The Impact of User Involvement Activities on ERP System Success UNRWA Headquarter … · 2017. 3. 25. · Fairouz Mahmoud Abuwarda Supervised by: Dr. Khalid Abed Dahleez Assistant

The Impact of User Involvement Activities on

ERP System Success

UNRWA Headquarter as a Case Study

د نظام تخطيط الموار نجاح إشراك المستخدم علىأنشطة تأثير المؤسسية

رئاسة الأونروا كحالة عملية

Fairouz Mahmoud Abuwarda

Supervised by:

Dr. Khalid Abed Dahleez

Assistant Professor in Business Administration

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master in Business Administration

February/ 2017

زةــغ – ةــلاميــــــة الإســـــــــامعـالج

شئون البحث العلمي والدراسات العليا

ة التـــجــــــــــــــــــارةــــــــــــــــــليـك

مـــــــــــــــــــــــالماجستير إدارة الأع

The Islamic University–Gaza

Research and Postgraduate Affairs

Faculty of Commerce

Master of Business & Administration

I

رارــــــــــإق :العنوان تحمل يالت الرسالة مقدم أدناه الموقع أنا

The Impact of User Involvement Activities on ERP System Success


تأثير أنشطة إشراك المستخدم على نجاح نظام تخطيط الموارد المؤسسيةرئاسة الأونروا كحالة عملية

إليه الإشارة تمت ما باستثناء الخاص، جهدي نتاج هو إنما الرسالة هذه عليه اشتملت ما بأن أقر أو علمي لقب أو درجة لنيل الآخرين قبل من يقدم لم منها جزء أي أو ككل الرسالة هذه وأن ورد، حيثما .أخرى بحثية أو تعليمية مؤسسة أي لدى بحثي

Declaration

I understand the nature of plagiarism, and I am aware of the University’s policy

on this.

The work provided in this thesis, unless otherwise referenced, is the researcher's

own work, and has not been submitted by others elsewhere for any other degree or

qualification.

Student’s Name Fairouz Mahmoud Abuwarda

أبووردةفيروز محمود

اسم الطالب

Signature التوقيع

Date: 4 March 2017 :2017مارس 4 التاريخ

III

Abstract

This research examines the impact of user involvement activities (functional

requirements, presentation requirements, quality assurance, and project management) on

user satisfaction of the ERP system among ERP system users at UNRWA Headquarter.

The research followed a descriptive analytical approach and collected data through a

self-administered questionnaire. Data were collected from a sample of 150 ERP system

users, working at UNRWA Headquarter offices in Gaza, Amman, and Jerusalem, from

which 127 responses were received at a response rate of 84.67%. Data were analyzed

using descriptive statistics and multiple regression.

The findings of this research showed that ERP system users at UNRWA HQ were

involved in the ERP project and participated significantly in the project different

activities, the results showed that 64.45% of the respondents were involved in the ERP

project activities. The findings also showed that ERP system users at UNRWA HQ

participated in the ERP project activities, their participation was relatively high where

more than 60% of the respondents said that they participated in the four user

involvement activities. In relation to user satisfaction of the ERP project, results showed

that 74.42 % of the respondents were satisfied with the system business functionality

and 68.59% were satisfied with the system technical functionality. The research also

identified the user involvement activities which had the highest impact on user

satisfaction, the research findings showed that project management activities had the

highest impact on user satisfaction, followed by presentation requirements activities,

then quality assurance activities, and finally comes the functional requirements activities

with the lowest impact.

The research recommended that UNRWA experience in involving the users in ERP

project should be used as a model for other UN agencies and international organizations

which are going to adopt an ERP system or other IS system. Additionally, the study

suggested to conduct a future research on the impact of user involvement on ERP system

success by performing an analysis by UN agency.

IV

الملخص

إنشاء متطلبات النظام الوظيفية و يركز البحث الحالي على دراسة تأثير أنشطة إشراك المستخدم )نظام تخطيط ( على رضا المستخدم عنمتطلبات العرض، وأنشطة إدارة المشاريع، وأنشطة ضمان الجودة

ونروا. إستخدم البحث ما بين مستخدمي نظام تخطيط الموارد المؤسسية في رئاسة الأ الموارد المؤسسيةالحالي منهج وصفي تحليلي و قد تم جمع البيانات من خلال إستبيان مدار ذاتيا من قبل الباحث. تم جمع

رئاسة الأونروا في مستخدم لنظام تحطيط الموارد المؤسسية من الموظفين العاملين في 150البيانات من . تم %84.67و هو ما يمثل نسبة استرداد ستبانة إ 127غزة، عمان، و القدس، و قد تم إسترداد اتبمك

تحليل البيانات بإستخدام التحليل الوصفي و الإنحدار المتعدد.

أظهرت نتائج هذه الدراسة أن مستخدمي نظام تخطيط الموارد المؤسسية في مقر رئاسة الأونروا في تنفيذ وا بشكل كبير في و قد شاركقد تم إشراكهم في مشروع تطبيق نظام تخطيط الموارد المؤسسية

من المستطلعين قد تم إشراكهم في أنشطة %64.45، أظهرت النتائج بأن أنشطة المشروع المختلفةالمشروع المختلفة. كما أظهرت النتائج أيضا بأن مشاركة مستخدمي نظام تخطيط الموارد المؤسسية في

من المستطلعين بأنهم قد شاركوا في تنفيذ %60رئاسة الأونروا كانت عالية نسبيا حيث أشار أكثر من أنشطة إشراك المستخدم الأربعة. و فيما يتعلق برضا المستخدم عن نظام تخطيط الموارد المؤسسية،

من المستطلعين أظهروا رضاهم عن الأداء الوظيفي للنظام فيما عير %74.42أظهرت نتائج البحث بأن أظهر البحث أيضا بأن أكثر أنشطةاء الفني للنظام. من المستطلعين عن رضاهم عن الأد 68.59%

إشراك المستخدم تأثيرا على رضا المستخدم هي أنشطة إدارة المشاريع، يتبعها أنشطة إنشاء متطلبات العرض، ثم أنشطة ضمان الجودة، و أخيرا تأتي أنشطة إنشاء متطلبات النظام الوظيفية كالأنشطة الأقل

تأثيرا.

أن تجربة الأونروا في إشراك المستخدمين في مشروع نظام تخطيط الموارد ب ى البحثأوصتنوي تطبيق المؤسسية ينبغي أن تستخدم كنموذج لمؤسسات الأمم المتحدة والمنظمات الدولية الأخرى التي

إلى أهمية البحث بالإضافة إلى ذلك، أشار الموارد المؤسسية أو نظام إدارة معلومات آخر. نظام تخطيط إجراء دراسات مستقبلية عن تأثير مشاركة المستخدم على نجاح نظام تخطيط الموارد المؤسسية عن طريق

إجراء تحليل يشمل عددا من منظمات الأمم المتحدة.

V

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

ين الله يرفع نكهم آمنهوا الذ ين م والذ

لم أهوتهوا درجات الع

[11المجادلة: ]

VI

Dedication

To my wonderful mother and my wonderful father who were always by my side with

endless love and support

To my beloved family and my beloved friends

I dedicate this study

VII

Acknowledgements

My deep gratitude goes to my research supervisor Dr. Khalid Dahleez for his

continuous support, guidance, patience, and valuable advices.

I would like to express my deep appreciation to the referees of the research

questionnaire, and especially to Dr. Sana Sayegh, and a sincere thank you to Dr. Wasim

Al-Habil for his valuable inputs and comments

I also would like to thank my colleagues at UNRWA Headquarter for their

cooperation with me throughout my research.

Finally, I wish to thank my mother for her continuous encouragement to me

throughout my research.

Researcher

Fairouz Mahmoud Abuwarda

VIII

Table of Contents

Declaration .................................................................................................................................. I

IV ........................................................................................................................................ الملخص

Dedication ................................................................................................................................. VI

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. VII

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................... VIII

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. XII

List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... XIV

List of Appendix ........................................................................................................................ XV

List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... XVI

Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 2

1.2 Problem statement .......................................................................................................... 4

1.3 Research Questions .......................................................................................................... 5

1.4 Study Variables and Conceptual Framework ................................................................... 6

1.5 Study Objectives ............................................................................................................... 7

1.6 Study Hypothesis .............................................................................................................. 7

1.7 Definition of Important Terms: ........................................................................................ 8

1.8 Importance of the Study ................................................................................................ 10

1.8.1 Theoretical importance: .......................................................................................... 10

1.8.2 Practical importance: .............................................................................................. 10

1.9 Limitations of the Study ................................................................................................. 11

1.10 Thesis Organization ...................................................................................................... 11

1.11 Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................ 11

Chapter 2 Literature Review ........................................................................................ 12 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 13

2.2 ERP Overview ................................................................................................................. 13

2.2.1 The Definition of ERP .............................................................................................. 13

2.2.2 ERP and Its Evolution: A Historical Perspective ...................................................... 15

IX

2.2.3 The Significance and benefits of ERP Systems ........................................................ 17

2.2.4 ERP Providers .......................................................................................................... 20

2.3 ERP Implementation ...................................................................................................... 22

2.4 Critical Success Factors (CSFs) for ERP implementations ............................................... 23

2.5 Users and ERP Projects ................................................................................................... 28

2.5.1 User Definition ........................................................................................................ 28

2.5.2 User Involvement and User Participation ............................................................... 29

2.5.3 Purpose of User Involvement and Participation in IS Projects ............................... 30

2.5.4 User Roles in IS Projects .......................................................................................... 31

2.5.5 User Activities in IS Projects .................................................................................... 33

2.6 ERP System Success ........................................................................................................ 34

2.6.1User Satisfaction ...................................................................................................... 35

2.7 Timing of User Involvement and Participation in ERP Projects ..................................... 36

2.8 UNRWA and ERP ............................................................................................................ 37

2.8.1 ERP Systems in United Nations Organizations ............................................................ 37

2.8.2 UNRWA ....................................................................................................................... 38

2.8.3 UNRWA Need for an ERP ........................................................................................ 38

2.8.4 ERP Expected Benefits for UNRWA ......................................................................... 39

2.8.5 ERP (SAP) Implementation at UNRWA .................................................................... 41

2.10 Chapter Summery ........................................................................................................ 42

Chapter 3 Previous Studies ........................................................................................... 43 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 44

3.2 Previous Studies ............................................................................................................. 44

3.3 General Commentary on Reviewed Studies .................................................................. 60

3.3.1 Aspects of the agreement ....................................................................................... 61

