on a broader role (report on non-financial measures,audit information systems) and thus their role becomes hybrid

Caglio, 2003; Scapens and Jazayeri,2003; Newman and Westrup, 2005;Grabski et al., 2009; Grabski et al., 2011

The relationship between IT and management accounting is complex and unpredictable Sutton, 2006Business and control functions should be studied in relation to technologyto understand the underlying infrastructure and full potential of ERP

Dechow and Mouritsen, 2005

IT professionals are critical actors in modern organizations because the use ofIS is growing and organizations realize the importance of IT expertise

Ifinedo and Nahar, 2007

IT and general management perceptions of IS implementation and ERP success are similar Chang, 2006; Sayed, 2006ERP user satisfaction level is greater among management users than amongnon-management users

Holsapple et al., 2006

Users from network department are less satisfied with ERP than are users fromother departments

Longinidis and Gotzamani, 2009

The stakeholder theory can be used to better evaluate internal and external change Freeman, 1984There was no statistically significant difference regarding the perceptions of ERP benefitsbetween business managers and MBA students with work experience in SMEs

Esteves, 2009

There is no universal agreement on which exactly are the distinctive stakeholdersor “employment cohorts”

Sedera et al., 2004

Researchers based on Actor Network Theory to illustrate the variety of peoplewhich are affected by ERP

Quattrone and Hopper, 2005

Studies which based upon Actor Network Theory in order to illustrate the varietyof people and procedures that are affected by ERPs adoption open a new avenuefor research and defamiliarize what we may otherwise take for granted

Calàs and Smircich, 1999;Granlund, 2011

Based on discourse theory, researchers suggested that when research focuses onorganizational change and actors’ perceptions of evolving conditions, then suchresearch is likely to provide challenging insights and contribute to accountinginformation research

Rose and Kræmmergaard, 2006

It would be beneficial to have direct link to the field of accounting practice both fromthe accounting personnel and IT/IS personnel perspectives

Granlund, 2011


of perceived user satisfaction. Somers et al. (2003) describes user satisfaction as the extent to which a userperceives that a system meets his or her information requirements. They note that user satisfaction withinformation systems is one of the most important determinants of the success of those systems. DeLoneand McLean (1992) suggested that there are at least three reasons why “user satisfaction” has been widelyused as a measure of IS success: First, is the fact that “user satisfaction” has a high degree of face validity.Second, is the development of reliable and appropriate measurement tools for this variable. The thirdreason is the weaknesses of alternative existing tools.

In 1983, Bailey and Pearson developed an instrument in order to assess “user satisfaction” withinformation systems, consisting of 39 items (such as accuracy, timeliness, reliability, precision, completeness,perceived utility, documentation, security of data etc.). Based on the work of Bailey and Pearson (1983), Iveset al. (1983) proposed a revised instrument consisting of 13 items, which were included in three factormeasures: information product, IS staff and service, and user knowledge and involvement. Some years later,Doll and Torkzadeh (1988) building upon Ives et al. (1983) instrument developed a 12-item surveyinstrument for measuring “user satisfaction.” These 12 items were summarized in five dimensions: content,accuracy, format, ease of use and timeliness. When companies started implementing enterprise resourceplanning systems, many researchers (such as Somers et al., 2003; Zviran et al., 2005; Law and Ngai, 2007;Wuand Wang, 2007) based on Doll and Torkzadeh's (1988) instrument in order to evaluate and examine usersatisfaction with ERP systems. Most of these studies examine “user satisfaction” as a dependent variable.Somers et al. (2003) retestedDoll and Torkzadeh's (1988) instrument and the results of their study confirmedthat this instrument maintains its psychometric stability when applied to users of ERP application software.Zviran et al. (2005) tried to examine the relations between user satisfaction and perceived usefulness inthe ERP context. Their study provided validation for Doll and Torkzadeh's (1988) instrument and found thatperceived usefulness is one of the factors affecting user satisfactionwith anERP system.WuandWang (2007)agree that user satisfaction is an evaluation mechanism for determining system success and thus their studylooked at key-user satisfaction as a means of determining system success. Their study took place in Taiwanand 205 questionnaires were completed by key-users of ERP systems in a large number of companies. Theresults indicated that there is a relationship between key-user satisfaction and perceived system success.Their research identified that user's satisfaction evaluation for ERP system is multidimensional and is relatedto “ERP product,” “contractor service” and “knowledge and involvement.” Law and Ngai (2007) examinedthe relationships between the success of ERP system implementation, extent of business improvement andorganizational performance. Theymeasured “user satisfaction” by using Doll and Torkzadeh's (1988) 12-iteminstrument.

In 1992, DeLone and McLean proposed an IS success model consisting of six major dimensions.They describe their model as follows: “system quality and information quality singularly and jointly affectboth use and user satisfaction. (…) Use and user satisfaction are direct antecedents of individual impact; and,lastly, this impact on individual performance should eventually have some organizational impact.” Ten yearslater DeLone andMcLean (2003) proposed refinements to theirmodel. Particularly, they proposed amodel inwhich “information quality,” “system quality” and “service quality” affect “intention to use/use” and “usersatisfaction.”Additionally, “intention to use/use” and “user satisfaction” affect the newvariable “net benefits.”Their model includes arrows to demonstrate proposed associations among success dimensions. In particular,there is an arrowwhich demonstrates a twoway association between “user satisfaction” and “net benefits.” Inour study we are trying to explore the effects of benefits on user satisfaction.

Based on diffusion of innovation theory (DOI) and information system (IS) success theory, Bradfordand Florin (2003) tested Delone and McLean's model and proposed a revised one. DOI is a theory whichexplains and predicts rates of IT innovation implementations (Rogers, 1983). DOI factors are innovation,organizational characteristics and environmental characteristics. ThemodelwhichBradford and Florin (2003)proposed suggests that DOI factors will influence ERP success from two perspectives: “firm performance” and“user satisfaction.” Their model proposes that user satisfaction moderates the relationships between DOIfactors and perceived firm performance after ERP adoption.

Calisir and Calisir (2004) claim that while much money has been spent on the implementation ofERP systems, previous research has demonstrated that potential users may not use them. They conducteda survey which aimed at examining various usability factors affecting end-user satisfaction with ERPsystems. Data were gathered from 51 end-users in 24 companies. The results showed that perceivedusefulness as well as learnability are determinants of end-user satisfaction with ERP systems. Additionally,


perceived ease of use and system capability affect perceived usefulness, while users’ guidance influencesboth perceived usefulness and learnability.

Koh et al. (2006) investigated ERP adoption by Greek companies and explored the effects of uncertaintyon the performance of these systems through six case studies. They found that thereweremajor differencesbetween ERP adoption in Greek companies and companies in other countries. In Greece, the internalenterprise's culture, resources available, skills of employees and the way ERP systems were perceived,treated and integrated within the enterprise and in the supply chain play a critical role in determining thesuccess/ failure of the adoption of ERP systems.

Saatcioglu (2009) tried to identify the effects of benefits, barriers and risks on user satisfaction in ERPprojects. He found that the five most important benefits which determine user satisfaction are “bettermanagement and controlling functions,” “financial flow controls,” “information flow controls,” “increasedIT infrastructure capability” and “control of flow of goods.” Longinidis and Gotzamani (2009) also,identified three factors which seem to affect satisfaction of ERP users: Interaction with the IT department,pre-implementation processes and ERP product and adaptability. Floropoulos et al. (2010) also, conducteda survey in Greece, concerning the success of TAXIS (The Greek taxation information system) from theperspective of expert employees, who work in public taxation agencies. The model developed includedthe constructs of information, system and service quality perceived usefulness and user satisfaction. Theirresearch was based on DeLone and McLean's (2003) model. The findings indicated that informationquality and service quality are significant determinants of employees’ satisfaction. Table 3 providessummarized findings from previous literature regarding ERP and user satisfaction.