3.3.2 Aspects of the disagreement .................................................................................. 62

3.3.3 Drawn Benefits from Previous Studies ................................................................... 62

3.3. 4 Distinguishing Aspects of the Current Study .......................................................... 63

3.4 Chapter Summery .......................................................................................................... 63

X

Chapter 4 Research Methodology ................................................................................ 64 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 65

4.2 Research Methodology .................................................................................................. 65

4.3 Population and sample size:........................................................................................... 65

4.4 Pilot Study ...................................................................................................................... 66

4.5 Data Measurement ........................................................................................................ 66

4.6 Statistical analysis Tools ................................................................................................. 66

4.7 Validity of Questionnaire ............................................................................................... 67

4.7.1 Internal Validity ....................................................................................................... 68

4.7.2 Structure Validity of the Questionnaire .................................................................. 72

4.8 Reliability of the Research .............................................................................................. 72

4.9 Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha ......................................................................................... 73

4.10 Chapter Summery ........................................................................................................ 73

Chapter 5 Data Analysis and Discussion ..................................................................... 75 5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 76

5.2 Test of normality ............................................................................................................ 76

5.3 The characteristics of sample demographic .................................................................. 77

5.4 Descriptive Analysis and Answering the Research Questions ....................................... 80

5.4.1 Answering the first research question .................................................................... 80

5.4.2 Answering the second research question ............................................................... 81

5.4.3 Answering the third research question................................................................... 82

5.4.4 Answering the fourth research question ................................................................ 83

5.4.5 Answering the fifth research question .................................................................... 84

5.4.6 Answering the sixth research question ................................................................... 86

5.4.7 Answering the seventh research question.............................................................. 87

5.5 Research Hypothesis Analysis ........................................................................................ 88

5.6 Chapter Summary: ....................................................................................................... 106

Chapter 6 Conclusion and Recommendations .......................................................... 107 6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 108

6.2 Conclusions and Findings of the Study......................................................................... 108

XI

6.3 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 110

6.4 Implications for Future Research ................................................................................. 111

References ..................................................................................................................... 112

Appendices .................................................................................................................... 121

XII

List of Tables Table (2.1): ERP benefits .............................................................................................................. 18

Table (2.2): Rankings of the top 10 ERP Software vendors and their market shares in 2012 ..... 21

Table (2.3): Rankings of CSFs by degree of importance in ERP implementation ......................... 26

Table (2.4): ERP Stakeholders Categorization .............................................................................. 29

Table (2.5): User Roles in IS Project ............................................................................................. 32

Table (2.6): ERP Software used in UN Agencies ........................................................................... 38

Table (3.1): Summary of Some Previous Studies ......................................................................... 55

Table (4.1): The population and the response according to UNRWA HQ Offices ........................ 65

Table (4.2): The numbers assigned scale ..................................................................................... 66

Table (4.3): Correlation coefficient of each item of “Users involved in ERP project” and the total

of this field ................................................................................................................................... 68

Table (4.4): Correlation coefficient of each item of “Functional Requirements” and the total of

this field ........................................................................................................................................ 68

Table (4.5): Correlation coefficient of each item of “Presentation Requirements” and the total

of this field ................................................................................................................................... 69

Table (4.6): Correlation coefficient of each item of "Quality Assurance" and the total of this field

...................................................................................................................................................... 70

Table (4.7): Correlation coefficient of each item of “Project Management” and the total of this

field .............................................................................................................................................. 70

Table (4.8): Correlation coefficient of each item of “Business Functionality” and the total of this

field .............................................................................................................................................. 71

Table (4.9): Correlation coefficient of each item of “Technical functionality” and the total of this

field .............................................................................................................................................. 71

Table (4.10): Correlation coefficient of each field and the whole of questionnaire.................... 72

Table (4.11): Cronbach's Alpha for each field of the questionnaire ............................................ 73

Table (5.1): Kolmogorov-Smirnov test ......................................................................................... 76

Table (5-2): Respondents’ distribution according to gender ....................................................... 77

Table (5.3): Respondents’ distribution according to age ............................................................. 77

Table (5.4): Respondents’ distribution according to qualification ............................................... 77

Table (5.5): Respondents’ distribution according to occupation type ......................................... 78

Table (5.6): Respondents’ distribution to staff members’ positions ........................................... 78

Table (5.7): Respondents’ distribution according to years of experience ................................... 79

Table (5.8): Respondents’ distribution according to UNRWA HQ office ..................................... 79

Table (5.9): Respondents’ distribution according to the SAP Module they are using ................. 79

Table (5.10): Means and Test values for “Users’ Involvement in ERP Project” ........................... 80

Table (5.11): Means and Test values for “Functional Requirements” ......................................... 81

Table (5.12): Means and Test values for “Presentation Requirements” ..................................... 83

Table (5.13): Means and Test values for “Quality Assurance” ..................................................... 84

Table (5.14): Means and Test values for “Project Management”................................................ 85

XIII

Table (5.15): Means and Test values for “Business Functionality” .............................................. 86

Table (5.16): Means and Test values for “Technical functionality” ............................................. 87

Table (5.21): Result of simple linear regression analysis – H1a ................................................... 88

Table (5.22): Result of simple linear regression analysis – H1b ................................................... 89







Table (5.31): Independent Samples T-test of the fields and their p-values for gender ............. 100

Table (5.32): ANOVA test of the fields and their p-values for age ............................................. 100

Table (5.33): Independent Samples T-test of the fields and their p-values for qualification .... 101

Table (5.34): Independent Samples T-test of the fields and their p-values for Occupation type

.................................................................................................................................................... 102

Table (5.35): ANOVA test of the fields and their p-values for occupation ................................ 103

Table (5.36): ANOVA test of the fields and their p-values for years of experience ................... 104

Table (5.37): Summery of the Achieved Hypothesis .................................................................. 105

XIV

List of Figures

Figure (1.1): Conceptual Framework ................................................................................. 6

Figure (2.1): Concept of ERP System ............................................................................. 15

Figure (2.2): Historical Events of ERP ............................................................................ 17

Figure (2.3): ERP critical success factors model ............................................................. 24

Figure (2.4): Taxonomy for ERP CFS- ........................................................................... 25

Figure (2.5): ERP Project CSFs in Rank Order Based on Frequency of Appearance in

Analyzed Literature ......................................................................................................... 27

Figure (2.6): SAP Modules adopted by UNRWA ........................................................... 42

XV

List of Appendix

Appendix (A) Judgment Committee .............................................................................. 122

Appendix (B) Questionnaire .......................................................................................... 123

XVI

List of Abbreviations

Abbreviation Meaning

CRM Customer Relationship Management

CSFs Critical Success Factors

ERP Enterprise Resource Planning

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

HQ Headquarter

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization

ILO International Labour Organization

IMO International Maritime Organization

IPSAS International Public Sector Accounting Standards

IS Information Systems

ITU The International Telecommunication Union

JIU Joint Inspection Unit

MRP Materials Requirements Planning

MRPII Management Resource Planning

RBM

SCM

Results Based Management

Supply Chain Management

UI User Involvement

UN Women The United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the

Empowerment of Women

UNAIDS The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organization

UNFPA The United Nations Population Fund

UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

UNRWA United Nation Relief and Work Agency

UP User Participation

XVII

Abbreviation Meaning

UPU Universal Postal Union

WFP World Food Programme

WHO World Health Organization

WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization

WMO World Meteorological Organization

Chapter 1

Introduction

2

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Introduction

The implementation of an ERP system is by all means a very risky and expensive

process. For an organization to adopt an ERP system, the risk of hurting their business

due to potential implementation problems should be considered. It is therefore

worthwhile to examine the factors that, to a great extent, determine whether the

implementation will be successful.

The search for success factors in ERP systems development projects has been

active for many years and has traversed industries, geographies and technologies.

Specifically, user involvement (UI) and user participation (UP) on information system

projects have been researched for over 30 years. User involvement and participation is

considered among the most important success factors not only in the ERP systems

projects but for any information system development project (Eichhorn & Tukel, 2016).

Enterprise resource planning systems are software systems for business

management that consist of modules that support different functional areas within an

organization such as planning, sales, manufacturing, project management, marketing,

distribution, accounting, financial, human resources management, inventory

management, service and maintenance, transportation and e-business. ERP software are

designed in a manner that guarantees a transparent integration of different modules, and

easy flow of information between different functions. Using ERP software enables

organizations to implement one integrated system that replaces their mostly

incompatible legacy information systems (Liaquat, Jon et al., 2002).

Eichhorn, B. R et al. (2016) Outlined how user participation can improve system

quality by: providing a more and complete assessment of user information requirements,

providing expertise about the organization the system is to support, avoiding

development of unacceptable or unimportant features, and improving user understanding

of the system. McKeen, Guimaraes et al. (1994) showed that user participation has a

positive relationship with user satisfaction. They also argued that four factors affect this

3

relationship: task complexity, system complexity, and user influence and user-developer

communication.

Many studies have showed that user involvement (UI) and user participation

(UP) are important factors affecting project outcomes (Kappelman, McKeeman &

Zhang, 2006); (Khang & Moe, 2008); (Ngai, Law, &Wat, 2008). The lack of UI has

even been identified as a main factor that leads to a troubled project (Havelka &

Rajkumar, 2006).

According to (Pastor & Casanovas, 2003), there are many reasons that support

the involvement of users in the implementation of ERP systems. (Ives & Olson, 1984)

outlined that user involvement is predicted to have positive impact on the success of

ERP systems, the user involvement is predicted to lead to: increase user satisfaction and

acceptance; allow users to develop realistic expectations about system capabilities;

provide an arena for bargaining and conflict resolution about design issues; lead to

system ownership by users; decrease user resistance to change; create a user

commitment to the system.(Harris & Weistroffer’s, 2009) meta-analysis of 28 papers

finds support for user involvement positively impacting user satisfaction which they

argue is a proxy for system success.

User involvement and participation in information systems development efforts

may begin by assuming that such participation will provide valuable input to various

technical decisions to be made. However, their participation may have a greater value

because those decisions are more socio-technical than purely technical (Bradford, 2014).

This study explores a multi-factor model of user involvement and participation in

ERP system project at UNRWA to identify how user characteristics and activities

impact user satisfaction.

UNRWA-Headquarter is the case study considered for this research. UNRWA is

a United Nations organization working in five operation areas: Jordan, Syria, Lebanon,

West Bank and Gaza Strip with more than 22,000 staff members. UNRWA-Headquarter

is located in three different areas, namely Gaza, Amman, and Jerusalem.

Since 2001, UNRWA has been using an information management system called

Ramco. Since UNRWA’s 2006 Organization Development (OD) Plan, both internal and

4

external experts have highlighted the shortcomings of the Ramco system as a

management tool and have urged the adoption of a modern ERP system, similar to that

which many UN agencies have already implemented. Since the OD, the weaknesses of

the system associated with internal controls and the ability to support management

decision-making have become increasingly apparent, and program directors are

demanding better tools to manage their portfolios of activities. This Agency need,

coupled with the obsolescence of the system have provided the impetus to drive the ERP

modernization project forward (El-Kurd, 2016).

UNRWA top management decided to implement ERP system (SAP) in 2014 in

its five operations areas. URNWA ERP system includes four modules; Human

Resource, Finance, Supply Chain Management and Public Sector Management.

1.2 Problem statement

ERP implementation brings not only business gain but also business pain

(Hwang, 2011). The purpose of ERP systems is to generate improvements for the

affected users and their organizations; since they are the beneficiaries, the affected users

are often engaged to varying degrees throughout the ERP project life cycle in an attempt

to increase the value of the final outcome generated by the system (Bradford, 2014).

ERP is implemented in many of the United Nations Agencies, and UNRWA has

followed by implementing its ERP system which was launched in March 2015 to be

used all over the organization. ERP system was to replace the old information

management system which was used since 2011, the old system had several

shortcomings and flaws including being obsolete & not technically supported beyond

2014; can barely support the Agency’s basic day to day operational needs; and cannot

support the Agency’s reporting & strategic planning needs. Therefore there was a need

to replace the old system with a system that can strengthen the Agency’s capabilities and

to provide a platform for key activities of the Agency (UNRWA Website, 2016). And to

ensure that the new adopted ERP system can achieve the required results, it was

essential that UNRWA involves the users of the system in all the phases of the ERP

project to ensure their satisfaction on the final product.

5

UNRWA staff members working at the three headquarters locations are

considered as main users of the ERP system, and they work on the SAP four modules on

a daily basis, and thus their degree of participation and involvement in the different

stages of the system development and their satisfaction on the generated system results

can provide indications on the system success.

This research explores a multi-factor model of user involvement in ERP system

to identify how user involvement activities impact various user satisfaction measures.

The study distinguishes various roles that users have in ERP system to provide empirical

evidence of the correlations between these roles and user satisfaction with the system

and to provide an answer to the main research question:

What is the impact of user involvement activities in the ERP system on user

satisfaction with the system?

1.3 Research Questions

This specific question being addressed by this research include:

RQ1: Were UNRWA HQ staff members involved in ERP project?

RQ2: How do the respondents evaluate their involvement in the activities related to

the creation of ERP system functional requirements?


the creation of ERP system presentation requirements?


ERP system quality assurance?

RQ5: How do the respondents evaluate their involvement in the ERP system project

management activities?

RQ6: To what extent are the respondents satisfied with ERP system business

functionality?

RQ7: To what extent are the respondents satisfied with ERP system technical

functionality?

6

1.4 Study Variables and Conceptual Framework

This research proposes a model that investigates the relationships among the

following variables:

User involvement activities which include:

Functional Requirements activities

Presentation requirement activities

Quality assurance activities

Project management activities

ERP system success which include:

ERP system business functionality

ERP system technical functionality

User Involvement Activities User Satisfaction

Figure (1.1): Conceptual Framework

Source: (Bradford, 2014)

Project

Management

Technical

Functionality

Functional

Requirements

Presentation

Requirements

Quality Assurance

H1a

Business

Functionality

H5a

H5b

7

1.5 Study Objectives

The study aimed to achieving the following objectives:

1- Survey the actual ERP system users themselves for their perception of activities

and satisfaction with the completed system.

2- Assess the impact of user involvement activities (functional requirements

activities, presentation requirements activities, quality assurance activities, and

project management activities) on the user satisfaction of the system business and

technical functionality.

3- Explore the combinations of user characteristics and their activities that can

improve ERP system performance.

1.6 Study Hypothesis

Hypothesis 1: Functional Requirement activities positively impact user satisfaction:

H1a: The creation of ERP system functional requirements positively impacts


H2b: The creation of ERP system functional requirements positively impacts


Hypothesis 2: Presentation Requirement activities positively impact user

satisfaction:

H2a: The creation of ERP system presentation requirements positively impacts


H2b: The creation of ERP system presentation requirements positively impacts


Hypothesis 3: Quality assurance activities positively impact user satisfaction:

H3a: The performance of quality assurance activities positively impact ERP

system business functionality.

H3b: The performance of quality assurance activities positively impact ERP

system technical functionality.

Hypothesis 4: Project management activities positively impact user satisfaction:

H4a: The execution of project management activities positively impacts ERP


H4b: The execution of project management activities positively impacts ERP

system technical functionality

8

Hypothesis 5: All user involvement activities positively impacts user satisfaction:

H5a: All user involvement activities (functional requirements, presentation

requirements, quality assurance, project management) positively impacts ERP

system business functionality

H5b: All user involvement activities (functional requirements, presentation

requirements, quality assurance, project management) positively impacts ERP


Hypothesis 6: There are no significant differences in response of the research

sample due to personal characteristics:

H6a: There are no significant differences among participants response due to

gender.

H6b: There are no significant differences among participants response due to

age.

H6c: There are no significant differences among participants response due to

qualification.

H6d: There are no significant differences among participants response due to

occupation type.

H6e: There are no significant differences among participants response due to

occupation.

H6f: There are no significant differences among participants response due to

experience.

1.7 Definition of Important Terms:

ERP: Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) is an integrated set of software

modules, which are linked to a common database to handle basic corporate

functions such as planning, manufacturing, sales, marketing, accounting,

distribution, human resource and inventory. (Liaquat, Jon et al., 2002).

User: In this study, we define users as those people who are system users

User Involvement (UI): is a subjective psychological state of the individual and

[is] defined as the importance and personal relevance that users attach either to a

particular system or to IS in general, depending on the user’s focus (Barki &

Hartwick, 1994).

9

User Participation (UP): the behaviors and activities that the target users or

their representatives perform in the systems development process” (Barki &

Hartwick, 1994).

In this research, the researcher defines user involvement and

participation as the activities and behaviors performed by system users.

User Satisfaction: The receipt response to the use of the product of an

information system. (Petter, DeLone et al., 2013). According to (Hwang &

Thorn, 1999), user satisfaction is the most widely used measure for system

success in the empirical user participation literature. In this study, we include

two measures of user satisfaction, namely system business functionality and


Functional Requirements: are the requirements which address the tactical

business purpose of the information system and includes what data is to be used,

the processes of collecting and validating the data, the data’s security, the

calculations that employ the data and the task and system complexity (Bradford,

2014).

Presentation Requirements: are the requirements which focus on how the user

interacts with the information system. These address the human interface to the

information system including the input and output forms, specific screen

formatting and layouts, report designs and user queries to provide a search

capability to the user. They focus heavily on the way a user needs to interact

with the information system so that the design of the interface(s) do not distract

or inhibit the user’s productivity (Bradford, 2014).

Quality Assurance Activities: it is the actual execution of the individual test

cases to validate whether predefined quality standards are being used. User’s

involvement in test design and execution, use of quality assurance tools, and use

of prototypes are manifest variables to define quality assurance. (Bradford,

2014).

Project Management Activities: include user’s involvement during schedule

development, problem solving, and risk and conflict management, non-IS

communication, and implementation. (Bradford, 2014).

10

IS Business functionality: as defined for this research, encompasses system

usage (users actually employing the SAP system for the work tasks), timely

delivery of results, accurate results, desired quality, desired benefits, improved

operational efficiencies, ease of use, and helping in making rational decisions

(Bradford, 2014).

IS Technical functionality: addresses the operational dimensions of an

information system after it is deployed. For this research, these include the

system’s reliability, maintainability, testability and stability (Bevan, 2000).

1.8 Importance of the Study

1.8.1 Theoretical importance:

This study uses a multiple factor model to assess the user involvement and

participation on ERP system project at UNRWA to identify how specific user

characteristics and activities impact various user satisfaction measures.

The existing researches indicate that some level of user involvement and

participation in ERP projects impact the success of the system in a positive manner

although some early research generated indecisive results with contradictory

findings.

This study adopts the model that was presented in the (Bradford, 2014)

dissertation which is based on using a multi-factor model of business user

involvement in information system projects to identify how specific user

characteristics and activities impact various user satisfaction measures. By following

this model, this study distinguishes the various roles that the ERP system users at

UNRWA can perform in order to provide empirical evidence of the correlations

between these roles and user satisfaction with the system.

1.8.2 Practical importance:

This study uses a comprehensive model to study the impacts of multiple user

activities on user satisfaction with the ERP system in a United Nations environment,

and thus the results of this study are useful for all UN agencies and international

NGOs that are looking to implement ERP as their main software system.

11

1.9 Limitations of the Study

The main limitations of the current study can be summarized into the

following points:

1- Place limitations, as the targeted participants for this research are distributed

among three different duty stations in Gaza, Amman, and Jerusalem; this needed

an extra effort from the researcher to collect the completed surveys.

2- The research was based on one case organization namely UNRWA, so the results

cannot be generalized.

1.10 Thesis Organization

The study consists of six chapters. Chapter 1 contains a general introduction

that includes the problem statements, study questions, study variables, conceptual

map, study objectives, study hypothesis, importance of the study and the study

limitations. Next, Chapter 2, contains the literature review, and it includes a brief

discussion of relevant topics of the study. Chapter 3 presents relevant previous

studies and research papers which is related to ERP and user involvement in IS

projects. Chapter 4 contains research design and methodology, which includes study

population and sample, data collection, questionnaire design, piloting, and testing

questionnaire for validity and reliability. Chapter 5 contains the data analysis and

results, and it includes the descriptive analysis and answering research questions, and

discussion of hypotheses testing results. Finally, Chapter 6 includes the conclusions

and the recommendations of the study.

1.11 Chapter Summary

In this chapter, the researcher addressed the framework of the study through

previewing a general introduction on the impact of user involvement on the

implementation of ERP system. Then, the researcher addressed the main components

of the research by previewing the problem statements, study questions, study

variables, conceptual map, study objectives, study hypothesis, importance of the

study and finally she addressed the study limitations and a brief on the thesis

organization.