There are virtually no academic studies which examine ERP user satisfaction particularly in relation toaccounting benefits derived from ERP systems. Furthermore, there are virtually no studies which examineERP user satisfaction in relation to the modules that companies operate in an ERP environment and inrelation to the ERP cost. In order for ERP systems to be effectively used in the business environment, abetter understanding of accounting benefits and user satisfaction need to be developed.

Table 3ERP and user satisfaction.


User satisfaction is one important determinant of IS and ERP success DeLone and McLean, 1992; Somers et al., 2003Researchers have developed and revised research instruments inorder to assess user satisfaction with information systems

Bailey and Pearson, 1983; Ives et al., 1983; Dolland Torkzadeh, 1988; DeLone and McLean, 1992

Many researchers based on Doll and Torkzadeh's (1988) instrumentto evaluate user satisfaction with ERP systems

Somers et al., 2003; Zviran et al., 2005;Law and Ngai, 2007; Wu and Wang, 2007

Perceived usefulness is one of the factors affecting user satisfactionwith ERP system

Zviran et al., 2005

There is a relationship between key user satisfaction and perceivedsystem success

Wu and Wang, 2007

Researchers also based on DeLone and McLean's (1992, 2003) modelto examine user satisfaction with ERP systems

Bradford and Florin, 2003; Floropoulos et al., 2010

User satisfaction moderates the relationships between DOI factorsand perceived firm performance after ERP adoption

Bradford and Florin, 2003

Information quality and service quality are significant determinantsof employees’ satisfaction

Floropoulos et al., 2010

Perceived usefulness and learnability are determinants of end-usersatisfaction with ERP systems

Calisir and Calisir, 2004

Interaction with IT department, pre-implementation processes andERP product and adaptability affect satisfaction of ERP users

Longinidis and Gotzamani, 2009

There are differences between ERP adoption in Greek companiesand companies in other countries in terms of internal enterprise'sculture, resources available, skills of employees and the wayERP is perceived and integrated

Koh et al., 2006

Researchers tried to identify benefits which determine usersatisfaction with ERP, such as “better management andcontrolling functions,” “financial flow controls,” “increasedIT infrastructure capability,” “control of flow of goods”

Saatcioglu, 2009


The reason we did not use a specific model to combine accounting benefits, number of modulesimplemented and ERP cost with user satisfaction, is that such a model is not found in the relevantbibliography. Thus, from the aforementioned models and benefits lists we have used those items andvariables that are related to ERP accounting benefits and ERP user satisfaction and examined the effects ofbenefits on user satisfaction. Further details concerningdevelopment of the research instrument and variablesmeasurement are provided in the Methodology section. Our study draws from and builds upon the relevantstudies in our field. It is also an explorative study because it explores new directions for associations betweenthese variables. To this day and to our knowledge, this study is the first study that focuses exclusively on thebenefits directly related to accounting process and affecting user satisfaction. Thus, based on the previousreview of the literature, this study was conducted to answer the following specific research question:

RQ3: Is there a relation between ERP user satisfaction and accounting benefits, number or type ofmodules implemented and ERP cost?

3. Methodology

3.1. Development of the research instrument

The current study tries to evaluate perceived ERP benefits concerning accounting process fromthe perspective of accountants and IT professionals and whether or not these accounting benefits affectERP user satisfaction. A quantitative approach was adopted in terms of the collection and analysis of the data.The data were gathered by means of the self-completed, written questionnaire method. The questionnaireswere returned to us by fax or e-mail and somewere completed in our presence. The questionnaire consistedof five parts: the first section concerned ERP software information, the second part referred to ERP accountingbenefits, the third part included questions regarding user satisfaction and the last two parts were related tocompanies’ and employees’ characteristics. ERP accounting benefits questions were based on benefits lists’developed or used by previous research studies (Deloitte Consulting, 1998; O'Leary, 2004; Spathis, 2006;Esteves, 2009). From those lists we have only used those benefits directly related to accounting. To thosebenefits we also added a few more which we found as individual items in Doll and Torkzadeh's (1988)instrument and DeLone and McLean's (1992) instrument. The more general benefits we used such as “itgathers data more quickly” and “it is more flexible in general,” are related to accounting for two reasons: ERPis an integrated system and thus, its flexibility and processing speed affect all business procedures andobviously accounting. Second, transactions and data entry and processing within an enterprise, end up in theaccounting department. User satisfaction was evaluated by two items “overall satisfaction” and “softwaresatisfaction” in line with DeLone and McLean's (1992) model. Similar questions regarding “user satisfaction”exist in the survey instruments used by Bradford and Florin (2003) and Longinidis and Gotzamani (2009).

We contacted ERP software providers (domestic and international) in order to obtain a list of theenterprises in Greece that have bought and installed an ERP software package. Questionnaires weremailed to those enterprises that had adopted an ERP for at least one year and no more than seven years(prior to the mailing of the questionnaire). The questionnaire survey was conducted from September toDecember 2010. 15 organizations took part in the pilot study of the questionnaire. As far as the pilot studyis concerned, some questionnaires were completed via email or fax and some were administered andcompleted in our presence. The feedback gained from pilot testing was used to refine the format of thequestionnaire items by rephrasing some questions as necessary.

A quantitative approach was adopted in terms of the collection and analysis of the data. Thequestionnaire was sent to an initial sample of 420 companies. As far as each company is concerned weasked one IT professional as well as one accountant to complete a questionnaire. After a follow-up mailingto non-respondents (one month later), a total of 302 completed questionnaires were received from 212companies. The final sample was reduced to 193 companies because 31 questionnaires were returnedwith insufficient content. Thus, the response rate was 45.95%. Dillman (2007) points out that for surveysaddressed to a company, the average response rate is 40%. Thus, the response rate of our study seems tobe above average. The participants were 271 (175 accountants and 96 IT professionals). As mentionedin Section 2.2 of this paper, IT professionals in Greece tend to have accounting knowledge and skills.Nevertheless, in the instance when a particular IT professional did not have sufficient knowledge to


evaluate a clearly accounting benefit (such as “increased use of financial ratio analysis”) he or she did notprovide an answer and left the space blank. All the companies that participated in the survey hadimplemented an enterprise system at least 1 year ago. Responses range from “not at all” (1) to “perfect”(7) on a 7-point Likert type scale regarding the measurement of ERP accounting benefits. Tests such asα-Cronbach and factor analysis were undertaken to ensure the reliability and validity of the scale obtained.We used t-tests to measure any statistically significant differences in the responses between accountantsand IT professionals and we also used regression analysis to identify relationships between satisfactionand independent variables.

3.2. Variables

In the present study, we use “accounting benefits,” the “number of modules implemented,” “the typeof modules implemented” (less or more “accounting” or “other” modules implemented) and “ERP cost”(as percentage of annual sales) as independent variables in order to identify relationships with ERP usersatisfaction. DeLone and McLean (2003) use “user satisfaction” as an intermediate variable between theindependent variables (information quality, system quality, service quality) and the dependent variable(net benefits). The arrows in their model also show that the dependent variable “net benefits” also affects thevariable “user satisfaction.” In our study, we try to examine the impact that the accounting benefits have onuser satisfaction. Some of the benefits that we include in our instrument match with the items whichconstitute the independent variables of DeLone and McLean's (1992) model, such as ease of use, accuracy,reliability, timeliness, response time, flexibility, integration. Some other accounting benefits that we includein our instrument match with the items of the variables “individual impact” and “organization impact” ofDeLone andMcLean'smodel (1992). Some of these items are decision quality and improved decision analysis,operating cost reductions (staff reduction), information generation and flexibility, increased use of financialratio analysis. In our study we view all the aforementioned items as accounting benefits. DeLone andMcLean(2003) grouped all the “impact”measures into a single category: “net benefits.” They suggest that theirmodelmay be useful for researchers, but the researchers must define every time what constitutes “net benefits”depending on their purposes and on the relationships which are under investigation.

As far as the dependent variable “user satisfaction” is concerned, we use two items in our instrument:“overall satisfaction” and “software satisfaction.” DeLone and McLean (1992) also included these items(among others) in order to measure “user satisfaction.” On the other hand, Doll and Torkzadeh (1988), asmentioned above, proposed amodel in order to examine user satisfaction as a dependent variable. Some ofthe items of the independent variables in our instrument match with the items of the independentvariables in Doll and Torkzadeh's (1988) instrument such as “Does the system provide reports that seemexactly what you need?,” “Do you think the output is presented in a useful format?,” “Is the system userfriendly?,” “Is the system easy to use?,” “Do you get the information you need in time?,” “Does the systemprovide up-to-date information?.”

3.2.1. Control variablesAs mentioned above, Spathis (2006) used the number of modules implemented and ERP cost as

independent variables in order to measure accounting benefits. The number of modules, the type of modulesimplemented and ERP cost in our study are used as control variables related to “user satisfaction.” Enterpriseresource planning systems has focused on integration of internal functions by including a lot of modulesrelated to all business procedures. Sumner (2000) tried to identify risk factors associated with ERP projects.The findings of her study describe risk factors identified by project managers responsible for ERP projectswithin seven organizations participated in the study. She argued that one main factor associated with ERPfailure is lack of integration. She states that a project manager who participated in her study suggested: “youcannot start with pieces and then try to integrate the software components later on.” Lawrence and Lorsch(1967) defined integration “….as the process of achieving unity of effort among the various subsystems in theaccomplishment of the organization's task” (p. 4). There are studies in the literaturewhich combine degree ofERP system integration with the number of ERP modules included and implemented in business processes.Truman (2000) found a positive relationship between integration and organizational performance. Spathis(2006) found that the number of modules implemented has a significant positive effect on accountingbenefits. Barki and Pinsonneault (2005) admit that research has found that there is a positive relationship


between integration and different measures of organizational performance. However, they argue that theexact relationship between these two dimensions and implementation effort and resources is poorlyunderstood and determining and mediating factors remain unexplored. Based on previous literature, theyproposed the concept of OI (organizational integration) which is defined as the extent to which distinctorganizational components constitute a unified whole. They identified six types of OI: internal-operational,internal-functional, external-operational-forward, external-operational-backward, external-operational-lateral and external-functional. They found, among others, that the impact of integration on performancedepends on the nature and number of OI types that are implemented in an organization. Most of the changesin accounting activities seem to happen when firms implement a lot of ERP modules. In other words, a moreintegrated ERP system is accompanied with greater changes in accounting activities. The relevant literatureshows that in ERP implementation the application of the modules of financial and management accountingprevails (Spathis and Constantinides, 2004; Botta-Genoulaz andMillet, 2006; Spathis, 2006; Alves andMatos,2012). Organizations that implement ERPs begin by implementing the modules of accounting showing thattheir initial concern is to integrate their accounting processes (Alves and Matos, 2012). Granlund and Malmi(2002) found that when management accounting techniques operate apart from ERP systems, then ERPsystems affect management accounting in a low degree. Moreover, Chapman and Kihn (2009) examined theassociation between degree of integration and perceived system success. They suggest that integrationenables more flexible forms of analysis and leads to enhanced business and system performance.

There are also studies in the relevant literature which examined the impact of the numbers of modulesimplemented and time spent in the implementation of an ERP system (Santamaria-Sanchez et al., 2010;Alves and Matos, 2012). Alves and Matos (2012) found a statistically significant correlation between thenumber of modules implemented and the time spent in ERP implementation process.

We have already pointed out that Nicolaou (2004) classified the modules and used them as ERP im-plementation indicators tomeasurefinancial performance. However, themodule classificationwas not feasiblein our dataset because 90% of the companies that participated in our study had implemented both modulecategories (primary and support) and thus, direct comparisons could not be made. Nonetheless, in this studywe divided the modules into two additional categories: “accounting modules” and “other modules.” Financialaccounting, fixed asset register, management accounting, costing, stock-purchases and payroll were includedin the “accounting modules.” It is worth noting that in Greece “stock-purchases” and “payroll” are consideredto be an integral part of the accounting process. On the other hand, production, logistics, e-commerce, qualitymanagement and sales-marketing were included in “other modules.” With the particular categorization into“accountingmodules” and “othermodules”we sought to demonstratewhether or not having a greater numberof accounting modules compared to the number of other modules has an effect on ERP user satisfaction.

The second control variable that we use in our study is related to ERP cost. Olhager and Selldin (2003)pointed out that the cost for implementing ERP systems range from an average 0.5% of annual revenues forbig enterprises to an average 3.5% of annual revenues for smaller companies. Ehie and Madsen (2005) alsomention that the cost of ERP implementation typically ranges from 2% to 6% of annual sales and found thatcost and budget issues are strongly correlated with successful ERP implementation. On the other hand,Spathis (2006) found no significant effect of ERP cost on accounting benefits. Bingi et al. (1999) analyzedcritical factors affecting ERP implementation. They argued that even though the purchase price of an ERPsoftware package is not very high, the total cost of implementation can be three to five times the purchaseprice. The reason why is that the implementation cost increases with the increase of customization degree.Furthermore, the more modules organizations implement the more increases ERP total cost (purchase costand implementation cost). Thus, in our study we try to examine the association of the number of modules(degree of integration) and ERP cost on user satisfaction.

3.3. Sample/descriptive statistics

As can be seen in Table 4, accountants constituted 64.6% of the sample, while ITs constituted 35.4% of thesample. Themean age of the respondentswas 40.1 years and the respondentsmean total work experiencewas15.6 years. The mean years at current position was 8.4 years. According to the “type of industry,” 42.5% of thecompanies were from the manufacturing sector, 28% were from the service sector and 29.5% were from thecommerce sector. 80.3% of the companies were S.A.s (anonymous company or share company), as far as “typeof company” is concerned and themeannumber of employeeswas 686.2.Moving on to the “type of ERP,” itwas

Table 4Demographic characteristics.

Frequency % Min Max Mean

Α. RespondentsPosition in the firmAccounting 175 64.6ΙΤ (ERP) 96 35.4Total 271 100.0

GenderMale 196 72.3Female 75 27.7Total 271 100.0

Age and experienceAge(both ITs and Acc) (years) 24 64 40.1ITs (years) 25 58 38.7Acc (years) 24 64 40.9Years at current position (both ITs and Acc) 1 34 8.4ITs (years) 1 23 7.6Acc (years) 1 34 8.8Total work experience(both ITs and Acc) (years) 1 43 15.6ITs (years) 3 29 13.9Acc (years) 1 43 16.6

Β. CompaniesType of industryManufacture 82 42.5Services – Research and Development 54 28.0Commerce 57 29.5Total 193 100.0

Type of companyS.A. 155 80.3Other 38 19.7Total 193 100.0Company sizeNumber of employees 20 1331 686.2

C. ΕRPType of ERPNot Greek ERP software (SAP, NAVISION, JD EDWARDS, etc.) 54 29.7Greek ERP software (ATLANTIS ALTEC, ENTERSOFT BUSINESS SUITE, etc.) 136 70.3Total 193 100.0Time since ERP adoption (years) 1 7 4.65


decided to divide the ERP software packages into two main categories: “Local-Greek ERP software packages”(such as ALTEC ATLANTIS ERP, ENTERSOFT BUSINESS SUITE ERP, etc.) and “International ERP softwarepackages” (such as SAP ERP, NAVISION ERP (MICROSOFT), JD EDWARDS ERP, etc.). 70.3% of the companies thatparticipated in the studyhad adopted a local ERP system. It seems that companieswhich operate inGreece tendto adopt local software packages. Further information on demographic characteristics is provided in Table 4.