Chapter 2

Literature Review

13

Chapter 2

Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

The emergence of Enterprise Resource Planning systems (ERPs) signaled a

new stage in the use of information technology (IT) to restructure the organization of

work and effect organizational change. ERP planning and implementation is a

process that requires efforts and resources, and the ERP implementation project

success is influenced by a large number of factors, which most of the time are

difficult to measure objectively. User involvement and participation is one of the

most cited critical success factors in ERP implementation projects, and one of the

most critical ones for their satisfactory outcome.

In this chapter, the researcher reviewed relevant scholarly articles, books,

and other sources related to the topic of ERP implementation, ERP critical success

factors, information systems success factors, user participation and involvement

importance in IS systems implementation, and user satisfaction.

2.2 ERP Overview

2.2.1 The Definition of ERP

Enterprise resource planning systems are information software systems for

business management that consist of modules that support different functional areas

within an organization such as planning, sales, manufacturing, project management,

marketing, distribution, accounting, financial, human resources management,

inventory management, service and maintenance, transportation and e-business. ERP

software are designed in a manner that guarantees a transparent integration of

different modules, and easy flow of information between different functions. Using

ERP software enables organizations to implement one integrated system that replaces

their mostly incompatible legacy information systems (Liaquat, Jon et al., 2002).

Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Systems is considered as the IT

innovation designed for the purpose of enhancing the organization through providing

end-to-end connectivity, ERP software integrates all departments and functions

across a company into a single computer system. ERP is considered one of the fastest

14

growing segments in the software market, and one of the most important

developments in information technology in the last decade (Somers & Nelson, 2001).

Watson and Schneider (1999) defined ERP as an integrated, customized,

packaged software-based system that handles the majority of an enterprise‘s system

requirement in all functional areas, such as accounting, human resources, finance,

sales, marketing, and manufacturing.

ERP system is used to organize activities, decision, and information flow

across many different functions and departments in a firm (Jacobs, 2007).

In our world today, all organizations are striving for integration, all

organizations are making transformations to their processes in order to meet the

demands and to become more flexible, adaptable, and efficient. Previously,

organizations consisted of separate units that carried various tasks and had their own

information systems, but with ERP the problems arising from the lack of integration

has been addressed (Nah, 2001).

ERP systems provide a seamless integration of all the information flows in an

organization to eliminate cross-functional coordination issues in the business process

(Alcide, 2006).

In their book (Wallace & Kremzar, 2001) describe ERP as a major factor that

is helping in transforming the industrial landscape in America by making profound

improvements in the way companies are managed. They describe ERP as a wide set

of management tools that balances demand and supply, link customers and suppliers

into a complete supply chain, use proven business process for decision making,

provide high degree of cross functional integration among different departments, and

enable organizations to operate on high level while lowering costs and inventories.

The concept of the ERP system can be illustrated, following (Davenport,

1998), with the diagram in Figure (2.1).

15

Figure (2.1): Concept of ERP System

Source: (Davenport, 1998)

Sneller (2014) explains that the most two important characteristics of ERP

systems are data integration and the support for the best practice processes. By data

integration, the data is entered only one time and after which it becomes available for

use all over the organization. Using ERP systems guarantees following the best

practice processes that were implemented in many organizations and proven to be

effective.

2.2.2 ERP and Its Evolution: A Historical Perspective

Back in the 1960’s, manufacturing companies focused on inventory control.

The main direction back then was oriented towards keeping lots of inventory items

on hand to ensure the customer satisfaction and still stay competitive, and for that

reason, techniques back then focused on managing large volumes of inventory and

most software packages were designed and customized to handle inventory based on

traditional inventory concepts (Umble, Haft et al., 2003).

In the 1970’s, companies were more realized of the financial consequences of

keeping large quantities of inventory, the thing that led to the introduction of material

requirements planning (MRP) systems which were a huge step forward in the

materials planning process. MRP enabled companies to use computers to calculate

gross material requirements and to use accurate inventory record files; this then

16

enabled companies from placing an order, canceling an existing order, or modifying

the timing of existing orders. For the first time in manufacturing, there was a formal

mechanism for keeping priorities valid in a changing manufacturing environment

(Umble, Haft et al., 2003).

In that time, MRP application software was considered as a state of the art

method that enabled planning and scheduling materials for complex manufactured

products (Robert Jacobs, 2007).

In the 1980’s, companies were more driven to be more engaged in using the

available and powerful technology and were able to couple the movement of

inventory with the coincident financial activity (Umble, Haft et al. 2003). And thus

new software systems called manufacturing resource planning (MRP II) were

introduced with an emphasis on optimizing manufacturing processes by

synchronizing the materials with production requirements. The MRP II includes

areas such as distribution management, project management, finance, human

resources and engineering (Liaquat, Jon et al., 2002).

(MRP II) systems appeared and were successful in incorporating the financial

accounting system and the financial management system with the manufacturing and

materials management systems. By that, companies had a more integrated business

system which was able to deliver the material and capacity requirements associated

with a desired operations plan (Umble, Haft et al., 2003).

By the early 1990’s, the continuous evolving of technology allowed MRPII to

be expanded to incorporate all resource planning for the entire enterprise covering

various areas including product design, information warehousing, materials planning,

capacity planning, communication systems, human resources, finance, and project

management. Hence, the term, ERP was coined. (Umble, Haft et al. 2003)During the

1990s ERP included more modules and functions as "add-ons" to the core modules

which was called "extended ERPs". These ERP extensions include advanced

planning and scheduling (APS), e-business solutions such as customer relationship

management (CRM) and supply chain management (SCM) (Liaquat, Jon et al.,

2002).

A major factor in the growth of ERP systems was the year 2000 (Y2K)

problem. Small-to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) as well as large companies were

17

to adopt ERP systems to address needed fixes to legacy systems that were not Y2K

compliant. However, Y2K was the single event that enabled the ERP industry to

become mature and ERP vendors to be consolidated. ERP is an updated MRP II

system that includes relational database management, graphical user interface, and

client-server architecture (Møller, 2005).

Figure (2.2) summarizes the historical events related with ERP

Figure (2.2): Historical Events of ERP

Source: (Press, Appicello et al., 2002)

2.2.3 The Significance and benefits of ERP Systems

ERP systems significance lies in its many benefits. ERP provides an

integrated information system where today the need for integration became vital in

companies’ transformation from the functional style of operation to business process

structure in which all the departments work together to achieve the required

objectives (Magal & Word, 2009). A big benefit of the ERP system according to

(Monk & Wagner, 2012) is the fact that it assists the organizations in the process of

automating their business processes and functions by integrating the information

between different departments.

ERP system provides organizations with cross functional enterprise software

with integrated modules for each department of the organization with a unified

database for all of them, which makes it easier for the organization to manage,

execute, store data and monitor core business processes (Magal & Word, 2009).

Monk and Wagner (2012) mention that ERP as an integrated information

system can lead to more efficient business processes that cost less than those

18

unintegrated systems. In addition, ERP systems offer several benefits including

allowing easier global integration by bridging barriers of currency exchange rates,

language, and culture so data can be integrated internationally. ERP integrates people

and data while eliminating the need to update and repair many separate computer

systems, for example, at one point, Boeing had 450 data system that fed into its

production process; the company now has a single system for recording production

data. ERP also allows management to actually manage operations and not just

monitor them.

In their study Shang and Seddon (2000) identified five different types of

benefits that the management might expect to gain from use of ERP, these include

Operational Benefits, Managerial Benefits, Strategic Benefits, IT infrastructure

benefits, and Organizational benefits. Table (2.1) shows the five dimensions and

their sub dimensions.

Table (2.1): ERP benefits

Dimensions Sub dimensions

1.Operational 1.1 Cost reduction,

1.2 Cycle time reduction,

1.3 Productivity improvement,

1.4 Quality improvement,

1.5 Customer services improvement

2.Managerial 2.1 Better resource management,

2.2 Improved decision making and

planning

2.3 Performance improvement

3.Strategic 3.1 Support business growth

3.2 Support business alliance

3.3 Build business innovations

3.4 Build cost leadership

19

Dimensions Sub dimensions

3.5 Generate product differentiation

(including customization)

3.6 Build external linkages (customers

and suppliers)

4.IT Infrastructure 4.1 build business flexibility for current

and future changes

4.2 IT costs reduction

4.3 Increased IT infrastructure

capability

5.Organizational 5.1 Support organizational changes

5.2 Facilitate Business learning

5.3 Empowerment

5.4 Built common visions

Source: (Shang & Seddon, 2000)

Implementing an ERP system within an organization is considered as a

complicated project that consists of many steps and it is related to each aspect in the

business, the thing that requires a huge team work and collaboration all over the

organization. It is the project that would affect the future of an organization. Success

in implementing the ERP system would deliver a great positive impact on the

company. In the contrast, failing this project would result in having a major negative

impact on the organization (Tarhini, Ammar et al., 2015).

Succeeding in implementing the ERP system would have an important

impacts and benefits on the organization. These implications can be evaluated

according to different viewpoints. One prospective is about gains and losses, and

this can be done by analyzing case studies where companies implemented ERP

systems (Tarhini, Ammar et al., 2015).

20

2.2.4 ERP Providers

Today, customers expect more than before. To meet these expectations, it is

essential that ERP providers be able to set up a compatible e-business platform for

system integration (Nah, 2001).

And like every other segment of the IT industry, the ERP industry is evolving

rapidly, and it is seeing rapid growth in terms of the emergence of new players as

ERP vendors.

ERP solutions and ERP vendors can be broken down by sector where each

sector has its own top 10 list, nevertheless many of the providers are common to all

sectors such as SAP, Oracle, and Microsoft.

Major providers for ERP include:

Oracle

Oracle is a leading independent software company worldwide. Oracle's

Internet Platform provides a comprehensive solution for ERP integration.(Nah, 2001)

The Oracle e-Business Suite has many elements including Oracle CRM,

Oracle Financials, Oracle Logistics, Oracle Order Management and Oracle

Warehouse Management Systems. The software makes use of the Oracle database.

SAP

Established in Germany in 1972, SAP possesses 33% market share

worldwide. With more than 20,000 employees and an increase in revenue of 60% per

year, SAP is a major ERP provider in the world. (Nah, 2001)

Microsoft Dynamics

The Microsoft Dynamics ERP suite includes Microsoft Dynamics AX, an

accounting and finance, HR and CRM tool; Microsoft Dynamics GP, a mid-market

accounting suite; and Microsoft Dynamics NAV and Microsoft Dynamics SL, both

SME ERP platform

SAGE

Sage Line 500 and Sage 1000 are the cornerstone ERP solutions for

thousands of UK businesses. Developed for the UK mid-market from day one, the

Sage Line 500 and Sage 1000 Suites offer customers a broad range of capabilities

including CRM, HR, Payroll and Business Intelligence.

http://www.microsoft.com/dynamics/

http://www.sage.co.uk/

21

Infor Global Solutions

Infor is a large business software provider which has several ERP suites, such

as Infor ERP LN, Infor ERP SyteLine, Infor ERP VISUAL, Infor ERP Adage and

Infor ERP LX. They are built on an open, flexible, service-oriented architecture

(SOA) with web-based user interfaces.