The companies in the sample represent a wide assortment. The sample represents a variety ofindustries and different sizes. This fact contributes to the generalizability of the results of this study. As afurther test for generalizability, the group of 126 companies who responded to the first mailing wasstatistically compared with the group of 67 companies who responded after the follow-up mailing. Thiswas done with the use of t-tests. The two groups were compared in terms of individual, organizational andERP project demographics (Table 5). Bradford and Florin (2003) also compared their respondent groups interms of organizational, individual and IS project characteristics. In our study, these comparisons revealedno statistically significant differences between the two respondent groups and diminished the possibilityof the presence of nonresponse bias.

Table 5Nonresponse bias analysis.

Characteristic 1st mailing respondents mean Follow-up mailing respondents mean t-value p

OrganizationalTotal number of employees 559.94 952.21 −1.124 0.262

Individual respondentYears at current position 8.30 8.53 −0.265 0.791Total work experience (years) 15.77 15.34 −0.417 0.677Age (years) 40.18 39.86 −0.301 0.764

ERP projectTime since ERP adoption 4.51 4.93 −1.037 0.301


4. Results

The survey findings are divided into three main sections and each section corresponds to a specificresearch question. The first section explores the accounting benefits derived from the ERP systemimplementation. The second section provides information about the opinions of both accountants and ITpersonnel and discusses whether or not there are statistically significant differences concerning how eachgroup evaluates accounting benefits and ERP user satisfaction. In the last section we try to examine ERPuser satisfaction in relation to accounting benefits, modules implemented and ERP cost.

4.1. Accounting benefits (RQ1)

Empirical evidence showed that the respondents have quoted a number of benefits in accountingprocesses derived from ERP systems. The variables related to accounting benefits of ERP systems werefactor analyzed (based on free loadings) using principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotationas a commonly used technique for summarizing a set of variables into independent subsets. The results arepresented in Table 6.

PCA highlighted five dimensions involving:

1. IT accounting benefits: ERP gathers data more quickly and easier, ERP produces results more quicklyand easier.

2. Operational accounting benefits (time): reduction of time for closure of monthly, quarterly and annualaccounts and reduction of time for issuing financial statements.

3. Organizational accounting benefits: increased flexibility in information generation and integration ofaccounting applications, improved decision-making, improved internal audit and improved quality ofreports – statements of account.

4. Managerial accounting benefits: improved working capital control and increased use of financial ratioanalysis.

5. Operational accounting benefits (cost): reduction of personnel of the accounting department.

These factors clearly reflect the main accounting benefits that follow ERP implementation and theirimpact on accounting processes. The titles of the factors were given based on the classification by Shangand Seddon (2002) and Spathis (2006) and were also based on the “descriptive approach” reflecting thename of the items that belong to them (Kim and Mueller, 1978). The factors explain 66.338% of thevariance and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy is high suggesting that factoranalysis is appropriate for this data set. Bartlett's test of sphericity is large and the associate significancelevel is small (zero); therefore, it is unlikely that the population matrix is an identity. Furthermore, thefactors have high alpha values (between 0.933 and 0.726) confirming their high reliability. Three items thatwere included in the survey instrument concerning benefits were eventually eliminated due to loadingsless than 0.5. These itemswere “reduction of time for transaction entry” (loading=0.487), “the accountingdepartment communicates easier with other departments within the organization” (loading=0.355) and“ERP is user friendly” (loading=0.453).

Table 6ERP system accounting benefits.

Factorloadings

% ofvariance

Cronbach'salpha

Factor 1: IT accounting benefits 18.369 0.895ERP gathers data more quickly 0.811ERP produces results easier 0.799ERP processes results more quickly 0.763ERP gathers data easier 0.762ERP is more flexible in general 0.664Reduction of time for transaction entry 0.487The accounting department communicates easier with other departments within the organization 0.355Factor 2: Operational accounting benefits (time) 17.032 0.933Reduction οf time for closure of monthly accounts 0.880Reduction of time for closure of quarterly accounts 0.856Reduction of time for closure of annual accounts 0.792Reduction of time for issuing of financial statements 0.703Factor 3: Organizational accounting benefits 14.184 0.809Increased flexibility in information generation 0.769Increased integration of accounting applications 0.666Improved decisions based on timely and reliable information 0.562Improved quality of reports – statements of account 0.550Improved internal audit function 0.548ERP is user friendly 0.453Factor 4: Managerial accounting benefits 10.356 0.726Improved working capital control 0.783Increased use of financial ratio analysis 0.740Reduction of time for issuing payroll 0.506Factor 5: Operational accounting benefits (cost) 6.396 _Reduction of personnel of accounting department 0.902Total variance explained (%) 66.338KMO 0.869Bartlett's test of sphericityApprox. Chi-square 1928.590Df 210Significance 0.000

Notes: Italics are used for the items that were eliminated due to low loadings.


4.2. Differences in perspectives between accountants and IT professionals (RQ2)

This section presents results about the perceptions of accountants and IT professionals concerningaccounting benefits and ERP user satisfaction level. The variable “user satisfaction” was measured by twoitems in the survey instrument: “Are you satisfied with the ERP software package adopted from yourorganization?” and “Are you satisfied with the use of ERP?” Reliability analysis showed high alpha valuefor this variable (alpha value=0.939).

Respondents have quoted a number of benefits and advantages in accounting processes and practicederived fromERP systems. Details are displayed in Table 7. Themost highly-rated perceived benefits achievedfollowing ERP implementation involve: IT accounting benefits, organizational accounting benefits andoperational accounting benefits (time). Each of the above perceived benefits was given amean score between“5=high degree” and “6=very high degree” by the respondents. Such findings prove that the inclusionof accounting processes in the ERP system lead to the emergence of various accounting benefits thatreceive high scores. “Managerial accounting benefits” also received a total high score “mean=4.649=highdegree.” The results further confirm that the adoption of ERP systems has successfully fulfilled its purposedemonstrating a significant impact on accounting information and practice, in terms of accounting benefits.

On the other hand, the variable “operational accounting benefits (cost)” is the benefit that receivedthe total lowest rating (mean=2.39=very low degree). It seems that ERP adoption in the accountingdepartment does not have an important effect on personnel reduction. This finding is also consistent withthe results of O'Leary (2004), who found that only 12% of the companies which participated in his study

Table 7Accounting benefits and satisfaction of ERP system in relation to group of users.

Variables Acc IT

Mean Std. dev. Mean Std. dev.

IT accounting benefits 5.632 0.975 5.642 1.209Operational accounting benefits (time) 5.110 1.246 4.907 1.222Organizational accounting benefits 5.353 0.979 5.356 1.051Managerial accounting benefits 4.666 1.451 4.620 1.387Operational accounting benefits (cost) 2.480 1.652 2.220 1.499ERP user satisfaction⁎⁎ 5.355 1.078 4.979 1.252

Scale: 1=not at all, 2=very low degree, 3=low degree, 4=average, 5=high degree, 6=very high degree, 7=perfect (for themeasurement of ERP accounting benefits).⁎⁎ Significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed t-test).


and had implemented an ERP system, had also seen a reduction of personnel due to this implementation.This was also explained by Granlund and Malmi (2002) which suggest that accountants seem to save timeafter ERP adoption but personnel is not reduced because accountants use their extra time left for analysisinstead of dealing with routine activities/tasks.

There are no statistically significant differences concerning the assessment of the accounting benefitsbetween accountants and IT professionals. It seems that the respondents of our study (both accountantsand IT professionals) viewed ERP as beneficial for the accounting processes in their organizations.However, it seems that there is a statistically significant difference concerning “ERP user satisfaction” inthe way that accountants and ITs estimate this variable (t=−2.587, p=0.010). Even though accountantsand IT professionals rated ERP user satisfaction highly, the results show that there is a statisticallysignificant difference in their perceptions concerning this variable. Overall, accountants seem to be moresatisfied with ERP performance compared to IT professionals.

The perceived accounting benefits that we examined suggest that ERP systems have an importantimpact on accounting processes and practice. Moreover, it is obvious that ERP adoption as far as theaccounting department is concerned leads to flexibility and integration of business applications in generaland accounting applications in particular.