NetERP from NetSuite

NetSuite supplies on-demand, integrated business management software

suites aimed at mid-market enterprises and divisions of large companies. It offers

hosted accounting, CRM, ERP, e-commerce and web site development software.

Lawson Software

Lawson merged with business software firm Intentia International in 2006, to

offer mid-market business an alternative to larger ERP vendors. The vendor’s ERP

packages are Lawson S3 (broadly for service firms) and Lawson M3 (broadly for

manufacturers and distributors.

In 2012, the global Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) applications market grew

3.6% to approach nearly $36 billion in license, maintenance and subscription

revenues.

Below (Table 2.2) are the rankings of the top 10 ERP Software vendors and their

market shares in 2012.

Table (2.2): Rankings of the top 10 ERP Software vendors and their market

shares in 2012

Rank

2012 Vendor

Software 2012 Revenues,

$M, USD

Market Share

2012%

1 SAP 7,499 20.80%

2 Oracle 4,211 11.70%

3 Infor 1,443 4.00%

4 Sage 1,380 3.80%

5 Microsoft 1,372 3.80%

6 Epicor 507 1.40%

7 TOTVS 470 1.30%

8 Constellation Software 455 1.30%

9 UNIT4 423 1.20%

10 Intuit 420 1.20%

source: https://www.appsruntheworld.com/top-100-erp-vendors-in-2012/

http://www.infor.co.uk/

http://www.netsuite.com/portal/products/neterp/main.shtml

http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240086170/NetSuite-takes-advantage-of-SAP-ERP-on-demand-delay

http://www.lawson.com/

https://www.appsruntheworld.com/top-100-erp-vendors-in-2012/

22

2.3 ERP Implementation

ERP systems can be complex and difficult to implement, but following a

structured and disciplined approach can facilitate the implementation (Umble, Haft et

al., 2003).

According to (Shanks, Parr et al. 2000) the ERP implementation process

concerns all aspects of implementation including developing the initial business case

and planning the project, configuring and implementing the packaged software, and

subsequent improvements to business processes.

ERP implementation can be considered as a management improvement

project, and not only a computer development project (Chen, Li et al., 2006).

Several researchers have developed process models of ERP implementation.

(Ross and Vitale 2000) developed a five-phase model based on 15 case studies of

ERP implementation. The phases are design, implementation, stabilization,

continuous improvement and transformation. The design phase is essentially a

planning phase in which critical guidelines and decisions making for the

implementation are determined. Stabilization occurs after cut-over and is a period of

time in which system problems are fixed and organizational performance

consequently improves. This is followed by a continuous period of steady

improvement in which functionality is added. Finally, firms expect to reach the stage

of transformation in which organizational boundaries and systems are maximally

flexible.

Bancroft, Seip et al. (1998) presented a view of the implementation process

which was derived from discussions with 20 practitioners and from studies of three

multinational corporation implementation projects. The (Bancroft, Seip et al., 1998)

model has five phases: focus, as is, to be, construction and testing and actual

implementation. The focus phase is essentially a planning phase in which the key

activities are the set-up of the steering committee, selection and structuring of the

project team, development of the project’s guiding principles and creation of a

project plan. The “as is” phase involves analysis of current business processes,

installation of the ERP, mapping of the business processes on to the ERP functions

and training of the project team. The “to be” phase entails high-level design and then

23

detailed design subject to user acceptance, followed by interactive prototyping

accompanied by constant communication with users. The key activities of the

construction and testing phase are the development of a comprehensive

configuration, the population of the test instance with real data, building and testing

interfaces, writing and testing reports and, finally, system and user testing. The final

phase, actual implementation, covers building networks, installing desktops and

managing user training and support. In summary, the model of implementation

extends from the beginning (focus) of the project proper to the cut-over to the live

system.

According to Parr and Shanks (2000), the ERP implementation has three

major phases: planning, project and enhancement. The planning phase includes the

selection of an ERP, assembly of a steering committee, determination of high-level

project scope and broad implementation approach, selection of a project team

manager and resource determination.

The project phase extends from the identification of ERP modules through to

installation and cut-over. The enhancement phase may extend over several years and

includes the stages of system repair, extension and transformation.

Regardless of the chosen model to implement the ERP system, it is essential

for any organization wanting to adopt an ERP system to understand that the ERP

implementation process is a large, costly, and complex process that involves large

group of resources and people working together under considerable time pressure.

2.4 Critical Success Factors (CSFs) for ERP implementations

The implementation of an ERP system is by all means a very risky and

expensive process. For an organization to adopt an ERP system, the risk of hurting

their business due to potential implementation problems should be considered. It is

therefore worthwhile to examine the factors that, to a great extent, determine whether

the implementation will be successful; these factors are called critical success

factors.

Critical success factors can be viewed as situated exemplars that help extend

the boundaries of process improvement, and whose effect is much richer if viewed

within the context of their importance in each stage of the implementation process

(Somers & Nelson, 2001).

24

Van Bullen and Rockart (1986) have defined CSF as ‘the limited number of

areas in which satisfactory results will ensure successful competitive performance for

the individual, department, or organization. CSFs are the few key areas where’

‘things must go right’’ for the business to flourish and for the manager’s goals to be

attained’. CSFs for ERP implementation bring a concept that helps an organization

identify the critical issues that affect the process of implementation. Through a better

understanding of the CSFs for the implementation of ERP, an organization can

determine the corresponding solution to eliminate or avoid the most common causes

of failure in implementation.

Critical success factors (CFS) approach was first used by (Rockart, 1979) in

IS area. It has been applied to many aspects of IS including project management,

manufacturing systems implementation, reengineering, and more recently, ERP

systems implementation (Brown & Vessey, 1999).

Many authors have identified a variety of factors that can be considered to be

critical to the success of an ERP implementation. Although a number of empirical

and non-empirical studies have addressed a variety of CSFs for ERP implementation,

different studies have produced different sets of factors.

Holland and Light (1999) proposed a CSF model with strategic and tactical factors

based on an analysis of eight companies, this model is shown in figure (2.3).

Figure (2.3): ERP critical success factors model

Source: (Holland & Light, 1999)

In their study, Zhang, Lee et al (2003) identified CFS for ERP system

implementation in China to include Top Management Support, Re-engineering

Business Process, Effective Project Management, Company-Wide Commitment,

Education and Training, User Involvement, Suitability of Software and Hardware,

Data Accuracy, Vendor Support, & Organizational Culture.

25

Al-Mashari, Al-Mudimigh et al (2003) developed a taxonomy of CSFs for

ERP implementation through a comprehensive literature review combining research

studies and organizational experiences. The taxonomy is comprised of various

success factors from five perspectives: (1) setting-up, (2) implementation, (3)

evaluation, (4) ERP success, and (5) ERP benefits.

Figure (2.4): Taxonomy for ERP CFS-

Source: (Al-Mashari, Al-Mudimigh et al., 2003)

Somers and Nelson (2001) identified a list of 22 CSFs associated with ERP

implementation and analysed the importance of these factors in different phases of

implementation.

26

Table (2.3): Rankings of CSFs by degree of importance in ERP implementation

CFS Ranking

Top management support 1

Project team competence 2

Interdepartmental cooperation 3

Clear goals and objectives 4

Project management 5

Interdepartmental communication 6

Management of expectations 7

Project champion 8

Vendor support 9

Careful package selection 10

Data analysis & conversion 11

Dedicated resources 12

Use of steering committee 13

User training on software 14

Education on new business processes 15

Business Process Reengineering 16

Minimal customization 17

Architecture choices 18

Change management 19

27

CFS Ranking

Partnership with vendor 20

Use of vendors’ tools 21

Use of consultants 22

Source: (Somers & Nelson, 2001)

In her study on critical success factors for ERP projects in small and medium-

sized enterprises, (Leyh, 2014) derived 31 different CSFs through analysing 320

relevant papers dealing with CSFs of ERP system projects. In figure (6), these 31

CSFs are ranked according to their frequency of appearance in the 320 reviewed

studies.

Figure (2.5): ERP Project CSFs in Rank Order Based on Frequency of

Appearance in Analyzed Literature Source: (Leyh, 2014)

28

It is obvious that there is no general agreement on which set of factors are the

key to success in ERP implementation. One possible reason why different factors

were generated is that different studies were based on different samples and research

settings, which may have placed more emphasis on some CSFs but less on others.

This may explain why different studies have reported different subsets of CSFs

rather than a comprehensive set of similar factors. In addition, the researchers

conducted their research in different countries or territories where cultures,

government regulations, and economic environments differ among countries (Ngai,

Law et al., 2008).

Among the different views on ERP implementation success factors, user

participation and involvement is considered one of the most cited critical success

factors in ERP implementation projects, and one of the most critical ones for their

satisfactory outcome (Pastor & Casanovas, 2003).

2.5 Users and ERP Projects

2.5.1 User Definition

Barki and Hartwick (1994) defined the user as a person who, as part of his or

her regular job, either used the system hands-on or made use of the outputs produced

by the system.

According to (Land & Hirschheim, 1983), there are different types of users:

1- Senior management which may use a system’s output

2- Middle management which manages and monitors the work affected by the

system.

3- Employees who interact with the system on a daily basis.

In his study (Bradford, 2014) defined Users as the persons who are system

users, their management, their support teams, the executive management, or

professionals representing any one or more of these user groups.

Tarhini, A., et al (2015) mentioned that the stakeholders involved in the ERP

implementation can be divided into several groups, and that such categorization is

important since since it provides a way for each group to focus on the CSFs that are

relevant to it.

29

Table (2.4): ERP Stakeholders Categorization

Group # Stakeholder Group Name

1 End user

2 Top management

3 IT Department

4 Project Team

5 Organization

6 Vendor

7 ERP Consultant

8 Employees from different department

9 Business processes experts

Source: (Tarhini, A., et al, 2015)

2.5.2 User Involvement and User Participation

User participation and user involvement have been used to mean the same

thing in the IS literature. However, there are some studies indicating that the two

terms are different. (Barki & Hartwick, 1994) define user participation and user

involvement as follows:

• User involvement is defined as “a psychological stage of the individual, and

defined as the importance and personal relevance of a system to a user” i.e., their

attitude toward the development process and its product (the IS itself)

• User participation is defined as the observable behaviour of users in the IS

development and implementation, i.e., the set of operations and activities performed

by users or their representatives during the IS development process or activities

during the system implementation

In their study (Hartwick & Barki, 2001) defined user participation as the

extent to which users or their representatives carry out assignments and perform

various activities and behaviours during the system development process, they

mention that user participation reflects what specific behaviours are performed, how

many of these behaviours are performed, and how often they are performed.

30

Kappelman and McLean (1991) suggested that user involvement is something

distinct from, although associated with, user participation and that the psychological

state of user involvement may be more important than user participation in

understanding IS success.

In this study, user participation and user involvement have been used to

mean the same thing.

2.5.3 Purpose of User Involvement and Participation in IS Projects

Among the different views on ERP implementation success factors, user

participation and involvement is considered one of the most cited critical success

factors in ERP implementation projects, and one of the most critical ones for their

satisfactory outcome (Pastor & Casanovas, 2003).

User participation and involvement result in a better fit of user requirements

achieving better system quality, use and acceptance (Esteves & Pastor, 2000).

According to (Briolat & Pogman, 2000), “user participation is advocated in

order to discover users’ needs and points of view, validate specifications, and hence

build better IS for the organization”.

Ives and Olson (1984) outlined how user participation can improve system

quality by: providing a more and complete assessment of user information

requirements, providing expertise about the organization the system is to support,

avoiding development of unacceptable or unimportant features, and improving user

understanding of the system.

McKeen, Guimaraes et al. (1994) showed that user participation has a

positive relationship with user satisfaction. They also argued that four factors affect

this relationship: task complexity, system complexity, user influence and user-

developer communication.

Hartwick and Barki (2001) define four dimensions of user participation:

responsibility, user-IS relationship, hands-on-activity, and communication activity.

According to (Pastor & Casanovas, 2003), there are many reasons that

support the involvement of users in the implementation of ERP systems. (Ives &

Olson, 1984) outlined that user involvement is predicted to have positive impact on

the success of ERP systems, the user involvement is predicted to lead to:

Increase user satisfaction and acceptance;

31

Allow users to develop realistic expectations about system capabilities;

Provide an arena for bargaining and conflict resolution about design issues;

Lead to system ownership by users;

Decrease user resistance to change;

Create a user commitment to the system.

Baronas and Louis (1988) stated that “by involving end-users in decisions

relating to implementation, workers may become more invested in the success of the

implementation and more satisfied with the system through the social-psychological

mechanism of perceived control”. Personal control has been defined in terms of

choice, predictability, responsibility and ability to reduce or get relief from an

unpleasant condition. They suggested that:

Systems implementation is likely to be experienced by nontechnical users as a

period of transition during which users make sense of, and cope with, various

differences between old and new systems and their anticipations of these

differences;

Systems implementation is likely to represent a threat to user’s perceptions of

control over work.

According to (Kappelman, 1995) user involvement is a need-based

motivational attitude toward information systems and their development. As such, it

has important implications for the successful creation and deployment of information

systems in organization. (Kappelman, 1995) divides user involvement in two types:

user process involvement and user system involvement. User process involvement

refers to the psychological identification of users with the process of IS development

(their subjective attitude toward the IS development task). In addition, user system

involvement refers to the psychological identification of users with respect to the IS

itself (i.e. their subjective attitude toward the product of development).

2.5.4 User Roles in IS Projects

Bradford (2014) mentioned that the different roles of users including users’

titles, positions, or responsibilities held on projects) are generally not well

understood. (Leonard, 2004) notes that users are usually are seen as “an inferior

party” by IT professionals.

32

(Jiang et al., 2000) argue that the lack of a clear definition of users’ roles

negatively impact project success. According to (Tesch, Kloppenborg, & Frolick,

2007), identifying the roles and responsibilities of users reduces project risk by

identifying inadequate resource levels or skills.

In their study (Hsu et al., 2008) noted that the effective UI which gives users

some level of control over the development process influences project outcomes.

Similarly, (Chen et al., 2011) and (Havelka & Rajkumar, 2006) note that ambiguous

role definitions may negatively affect UP.

Table (2.5): User Roles in IS Project

Internal External

Use

rs, C

ust

om

ers,

Exp

erts

Use

r R

epre

sen

tati

ves

Exec

uti

ve

Man

agem

ent

Mid

dle

Man

agem

ent

Dev

elop

ers,

Tes

ters

An

aly

sts

Pro

ject

Man

agem

ent

Fin

an

ce, H

R

Ven

dor,

Au

dit

or,

Con

sult

an

t

Biffl et al (2006) × ×

Hoda, Noble and Marshall

(2011) ×

Howcroft and Wilson (2003) × × × × ×

Iivari (2009) ×

Ives and Olson (1984) × ×

Jones (2003) ×

Kamadjeu et al (2005) ×

Kearns (2007) ×

Kelly (2011) ×

Khang and Moe (2008) × × × × × × × ×

Liu, Zhang, Keil and Chen

2010 × ×

Melton et al (2010) ×

Ngai et al (2008) ×

Somers and Nelson (2001) × × × × ×

Somers and Nelson (2004) ×

Wang et al (2008) × ×

Wu and Wang (2006) × ×

Source: (Bradford, 2014)

33

Users can be portrayed by the function they perform throughout the project

life cycle. (Ives & Olson, 1984) identify two roles: primary users (use the output) and

secondary users (generate input or run the system). (Damodaran, 1996) identifies

multiple user roles: resource pool of user expertise, “Top management”, “Middle

management”, user representatives and end-users.

Wu and Wang (2006) listed four user roles in their study of ERP project

success: managers and stakeholders, customers, suppliers, and employees.

In their study on ERP system, (Wang, Shih, Jiang, &Klein, 2008) identified

two types of external roles: consultant and vendor.

Bradford (2014) noted that the most frequently studied roles are internal user

roles such as users, customers, management, and representatives

Table (2.5) provides a summary of user roles in IS projects according to

different studies.

2.5.5 User Activities in IS Projects

Multiple studies identify user participation as contributing to the generation

of correct system specifications, enabling relevant designs and providing the users

with a sense of ownership of the result.

In their study on the strategies for user participation, (McKeen & Guimaraes,

1997) identify five basic main user activities which are: approving information

requirements, defining data I/O forms, screens and report formats, and assisting in

installation activities. They also suggest that there could be additional activities but

theses would be unique to the need for participation.

Harris and Weistroffer (2009) suggest that system complexity increases the

need for increased UI to capture the right requirements. They further identify five

core user activities: (1) feasibility analysis, (2) determine information requirements,

(3) define input and output forms, (4) define screen and report formats, and (5) install

the system.

Bradford (2014) identified four user activities in his model to study the

impact of user involvement on IS projects, those four activities are as follows:

1- Functional Requirements: address the tactical business purpose of the

information system and includes what data is to be used, the processes of

34

collecting and validating the data, the data’s security, the calculations that

employ the data and the task and system complexity.

2- Presentation Requirements: is based on the information system’s human

interface and established measures. The primary users of an information system

are concerned with its data, processes and calculations. The presentation (human

interface) of the system is of some concern to them but the reports and ad hoc

queries may be of greater concern to a different user community. Presentation

requirements include forms, screens, reports, and queries.

3- Quality Assurance Activities: it is the actual execution of the individual test

cases to validate whether predefined quality standards are being used. User’s

involvement in test design and execution, use of quality assurance tools, and use

of prototypes are manifest variables to define quality assurance.

4- Project Management Activities: include user’s involvement during schedule

development, problem solving, and risk and conflict management, non-IS

communication, and implementation.

2.6 ERP System Success

Defining success is not as simple as it may seem. It is a very subjective issue

and in existing literature authors use a variety of different definitions for system

success. System success is ideally measured in economic terms by return on

investment: a system is successful if its return compares favourably with alternative

investment opportunities. However, economic justification and evaluation is difficult

as intangible costs and especially benefits of IS are hard to identify and difficult to

express in financial terms (Cavaye, 1995). Instead of evaluating system success in

economic terms, the IS community relies on surrogates.

Petter, DeLone et al. (2013) reviewed over 100 empirical studies. They

developed a success model to classify all success measures into six categories:

system quality, information quality, use, user satisfaction, individual impact, and

organizational impact. The six success measures are defined as follows:

System quality: The desired characteristics of an information system itself.

Information quality: The desired characteristics of the product of an information

system.

Use: The receipt consumption of the product of an information system.

35

User satisfaction: The receipt response to the use of the product of an information

system.

Individual impact: The effect of information on the behavior of a receipt.

Organizational impact: The effect of information on organizational performance.

2.6.1User Satisfaction

According to (Hwang & Thorn, 1999), user satisfaction is the most widely

used measure for system success in the empirical user participation literature,

followed by information quality and use. Satisfied users do not necessarily indicate

that a system is successful because it is possible to have unsuccessful systems with

satisfied users and to have an effective system with unsatisfied users. However, user

satisfaction is accepted as the main indicator of success, particularly when system

use is mandatory.

System success” and “user satisfaction” are terms that have often been

considered synonymously. For example, a meta-analysis by (Harris & Weistroffer,

2009) finds support for user involvement positively impacting user satisfaction

which they argue is a proxy for system success.

Terry (2008) describes user satisfaction for business-to-consumer systems as

being related to meeting requirements and usability. (Ives et al., 1983) provide a

thorough description of the user satisfaction construct. They note that it is a

“perceptual or subjective measure” that although in theory is defined by economics,

the practical effect cannot be so easily measured. They create an instrument with 39

measures for user satisfaction as well as a “short form” instrument with only

measures.

Hsu et al. (2008) notes that 18 of the 31 articles they reviewed employed

“user satisfaction” as their dependent variable with various types of user participation

as independent variables. Their analysis shows 15 studies indicating positive effects

of participation, two indicating insignificant effects and one showing negative

effects.

Bradford (2014) used a multi-factor model of business user involvement in

information system projects to identify how specific user characteristics and

activities impact various user satisfaction measures.