The evidence shows that ERP systems have a positive impact on accounting process. Furthermore,these systems affect positively the whole enterprise; that is because increased flexibility in informationgeneration, improved internal audit function, improved decisions based on timely and reliable informationand increased integration of applications do not only have a positive effect on accounting practice but alsoon the business operation in general.

4.3. ERP and user satisfaction (RQ3)

The last research question concerns satisfaction of ERP adoption and its relation to accounting benefits,number and type of modules implemented and ERP cost. As shown in Table 8, themean of the perceived ERPuser satisfaction is 5.221. The average number of modules implemented is almost seven out of eleven andmost companies have implemented more accounting modules and less other modules (mean=2.930; “1”means that a company has more “other modules” implemented compared to “accounting modules,” “2”means that a company has an equal number of “accountingmodules” and “othermodules” implemented and“3” means that there are more “accounting modules” compared to “other modules implemented”). Theaverage cost of ERP is 2.432% of annual sales. Themean of perceived IT accounting benefits is 5.640, themeanof perceived operational accounting benefits (time) is 5.052, themean of perceived organizational accountingbenefits is 5.354, the mean of perceived managerial accounting benefits is 4.649 and the mean of perceivedoperational accounting benefits (cost) is 2.390.

Statistically significant correlations (pb0.01) exist between the dependent variable “ERP user satisfaction”and the independent variables “IT accounting benefits,” “operational accounting benefits (time),”“organizational accounting benefits,” “managerial accounting benefits” and “ERP cost.” These findings furtherconfirm the strong link between these variables within this context. However, perceived “operationalaccounting benefits (cost)” and “modules” are not correlated with “ERP user satisfaction.” It is worth noting

Table 8Means and correlations.

Variables Mean ERP usersatisfaction

IT accountingbenefits

Operationalaccountingbenefits (time)

Organizationalaccountingbenefits

Managerialaccountingbenefits

Operationalaccountingbenefits (cost)

Modules1 Modules 2 ERP cost Position inthe firm

ERP user satisfaction 5.221 1.000IT accounting benefits 5.640 0.583⁎⁎ 1.000Operational accounting benefits(time)

5.052 0.471⁎⁎ 0.506⁎⁎ 1.000

Organizational accounting benefits 5.354 0.474⁎⁎ 0.635⁎⁎ 0.552⁎⁎ 1.000Managerial accounting benefits 4.649 0.385⁎⁎ 0.488⁎⁎ 0.524⁎⁎ 0.596⁎⁎ 1.000Operational accounting benefits(cost)

2.390 0.056 0.045 0.184⁎⁎ 0.174⁎⁎ 0.207⁎⁎ 1.000

Modules 1 6.660 0.006 0.066 0.077 0.054 0.108 0.048 1.000Modules 2 2.930 0.260 −0.039 0.129⁎ 0.111 0.168⁎⁎ −0.081 0.032 1.000ERP cost 2.432% 0.242⁎⁎ 0.111 −0.045 0.116 0.086 0.115 −0.081 −0.286⁎⁎ 1.000Position in the firm 1.650 0.156⁎ −0.001 0.087 −0.001 0.016 0.077 −0.093 0.036 −0.017 1.000

Notes: Modules 1=Number of modules implemented.Modules 2=less or more “accounting” or “other” modules implemented (1=more “other modules”, 2=equal number of “other” and “accounting modules”, 3=more “accounting modules”).ERP cost=ERP acquisition and installation cost as a percentage of annual sales.Position in the firm 1=“IT professional”, 2=“Accountant.”⁎⁎ Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).⁎ Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

226A.K

anellou,C.Spathis/InternationalJournalofA

ccountingInform

ationSystem

s14

(2013)209

–234


that the number of modules implemented (modules 1) is also not correlated with any of the ERP accountingbenefits variables. The type of modules implemented (modules 2) is only correlated with two out of five ERPaccounting benefits: operational accounting benefits (time) and managerial accounting benefits. Position inthe firm (IT professional or accountant) is correlated significantly with ERP user satisfaction (pb0.5).

The results of OLS regression including coefficient, t-values and significance level for each independentvariable are reported in Table 9. The univariate tests provide valuable information regarding a large numberof variables over a sample. This study used the multivariate regression model with seven variables for thedependent dimension of ERP user satisfaction. OLS regression was employed twice; firstly with modules 1(number of modules implemented) as one of the seven independent variables and secondly with modules 2(type of modules implemented). In the first instance the model (model 1) was found to be significant (F=11.195; pb0.000) for ERP user satisfaction. The adjusted R square explains up to 32.8% for ERP usersatisfaction, while R square explains up to 36.1% for ERP user satisfaction. In the second instance the model(model 2) was found to be significant (F=11.194; pb0.000) for ERP user satisfaction. The adjusted R squareexplains up to 32.8% for ERP user satisfaction and R square explains up to 36.1% for ERP user satisfaction. Thus,R square suggests that about 36% of the variance in ratings of ERP user satisfaction is explained, as it was alsoin the first casewithmodules 1 instead ofmodules 2. It is interesting to note that the results of OLS regressionanalysis seem to be quite similar regardless of whether we used “modules 1” or “modules 2.”

Prior to the presentation of the research findings regarding ERP and user satisfaction, we would like torefer to the modules that the companies operate in the ERP environment (see Appendix A). Nearly allthe companies that participated in the study operated the financial accounting module. Additionally, themajority of the companies operated stock-purchases, a fixed asset register, costing, sales-marketing andmanagement accounting modules. The operation of such modules demonstrates that the companies thatoperate an ERP have a primary concern to integrate their accounting processes into that system. This isdue to their expectation that ERP will have a positive impact on their accounting processes. Paradoxically,the payroll module, which forms an integral part of the accounting system, is only operated by 57.5% of thecompanies that participated in the study. Furthermore, most of the companies have implemented moreaccounting modules and less other modules regarding ERP adoption.

The independent variables with significant and positive coefficients on ERP user satisfaction are “ITaccounting benefits” (pb0.01), “operational accounting benefits (time)” (pb0.1), and “ERP cost” (pb0.01).“Operational accounting benefits (cost)” and “modules” (both number and type) seem to have a negativenon-significant contribution to ERP user satisfaction. In general, the results indicate that IT and operational(time) accounting benefits and ERP cost are important and significant parameters that affect ERP usersatisfaction level. The only accounting benefit, which was examined in this study and seems not to have apositive effect on ERP user satisfaction level, is the “operational accounting benefits (cost).” This may beexplained by the fact that the users of ERP within a company/organization do not realize the reduction of

Table 9Coefficient estimates of ERP user satisfaction.

Independent variables Coefficient t-values Significance Coefficient t-values Significance

Constant 1.672 3.150 0.002 1.894 1.987 0.049IT accounting benefits 0.315 3.125 0.002 0.304 2.937 0.004Operational accounting benefits (time) 0.141 1.700 0.091 0.138 1.668 0.097Organizational accounting benefits 0.132 1.182 0.239 0.139 1.240 0.217Managerial accounting benefits 0.109 1.464 0.145 0.114 1.488 0.139Operational accounting benefits (cost) −0.077 −1.436 0.153 −0.083 −1.503 0.135Modules 1 −0.013 −0.327 0.744 – – –

Modules 2 – – – −0.088 −0.318 0.751ERP cost 0.027 2.806 0.006 0.026 2.621 0.010

Model 1 R2=0.361 Model 2 R2=0.361Adjusted R2=0.328 Adjusted R2=0.328F-value=11.195 F-value=11.194Significance=0.000 Significance=0.000

Modules 1=number of modules implemented.Modules 2=less or more “accounting” or “other” modules implemented (1=more “other modules”, 2=equal number of “other”and “accounting modules”, 3=more “accounting modules”).ERP cost=ERP acquisition and installation cost as a percentage of annual sales.


operational costs when using the new system. The variable operational accounting benefits (cost) weremeasured according to the dimension regarding the reduction of personnel in the accounting department.Granlund and Malmi (2002) suggested that ERPs exempt accountants from routine tasks and thusaccountants can use their extra free time for analysis. As a result, it seems that personnel reduction usuallydoes not follow ERP implementation and thus does not affect ERP user satisfaction. Contrary, users realizethe operational benefits related to time when using the ERP system.

5. Conclusions

The aim of the present study was to investigate the accounting benefits derived from ERP application inthe accounting department, categorize these benefits into specific factors and identify whether or not thereare differences between accountants and IT professionals concerning the evaluation of accounting benefitsand ERP user satisfaction. Moreover, this study tried to evaluate the effect of accounting benefits, number ofmodules implemented and ERP cost on ERP user satisfaction. Companies that operate in Greece and haveadopted an ERP system provided the data presented here. This study explored the impact that the ERP systemhas had on accounting processes and practice. The studies conducted by Spathis and Constantinides (2004),Spathis (2006) and Kanellou and Spathis (2007) explored the accounting benefits of adopting enterprisesystems in Greece and our study can be seen as an extension of those studies, as it also explored ERP usersatisfaction and its relation to accounting benefits. Overall, this study is an explorative study which exploresnew directions for associations between ERP accounting benefits and user satisfaction. It draws from andbuilds upon the relevant studies in our field by combining models and variables developed and examined byother researchers. To this day and to our knowledge, this study is the first study that focuses exclusively onthe benefits directly related to accounting process and affecting user satisfaction. Our study is currently oneof the first complete sets of data available on enterprise resource planning systems in Greece in relation notonly to accounting benefits but also to ERP user satisfaction. Finally, this study aimed to contribute to thefield of ERP and accounting practice, trying to highlight potential and assumptions that may lie under ERPimplementation and may prove useful for researchers, academics and practitioners, concerning how ITs andaccountants think about the technologies that they use. Rose and Kræmmergaard (2006) suggested thatwhen research focuses on organizational change and actors’ perceptions of evolving conditions (such as ERPadoption), then such research is likely to provide fresh and challenging insights and contribute to the field ofaccounting information research andmay urge functionalist researchers to enhance their work and expertise.

The present study highlighted five dimensions of accounting benefits: IT accounting benefits, operationalaccounting benefits (time), organizational accounting benefits, managerial accounting benefits and opera-tional accounting benefits (cost). The results we obtained regarding the benefits that result from using theERP system are in line with those of Spathis and Constantinides (2004), Spathis (2006), Kanellou and Spathis(2007) and Esteves (2009). Furthermore, the findings regarding the gathering and processing of data throughthe ERP system agreewith the findings of Granlund andMalmi (2002). Such results confirm the fact that dataare gathered and processed easier andmore quickly with the assistance of the ERP system. Thus, ERP systemsseem to provide an enterprise, and more specifically the accounting department, with a greater degree offlexibility. Velcu (2007) examined the effects of ERP systems on organizational performance and found thatcompanies who had implemented an ERP perceived “improved service time in accounting tasks.” Thesefindings agree with the results of the present study, which show that the reduction of time for closure ofaccounts and the time for issuing payroll is significant after an ERP implementation. Brazel and Dang (2008)also found that ERP implementation seems to reduce reporting lags. Our results also confirm the results ofa case study (Colmenares, 2009) which showed that ERP implementation is followed by improvementsof decision-making process, enterprise integration and accurate financial statements. At this point, it isimportant to note that the only benefit that received a very low rating was the “reduction of personnel of theaccounting department.” This result agrees with the results of another study (O'Leary, 2004) which showedthat only 12% of the companies which had implemented an ERP system had a reduction of personnel aswell. Even though many benefits occur in the accounting department after an ERP implementation, it seemsthat these benefits are not always followed by a reduction of personnel which would lead to significant costbenefits for the enterprise. Granlund and Malmi (2002) explained that although accountants seem to savetime after ERP adoption, personnel is not additionally reduced because accountants use their time analysingdata and reports instead of dealing with routine activities and data entry. The contribution of this study


in relation to ERP benefits concerns the development of a list including exclusively benefits related toaccounting process and the categorization of these benefits into specific factors.

This study is the first study to evaluate benefits and satisfaction specifically from the perspective ofaccountants and IT professionals in an ERP environment. As it has already beenmentioned in previous sections,stakeholder theory can be used to better understand and assess internal change and researchers havehighlighted the importance of examining the success of IT from multiple stakeholder/evaluator viewpointswithin an organization (Hamilton and Chervany, 1981; Freeman, 1984; Myers et al., 1997). Also, researchersin previous studies argue that discourse theory can provide theoretical explanation for the replacement ofone technology from another (such as the replacement of legacy systems from an ERP system). Rose andKræmmergaard (2006) found that a new technological discourse enhanced the organizational actors to perceivevalue in their work. Building on the aforementioned theories, this study tried to discover possible differencesand analyze congruence between perceptions of IT professionals and accountants in terms of accountingbenefits and user satisfaction in an ERP environment. Thus, the present study has contributed to themeasurement of these variables and the relationships among them from two different evaluators’ viewpointsthat hadnever been examinedbefore and the results can assist practitioners in improving technological practise.

To be more specific, no statistically significant differences were found between the perceptions ofaccountants and IT professionals concerning ERP accounting benefits. The fact that for all variables therewere no significant statistical differences in perception between the two groups is in line with the findingsof Chang (2006) and Ifinedo and Nahar (2007). Nevertheless, these two studies compared differences inperspectives between managers and ITs and not accountants and ITs.

It is interesting to note that as far as satisfaction with ERP performance is concerned, there is a statisticallysignificant difference between accountants and ITs. Accountants seem to be satisfied to a higher degree withERP performance than are IT professionals. One reason why accountants tend to evaluate user satisfactionmore highly than do IT professionals may be that usually accountants are not key participants in terms of theERP implementation and customization process. Accountants begin using ERP once the system has been setupby IT professionals and thus theymaynot be aware of problems and difficulties associatedwith the system.Once they have been trained to use ERP, they are in a privileged position to enjoy directly the benefits derivedby the system and are related to accounting. On the other hand, ITs spend a lot of time and effort in order toimplement an ERP, to overcome the risks encountered, tomake itwork properly and,finally to reach the goalsset by the management of each company. Since ITs spend a great time and effort in installing the system andare aware of the full potential of a particular system, it makes sense for them to be more demanding of thesystem and also to be stricter in terms of system performance and thus, ERP user satisfaction.

Moreover, our research indicates that “IT accounting benefits,” “operational accounting benefits (time),” and“ERP cost” are related positively and significantly with ERP user satisfaction. Saatcioglu (2009) also found arelation between benefits and ERP satisfaction. However, our study referred particularly to accounting benefitsand ERP characteristics which affect accounting process. On the other hand, the “number of modules im-plemented,” “type ofmodules implemented” and “operational accounting benefits (cost)” do not seem to have asignificant effect on ERP user satisfaction. It is interesting to note that the results of the present study show thatneither the “number of modules implemented,” nor the “type of modules implemented” are related to ERP usersatisfaction. One reason behind thismaybe that each company decides the number and the type ofmodules thatwill be included in the ERP system according to its needs, priorities and goals. Then ERP user satisfaction is beingevaluated according to the choice that was made at the beginning of ERP implementation process regardingmodules. It is interesting to note that regarding the relationship between the number and types of modulesimplemented and ERP user satisfaction, our results are contradictory to those of previous studies, that found thatthe number ofmodules implemented and degree of integration affect significantly and positively system successand organizational performance. This discrepancy could be explained byOrganizational Integration (OI) conceptproposed by Barki and Pinsonneault (2005), according to which the impact of integration on performancedepends on the nature and number of OI types that are implemented in an organization,

Overall, we found that the benefits that result from the application of an ERP in the accountingdepartment are great in number and most of these are rated very highly. Thus, we are in the position toargue that it is worthwhile for an enterprise to include accounting in its ERP system. Finally, we point outthat ERP user satisfaction level is related positively with accounting benefits and ERP cost.