36

Many research studies have attempted to measure “user satisfaction”. The

consensus is that although there are some definitions of this construct that include

both subjective and objective measures, it is fundamentally dependent on the end

user’s perception of their satisfaction. Information systems exist to benefit users and

users are the primary people who can fully appreciate the value to be derived by their

use. Users from multiple disciplines and with differing roles and responsibilities

consider project performance by multiple and sometimes different measures as

confirmed by social perception models. User Satisfaction is a multi-dimensional

construct that includes process measures (predominantly related to objective

measures such as budget, time and scope) and product measures. The product

measures can be further divided into those that convey the degree to which the

system meets the business objective that motivated the information system and those

that convey the technical implementation and support of the system (Bradford,

2014).

2.7 Timing of User Involvement and Participation in ERP Projects

There are several studies indicating that user involvement and participation is

most useful to IS projects when limited to specific phases. However, there are

several studies as well indicating that continuous user involvement and participation

benefits project performance.

Wagner and Newell’s (2007) study of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)

and Customer Relationship Management (CRM) find that there is a post-

implementation phase that benefits from user participation describing such

participation “as a normal and necessary part of systems development”

Research on ERP and CRM system implementations suggests that the post-

implementation involvement may even be more significant than pre-implementation

participation (Wagner & Piccoli, 2007). They argue that this behavior is to be

expected since during the pre-implementation period, the users’ focus is on their

primary job responsibilities while during post-implementation, the users have now

been immersed in the new system where the new system is impacting their work

environment.

37

Subramanyam et al. (2010) suggest that user participation at excessive levels

can reduce overall project success. (Wagner & Newell, 2007) argue that large

information system implementations may benefit more from post-implementation

involvement due to the user’s change in focus caused by their other responsibilities.

Studies, such as (Hsu et al., 2008), (Fortune and White 2006), (Hoda et al.,

2011) and (De Moor et al., 2010), all note that continuous user participation benefits

project performance.

2.8 UNRWA and ERP

2.8.1 ERP Systems in United Nations Organizations

Most United Nations organizations have invested in ERP systems to replace

legacy systems for several reasons including cost reduction, improvement of

operational performance, increasing efficiency and controls.

According to the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) report published in 2014, 12 of

the UN agencies are using Oracle and/or PeopleSoft, seven are using SAP and one is

using Agresso. (“JIU website”, 2016).

ERP implementations within the United Nations started in the 1990s, with the

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the United Nations

High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the United Nations Children’s Fund

(UNICEF) and the World Food Programme (WFP). However, United Nations system

organizations are at different stages of ERP implementation and some organizations

are still without an ERP system (“JIU website”, 2016).

It is important to note that the International Civil Aviation Organization

(ICAO) is the only organization using Agresso and that the United Nations Relief

and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and the

Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) are currently

working on the ERP final phase for an SAP-based solution. The United Nations

World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) will study the possibility of introducing an

ERP or another integrated system after implementing the IPSAS (“JIU website”,

2016).

Table (2.6) shows the use of ERP by organizations.

38

Table (2.6): ERP Software used in UN Agencies

ERP Software Organizations

SAP Fao, Imo, Itu, Unesco, Wfp, Unicef, Unido

Oracle Iaea, Ilo, Unaids, Undp, Un Women, Upu, Who, Wipo,

Wmo, Unfpa, Unhcr, Unops

Agresso Icao

Source: (JIU website, 2016).

2.8.2 UNRWA

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the

Near East (UNRWA) was established as a subsidiary organ of the United Nations

General Assembly on 8 December 1949 and became operational on 1 May 1950. It is

one of the largest United Nations programmes. Created as a temporary agency until a

just and durable solution for Palestine refugees was achieved, the UNRWA mandate

was set to expire in one year. Sixty-six years later, the Agency continues to provide

essential services for the well-being, human development and protection of Palestine

refugees, pending a just solution (UNRWA website, 2016).

UNRWA is unique among UN agencies in that it delivers services directly.

These services include education, health care, relief and social services,

microfinance, infrastructure and camp improvement, emergency assistance, and the

protection of refugees’ rights under international law. UNRWA services are

delivered in accordance with the United Nations humanitarian principles of

humanity, neutrality, impartiality and operational independence. UNRWA operates

in five fields: Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including

East Jerusalem. 5.6 million People are registered for UNRWA services, including

5.15 million registered refugees and 440,000 other registered persons. UNRWA

employs more than 30,000 staff including more than 28,000 who are Palestine

refugees themselves. (UNRWA website, 2016).

2.8.3 UNRWA Need for an ERP

The old system used by UNRWA (RAMCO) had several flaws including:

is obsolete & not technically supported beyond 2014;

can barely support the Agency’s basic day to‐day operational needs;

scope of functionality is inadequate to support & manage all core business;

cannot support the Agency’s reporting & strategic planning needs;

39

Does not provide a platform for the ongoing and planned management

reforms (UNRWA website, 2016).

ERP Project Implementation Drivers:

Replacing obsolete technology;

Reducing the Agency’s dependency on spreadsheets and standalone systems

for monitoring, reporting and data management;

Improved management & donor reporting;

Strengthening the Agency’s monitoring and oversight capabilities;

Comprehensive corporate platform for key initiatives such as IPSAS, and

RBM (UNRWA website, 2016).

2.8.4 ERP Expected Benefits for UNRWA

First: Agency Wide Benefits

The implementation of an integrated system to manage cross-functional processes in

the areas of finance, procurement, inventory management and human resources, will

significantly improve: (1) the efficiency and cost effectiveness of administrative and

financial, processes and procedures; (2) the availability of information to support

strategic planning, management functions, and operational activities; and (3) the

visibility and transparency of activities supporting improved monitoring and

oversight.

The expansion of the system to cover the core business areas of Grants Management,

Funds Management, and Project Management will allow the Agency to review and

manage its financial resources, within one system, from contribution pledging to end

reporting. This will support strategic planning and effective use of resources,

underpinning service improvement. Implementation will align and embed key

reforms in day-to-day operations and systems supporting, and will improve

information management throughout the Agency.

UNRWA will adopt best practices throughout the organization streamlining

processes and workflow, promoting consistency and transparency in the application

of rules and operating procedures throughout the Agency. Additionally, the system

will substantiate ongoing financial initiatives, such as IPSAS, RBM, and activity

based costing, and provide a platform to support the crucial reforms under sustaining

change. UNRWA will also see gains for its programmatic initiatives and obtain

operational benefits. Stronger and more accurate operational support will create

improvements in areas such as budget forecasting, planning, procurement,

monitoring, and end reporting.

40

ERP system will improve the monitoring of programmatic, project, and operational

indicators, establishing strong internal controls to support the Agency in achieving

oversight and accountability objectives.

Additionally, the quality, reliability, and inclusiveness of data will improve stand-

alone program initiatives that rely on corporate information (UNRWA website,

2016).

Second: Specific Functional Benefits

Key benefits in finance and accounting:

The core accounting and financial modules of an ERP will provide UNRWA with an

updated financial management platform that will support:

(1) Compliance with International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS),

activity-based costing, and results-based management.

(2) Audit trails and internal controls to provide greater transparency and

accountability.

(3) Alignment of forecasting, budgeting and expending (UNRWA website, 2016).

Key benefits in human resources:

Human Resource management modules will support:

(1) Automation of processes that today are completed manually or are managed by

the Fields with stand-alone systems that they have built on their own.

(2) Better decision-making and alignment of human assets with the agency’s

strategic goals.

(3) Reduction of the workload of the entitlement administering personnel to focus on

high level initiatives that have strategic impact on the organization.

(4) Simplification of payroll management to improve quality and reduce costs of data

entry and administration (UNRWA website, 2016).

Key benefits in procurement and logistics:

An ERP system will provide a combined solution for goods, service and contract

management and will support:

(1) Integration of procurement processes with funds management to provide

transparency on purchasing patterns and costs.

(2) Optimization of the Agency’s buying power to obtain the best value in cost, time,

and quality.

41

(3) material-requirements planning and review of inventory levels to reduce goods

wastage through more efficient stock management (UNRWA website, 2016).

Key benefits in grant management:

Implementation of a Grant Management module will provide UNRWA with an

integrated application that will support:

(1) Linkage between donors, their contributions, and specific interventions.

(2) A common view of information allowing all business areas access to relevant

data supporting planned and funded activities, contribution forecasting, funds

received, and budget planning.

(3) Compliance management of negotiated grant agreements to achieve agreed-to

deliverables on time and within budget (UNRWA website, 2016).

Key benefits in project management:

A Projects Management module will support:

(1) Field Office planning for operational activities by including key project data such

as beneficiaries, milestones, budgets, and dates.

(2) Easy access to data allowing project managers and project assistants to assign

project resources, manage project budgets, track project expenses, and record project

progress via accurate tools, diminishing the dependence and reliance on spreadsheets

for project monitoring.

(3) agency-wide access to project data allowing other business areas within UNRWA

to strengthen their support, monitoring, and oversight of project execution (UNRWA

website, 2016).

2.8.5 ERP (SAP) Implementation at UNRWA

In September 2011, UNRWA decided to move forward with implementing an

ERP. By this decision UNRWA aligned with the majority of UN agencies. In

December 2011 UNRWA signed a memorandum of understanding with World Food

Programme (WFP) concerning ERP partnership to implement their ERP (WINGS II,

SAP System. In January 2012 UNRWA signed a contract with WFP implementation

partner CapGemini to assist UNRWA appraising WFP’s ERP (“UNRWA website”,

2016).

SAP-UNRWA REACH was launched agency wide on the 19th of April 2015

The SAP Modules (as adopted by UNRWA) are shown in figure (2.6).

42

Figure (2.6): SAP Modules adopted by UNRWA

Source: (UNRWA website, 2016)

2.10 Chapter Summery

The chapter introduced the theoretical framework and literature reviews about

ERP, ERP implementation, ERP critical success factors, information systems success

factors, user participation and involvement importance in ERP projects, user

satisfaction, UNRWA (case study) and the SAP implantation at UNRWA.

Chapter 3

Previous Studies

44

Chapter 3

Previous Studies

3.1 Introduction

This chapter introduces the previous literature in the field of the study. The

researcher focused on some of the available important studies that have addressed the

topic of the research directly or indirectly. By reviewing these studies, the researcher

tries to identify the findings and conclusions that were presented in these studies in

order to help in exploring the impact of user involvement and participation on ERP

projects. Studies are arranged according to the date of the publication from the latest

to the oldest one.

3.2 Previous Studies

1- (Raafat Saade Harshjot Nijher, 2016) "Critical Success Factors In Enterprise

Resource Planning Implementation: A Review of Case Studies”

The purpose of this paper is to consolidate the critical success factors (CSFs)

as published in enterprise resource planning (ERP) implementation case studies.