As a final note, we would like to add that this study presents an attempt to evaluate the impact ofaccounting benefits on user satisfaction in an ERP environment. Building on the existing literature on the


theoretical relationships between variables, we proposed amodel to show how accounting benefits, number/type of modules and ERP cost affect ERP user satisfaction. The results of our study can assist accountants tobetter assess the accounting benefits that an ERP systemmay entail. The fact that ERP accounting benefits anduser satisfaction were evaluated from the perspective of accountants as well as from IT professionalsstrengthens the findings of this study. As mentioned above, researchers argue that it is important to evaluatesystem performance and user satisfaction at multiple levels within an organization and among differentstakeholder groups. Moreover, ERP consultants should be able to guide companies interested in includingtheir accounting processes in an ERP system in amore efficient way. Academics can also use the results of ourstudy to further analyze the impact of ERP accounting benefits on ERP user satisfaction. Finally, the results ofour study should be of interest and value to practitioners, who can take on actions related to accountingtechniques and procedures in order to improve user satisfaction. Thus, we are in the position to argue that theresults of our study have theoretical as well as practical value.

5.1. Limitations

Some limitations exist. These are as follows: not all possible accounting benefits have been examinedin this study. Furthermore, some of the accounting benefits that were examined were not easy for ITprofessionals to evaluate. Also, only companies located in Greece have participated in the presentempirical research. Furthermore, the number of the accountants that participated in the study was largerthan that of the IT professionals. Finally, we should note that as far as factor analysis is concerned, factorloadings under 0.5 level were eliminated. Other studies use 0.6 or even 0.7 level. We chose 0.5 levelbecause this is the most commonly used level for item elimination in relevant studies. However, this couldbe regarded as a possible limitation for our study.

5.2. Further research

It is important to note that further research is needed in terms of the accounting benefits that theadoption of an ERP system may entail and their interaction with ERP user satisfaction. There is evena greater need for research in terms of investigating the corresponding accounting problems ordisadvantages that may emerge from the adoption of an ERP system. Studies that investigate the positiveaspects of ERP system implementation and those that investigate the negative ones contribute to a betterunderstanding of the factors related to ERP user satisfaction and accounting benefits.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the valuable comments and suggestions of Editor, an Associate Editor, threeanonymous reviewers and conference participants at the 8th International Conference on EnterpriseSystems, Accounting and Logistics (8th ICESAL 2011).

Appendix A. Operating modules in ERP environment

Modules Percent

Financial accounting 95.9%Stock-purchases 88.6%Fixed asset register 80.3%Costing 74.1%Sales-marketing 72.5%Management accounting 65.3%Payroll 57.5%Production 53.9%Logistics 40.9%Quality management 19.2%E-commerce 13.5%


Appendix B. The questionnaire provided to accountants and IT professionals

1. How many years ago did your company adopt an ERP system?

A. ERP

B. ERP ACCOUNTING BENIFITS

2. Which ERP system have you adopted?

3. How much time did ERP implementation process last?

4. How much did ERP system cost (acquisition and installation) as a percentage of annual

sales?

5. Which modules have you included in your ERP system? (Please check)

1. Financial accounting

2. Fixed asset register

3. Management accounting

4. Costing

5. Production

6. Logistics

7. E-commerce

8. Stock –Purchases

9. Payroll

10. Quality management

11. Sales –Marketing

Which benefits followed ERP implementation and to what extent? (Please check)(1=not a tall, 2=very low degree, 3=low degree, 4=average, 5=high degree, 6=very high degree, 7=perfect)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Reduction of time for closure of monthly accounts

2. Reduction of time for closure of quarterly accounts

3. Reduction of time for closure of annual accounts

4. Reduction of time for issuing of financial statements

5. Improved quality of reports –statements of account

6. Improved internal audit function

7. Increased use of financial ratio analysis

8. Improved working capital control

9. Reduction of time for issuing payroll

10. Reduction of personnel of accounting department

11. ERP is more flexible in general

12. Improved decisions based on timely and reliable information

13. Increased integration of accounting applications

14. Reduction of time for transaction entry

15. The ERP is user friendly

16. ERP gathers data more quickly

17. The accounting department communicates easier with other departments within the organization

18. ERP gathers data easier

19. ERP processes results more quickly

20. ERP processes results easier

21. Increased flexibility in information generation

C. SATISFACTION

1. Are you satisfied with the ERP software package that was adopted from your organization?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1=not at all, 2=very low degree, 3=low degree, 4=average, 5=high degree, 6=very high degree, 7=perfect

2. Are you satisfied with the use of ERP system?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1=not at all, 2=very low degree, 3=low degree, 4=average, 5=high degree, 6=very high

degree, 7=perfect

D. COMPANY CHARACTERISTICS

1. Type of company (Please check) S.A.

2. Type of industry (Please check)

3. Number of employees: …….

E. EMPLOYEES

1. Position in the company (Please check):

2. Years at current position: …….

3. Total work experience (years): …….

4. Age (years): …….

5. Gender:

Manufacture

Commerce

Accountant

Male Female

IT professional

Other:

Services – Research & Development


References

Alves MC, Matos SIA. ERP adoption by private and public organizations – A comparative analysis of successful implementations. J BusEcon Manag 2012:1-20. [iFirst].

Bailey JE, Pearson SW. Development of a tool for measuring and analyzing computer user satisfaction. Manag Sci 1983;29(6):519–29.Barki H, Pinsonneault A. A model of organizational integration, implementation effort, and performance. Organ Sci 2005;16(2):

165–79.Bingi P, Sharma M, Godla J. Critical issues affecting an ERP implementation. Inf Syst Manag 1999;16(2):7-14.Booth P, Matolscy Z, Wieder B. The impacts of enterprise resource planning systems on accounting practice: The Australian

experience. Aust Account Rev 2000;10(3):4-18.Botta-Genoulaz V, Millet P. An investigation into the use of ERP systems in the service sector. Int J Prod Econ 2006;99(1):202–21.Bradford M, Florin J. Examining the role of innovation diffusion factors on the implementation success of enterprise resource

planning systems. Int J Account Inf Syst 2003;4(3):205–25.Brazel JF, Dang L. The effect of ERP system implementations on the management of earnings and earnings release dates. J Inf Syst

2008;22(2):1-21.Caglio A. Enterprise resource planning systems and accountants: towards hybridization? Eur Account Rev 2003;12(1):123–53.Calàs MB, Smircich L. Past Postmodernism? Reflections and tentative directions. Acad Manag Rev 1999;24:649–71.Calisir F, Calisir F. The relation of interface usability characteristics perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use to end-user

satisfaction with enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems. Comput Hum Behav 2004;20:505–15.Chang HH. Technical and management perceptions of enterprise information system importance implementation and benefits. Inf

Syst J 2006;16:263–92.Chapman CS, Kihn L. Information system integration, enabling control and performance. Acc Organ Soc 2009;34(2):151–69.Colmenares L. Benefits of ERP Systems for Accounting and Financial Management. Allied Academies International Conference:

Proceedings of the Academy of Information and Management Sciences (AIMS), vol. 13 No. 1. 2009. p. 3–7.Deloitte Consulting. ERP's second wave: maximizing the value of ERP-enabled processes. New York, NY: Deloitte Consulting; 1998.Davenport TH. Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system. Harv Bus Rev 1998;16(4):121–31.

Thank you very much for your time


Dechow N, Mouritsen J. On enterprise wide resource planning systems - the quest for integration and management control. AccOrgan Soc 2005;30(7/8):691–733.

DeLone WH, McLean ER. Information system success: the quest for the dependent variable. Inf Syst Res 1992;3(1):60–95.DeLone WH, McLean ER. The DeLone and McLean model of information system success: a ten-year update. J Manag Inf Syst

2003;19(4):9-30.Dillard JF, Ruchala L, Yuthas K. Enterprise resource planning systems: a physical manifestation of administrative evil. Int J Account Inf

Syst 2005;6(2):107–27.Dillman DA. Mail and Internet Services: The Tailored Designed Method. 2nd ed. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2007.Doll WJ, Torkzadeh G. The measurement of end-user computing satisfaction. MIS Q 1988;12(2):259–74.Ehie I, Madsen M. Identifying critical issues in enterprise resource planning (ERP) implementation. Comput Ind 2005;56(6):545–57.Esteves J. A benefits realization road-map framework for ERP usage in small and medium-sized enterprises. J Enterp Inf Manag

2009;22(1/2):25–35.Floropoulos J, Spathis C, Halvatzis D, Tsipouridou M. Measuring the success of the Greek Taxation Information System. Int J Inf Manag

2010;30(1):47–56.Freeman RE. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman; 1984.Gattiker DF, Goodhue DL. Understanding the local-level costs and benefits of ERP through organizational information processing

theory. Inf Manage 2004;41:431–43.Grabski SV, Leech SA, Sangster A. Management Accounting in Enterprise Resource Planning Systems. Oxford, U.K.: Elsevier; 2009Grabski SV, Leech SA, Schmidt PJ. A review of ERP research: a future agenda for accounting information systems. J Inf Syst 2011;25(1):

37–78.Granlund M. Extending AIS research to management accounting and control issues: a research note. Int J Account Inf Syst 2011;12:

3-19.Granlund M, Malmi T. Moderate impact of ERPs on management accounting: a lag or permanent outcome? Manag Account Res

2002;13:299–321.Hamilton S, Chervany N. Evaluating information systems effectiveness: part 1. Comparing evaluation approaches. MIS Q 1981;5(3):

55–69.Holsapple CW, Wang Y-M, Wu J-H. Empirically testing user characteristics and fitness factors in enterprise resource planning

success. Int J Hum Comput Interact 2006;19(3):323–42.Hyvönen T, Järvinen J, Pellinen J. A virtual integration-The management control system in a multinational enterprise. Manag Account

Res 2008;19:45–61.Ifinedo P. Interactions between organizational size, culture and structure and some it factors in the context of ERP success

assessment: an exploratory investigation. J Comput Inf Syst 2007;47(4):28–44.Ifinedo P, Nahar N. ERP systems success: an empirical analysis of how two organizational stakeholder groups prioritize and evaluate

relevant measures. Enterp Inf Syst 2007;1(1):25–48.Ives B, Olson MH, Baroudi JJ. The measurement of user information satisfaction. Commun ACM 1983;26(10):785–93.Järvenpää M. Making Business Partners: a case study on how management accounting culture was changed. Eur Account Rev

2007;16(1):99-142.Kanellou A, Spathis C. ERP systems and Accounting: assessing the benefits. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on

Enterprise Systems, Accounting and Logistics – ICESAL, Corfu, Greece; 2007. p. 217–28. [July 9–10].Kim J, Mueller CW. Factor Analysis: Statistical Methods and Practical Issues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1978.Koh SCL, Simpson M, Padmore J, Dimitriadis N, Misopoulos F. An exploratory study of enterprise resource planning adoption in Greek

companies. Ind Manag Data Syst 2006;106(7):1033–59.Law CH, Ngai WT. ERP systems adoption: an exploratory study of the organizational factors and impacts of ERP success. Inf Manage

2007;44:418–32.Lawrence P, Lorsch J. Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations. Adm Sci Q 1967;12(1):1-47.Longinidis P, Gotzamani K. ERP user satisfaction issues: insights from a Greek industrial giant. Ind Manag Data Syst 2009;109(5):

628–45.Matolscy ZP, Booth P, Wieder B. Economic benefits of enterprise resource planning systems: some empirical evidence. Account

Finance 2005;45:439–56.Myers BL, Kappelman LA, Prybutok VR. A comprehensive model for assessing the quality and productivity of the information systems

functions: toward a theory for information systems assessment. Inf Resour Manag J 1997;10(1):6-25.Newman M, Westrup C. Making ERPs work: accountants and the introduction of ERP systems. Eur J Inf Syst 2005;14(3):258–72.Nicolaou A. Manufacturing strategy implementation and cost management systems effectiveness. Eur Account Rev 2003;12(1):

175–99.Nicolaou A. Firm performance effects in relation to the implementation and use of enterprise resource planning systems. J Inf Syst

2004;18(2):79-105.Nicolaou A, Bhattacharya S. Sustainability of ERPs performance outcomes: the role of post-implementation review quality. Int J

Account Inf Syst 2008;9(1):43–60.O'Leary DE. Enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems: an empirical analysis of benefits. J Emerg Technol Account 2004;1:63–72.Olhager J, Selldin E. Enterprise resource planning survey of Swedish manufacturing firms. Eur J Oper Res 2003;146:365–73.Quattrone P, Hopper T. A “time-space odyssey”: management control systems in two multinational organizations. Acc Organ Soc

2005;30(7/8):735–64.Rogers E. Diffusion of innovations. 3rd ed. New York: Free Press; 1983.Rom A, Rohde C. Enterprise resource planning systems, strategic enterprise management systems and management accounting. A

Danish study. J Enterp Inf Manag 2006;19(1):50–66.Rose J, Kræmmergaard P. ERP systems and technological discourse shift: managing the implementation journey. Int J Account Inf

Syst 2006;7(3):217–37.Saatcioglu OY.What determines user satisfaction in ERP projects: benefits, barriers or risks? J Enterp Inf Manag 2009;22(6):690–708.Santamaria-Sanchez L, Nunez-Nickel M, Gago-Rodrıguez S. The role played by interdependences in ERP implementations: an

empirical analysis of critical factors that minimize elapsed time. Inf Manage 2010;7:87–95.


Sayed HE. ERPs and Accountants’ expertise: the construction of relevance. J Enterp Inf Manag 2006;19(1):83–96.Scapens RW, Jazayeri M. ERP systems and management accounting change: opportunities or impacts? A research note. Eur Account

Rev 2003;12(1):201–33.Sedera D, Gable G, Chan T. Measuring enterprise systems success: the importance of a multiple stakeholder perspective. Proceedings

of the 12th European Conference on Information Systems, Turku, Finland; 2004.Shang S, Seddon PB. Assessing and managing the benefits of enterprise systems: the business manager's perspective. Inf Syst J

2002;12(2):271–99.Somers TM, Nelson K, Karimi J. Confirmatory factor analysis of the end-user computing satisfaction instrument: replication within an

ERP domain. Decis Sci 2003;34(3):595–621.Spathis C. Enterprise systems implementation and accounting benefits. J Enterp Inf Manag 2006;19(1):67–82.Spathis C, Ananiadis J. Assessing the benefits of using an enterprise system in accounting information and management. J Enterp Inf

Manag 2005;18(2):195–210.Spathis C, Constantinides S. Enterprise resource planning systems’ impact on accounting processes. Bus Process Manag J 2004;10(3):

234–47.Stefanou JC. Accounting Information Systems (AIS) development/acquisition approaches by Greek SME. Paper presented at the

European Conference on Accounting Information Systems (ECAIS), Copenhagen; 2002.Sumner M. Risk factors in enterprise-wide/ERP projects. J Inf Technol 2000;15(4):317–27.Sutton SG. Enterprise systems and the re-shaping of accounting systems: a call of research. Int J Account Inf Syst 2006;7:1–6.Truman G. Integration in electronic exchange environments. J Manag Inf Syst 2000;17(1):209–44.Velcu O. Exploring the effects of ERP systems on organizational performance: evidence from Finnish companies. Ind Manag Data Syst

2007;107(9):1316–34.Wu JH, Wang YM. Measuring ERP success: the key-users’ viewpoint of the ERP to produce a viable IS in the organization. Comput

Hum Behav 2007;23:1582–96.Zviran M, Pliskin N, Levin R. Measuring user satisfaction and perceived usefulness in the ERP context. J Comput Inf Syst 2005;45(3):

43–52.

Documents

Accounting beneﬁts and satisfaction in an ERP environment