The study analyzed 37 case studies from different countries and different

context, the study used two methodologies, one for the literature review process and

the other for the analysis and synthesis.

Out of 64 reported CSFs that were extracted from the literature and

subsequent detailed analysis and synthesis the authors found a total of 22 factors that

are distinct including user involvement. The study indicated that there is a need to

establish a strategy to project management activities for the ERP implementation

with involvement of stakeholders. The study identified CSFs extracted from cases of

ERP implementation and proposed a model to support its project management, user

satisfaction and sustainability.

The study recommends that the proposed CSFs can be used by practitioners

in different ways to guarantee the success of ERP implementation.

45

2- (Bradford, 2014) “The Impact Of User Involvement on Information System

Projects (Doctoral dissertation, Cleveland State University)”

This research addresses three objectives. First, it surveys the actual business

users themselves for their perception of activities and satisfaction with the IS.

Second, it analyzes the separation of business requirements into two constructs

representing the functional and presentation dimensions of these requirements to

advance the understanding of user involvement on information system projects.

Third, it explores the combinations of user characteristics and their activities that can

improve IS project performance.

The research uses a multiple factor user satisfaction model which contains

eight constructs divided into three categories, business users, user activities, and

finally user satisfaction. The research uses the multiple factor user satisfaction model

to describe the relationships between the constructs.

This research used electronic and paper surveys to obtain responses for

analysis of its model that were distributed on IS business users in different

companies in the USA.

The research findings showed that business user involvement on requirements

gathering activities showed mixed results. Their involvement on gathering functional

requirements was supported. However, their involvement with gathering presentation

requirements and with quality assurance and project management activities was not

supported.

The research recommended that future research should include a more

sophisticated user profile to identify possible moderating factors based on the

business user’s profile.

3- (Hsu et al., 2013) “Antecedents And Consequences Of User Coproduction in

Information System Development Projects”

This study attempts to understand the antecedents and consequences of user

coproduction in information system development projects. The study examined the

influence of user coproduction on different project outcomes including project

performance, system quality, and user satisfaction.

46

The research model includes seven constructs: structural social capital,

relational social capital, cognitive social capital, user coproduction, system quality,

user satisfaction, and project performance.

Data was collected from both user representatives and developers by using a

survey approach which was used to test proposed hypotheses. A total of 103 data

pairs from both developers and user representatives on the same project in Taiwan

were collected.

The results of the study indicated that user coproduction can lead to higher

project performance, better system quality, and higher levels of user satisfaction.

The study recommends that rather than demonstrating passive engagement in

the system development process, users should regard themselves as service receivers

and act as active coproducers to ensure that value is maximized.

4- (Hsu et al., 2012) “The Role Of User Review on Information System Project

Outcomes: A Control Theory Perspective”

This study adopts a mediating perspective and asserts that influence due to

the effectiveness of participation determines the final outcomes. Based on control

theory, and viewing user participation in reviews as one kind of control, the study

proposes that the influence users can generate through participation determines

project outcomes.

Data was collected from 151 information systems personnel who are

members of the Project Management Institute in the USA.

The study results confirm that the ability to achieve quality interactions

among developers and users heightens the achievement of user influence.

5- (Wang et al., 2011) “User Advocacy And Information System Project

Performance”

The aim of this study is to build and empirically test a research model that

links user advocacy to project performance. The research model also establishes

links between two potential antecedents of user advocacy: socialization and extrinsic

motivation.

The study uses four constructs (user advocacy, project performance, User

socialization, and extrinsic motivation).

47

To test the research model and hypotheses a matched-pair survey instruments

were developed and data was collected from 128 matched-pairs of information

system users and developers.

The findings of this study showed that user advocacy is positively related to

project performance

The study builds and empirically tests a model that links user advocacy to

project performance. The model also establishes links between two potential

antecedents of user advocacy, socialization. The study recommends that information

system project managers are encouraged to establish reward structures and training to

promote a role of advocacy for the users represented in the project team.

6- (Harris & Weistroffer, 2009) “A New Look At The Relationship Between User

Involvement in Systems Development And System Success”

This study provides a review of 28 empirical research studies that investigate

the significance of user involvement in system success. The purpose of this review is

to confirm or repudiate the importance of user involvement to successful system

development.

The study outlines the measures used for both user involvement and system

success in the 28 empirical studies.

The study concludes that user involvement in the systems development

process is indeed important to system success. It also identifies several key points

pertinent to making user involvement effective.

7- (Sridhar, Nath, & Malik, 2009) “Analysis Of User Involvement And

Participation on The Quality Of IS Planning Projects: An Exploratory Study”

This study addresses the effect of user involvement and participation on the

quality of IS planning projects. The study used an exploratory quasi experiment

approach conducted in an academic setting. The effects of user involvement were

studied using two sets of teams doing IS planning exercises, one in which the user

was involved as part of the project team and the other where the user was outside the

project team, but was involved in interviews and reviews of project artifacts.

The study also measures the extent of user participation through a survey of

participants engaged in the IS planning projects. Results indicate that user

involvement has significant positive effect on user participation, as well as on the

48

quality of IS planning projects. However the effect of user participation on the

quality of projects is mixed and needs further research.

8- (He & King, 2008) “The Role Of User Participation in Information Systems

Development: Implications From A Meta-Analysis”

This study synthesizes the research findings of 82 empirical studies on user

participation in information systems development (ISD). Various ISD outcomes are

addressed using a classification scheme involving two broad categories—

attitudinal/behavioral outcomes and productivity outcomes. The results demonstrate

that user participation is minimally-to-moderately beneficial to ISD; its effects are

comparatively stronger on attitudinal/behavioral outcomes than on productivity

outcomes. This attitudinal/behavioral impact may largely be the result of the

emphasis that has been placed on user participation by academics and consultants.

9- (Discenza, Tesch, Klein, & Jiang, 2008) “User Involvement To Enhance

Expertise in System Development”

This study investigated the influence of user involvement and project

manager expertise on system success. A survey of 169 project managers was used.

The user involvement measures were focused on user partnering and hands on

activities. User partnering refers to activities used to build relationships between

users and project managers to create responsibility sharing. User hands on activities

describe direct user participation in software development. Measures for project

manager expertise focused on general expertise, application expertise, requirements

analysis expertise, and technology analysis expertise. Software success was

measured with twelve items, such as software reliability, response time, and

responsiveness. Partial least squares was used to determine path coefficients for the

authors' multiple hypotheses. Results indicate that both user partnering and hands on

activities directly affect system success. However, there were also mediating affects

with project manager expertise that led to system success. For example, user

partnering is a partial mediator between general expertise and system success and a

full mediator between application expertise and system success. General expertise of

the project manager is also directly related to system success but application

expertise is not. User hands on activities is a full mediator between requirements

49

analysis expertise of the project manager and system success but not with project

manager technology analysis expertise.

The study concludes that user involvement leads to a higher likelihood of

system success and that future research should seek the optimal level of involvement.

10- (Hsu, Lai, & Weng, 2008) “Understanding The Critical Factors Effect User

Satisfaction And Impact Of ERP Through Innovation Of Diffusion Theory”

The authors of this study surveyed 130 companies implementing enterprise

resource planning (ERP) systems to investigate factors that influence user

satisfaction. Among the constructs were user attributes (computer anxiety,

involvement, training), perceived attributes of innovation (compatibility, complexity,

observability, trial ability), and organizational attributes (top management support,

centralization, formalization). The research model also suggests user satisfaction has

an effect on individual impacts, such as system quality, user productivity, and time to

decision. User satisfaction is also theorized to have an effect on organizational

impacts, i.e. the economic impacts of the system on the organization. Another model

relationship is that individual impacts are expected to affect organizational impacts.

The path analysis results show a significant effect of user involvement and training

experience on user satisfaction. Observability and top management support also had

effects on user satisfaction. Observability represents visibility and result

demonstrability. The authors also report that user satisfaction effects individual

impacts and organizational impacts. Individual impacts are then reported to have an

effect on organizational impacts.

11- (Hsu, Chan, Liu, & Chen, 2008) “The Impacts Of User Review on Software

Responsiveness: Moderating Requirements Uncertainty”

This study attempted to determine whether user reviews during the

development process could reduce uncertainties and improve the product.

Technology structuration theory indicated that users, as actors participating in

reviews during the development of a system, could help reduce uncertainty in the

organizational requirements and thus improve the software product.

The study used a model with three constructs, first user review which was

measured using 4 items related to project management activities, second software

responsiveness which was measured using 3 items related to output generation and

50

customization, third requirements uncertainty which was measured using 3 items

related to system requirements.

A questionnaire about user participation and software outcomes, was sent to

1000 US IS project managers who are members of the Project Management Institute

(PMI).

The study findings confirmed that user review reduced the magnitude of the

impact of user requirements uncertainty on software responsiveness. The result

implied that users needed to act to control progress and act as product quality gate

keepers in the IS development process. The study concluded that users should not

only play the role as requirements providers but should continue to engage in the

subsequent development process to make sure that user requirements were fulfilled.

This study thus adds a perspective in understanding the effect of user participation

and how it influences the final system outcomes.

12- (Geethalakshmi & Shanmugam, 2008) “Success And Failure Of Software

Development: Practitioners' Perspective”

This study was conducted in India among the industries that are into in-house

software development, to investigate the influence of the non-technical components

of the software development process, on success and failure of software development

from the practitioners’ perspective.

The study developed a model which treats the non-technical components as

independent variables and success and failure of the software development as the

dependent variable. The variables chosen for this study are: management support and

participation (people and process-related), user support and participation (people and

process-related), requirement management (people and process-related), estimation

and schedule (people and process-related), project manager and relationship with

development staff (people and process-related), software process management

(process-related) and software development personnel (people -related). A

questionnaire was used as an instrument to collect the data from 141 software

practitioners working in 58 companies in Coimbatore city (India) which have an in-

house software development department.

The study reveals that practitioners consider the level of customer and user

involvement contributes most to project success and failure. Practitioners perceive

51

the next important factors to be software process management, and estimation and

schedule.

The findings of this study suggest that involvement of customers/users should

occur in all phases of software development. The level of customer involvement may

enhance the confidence of the practitioners

13- (Pries-Heje, 2008) “Time, Attitude, And User Participation: How Prior Events

Determine User Attitudes in ERP Implementation”

The author interviewed 18 managers, users, and consultants at five intervals

during an ERP implementation. During the implementation process, the users'

attitudes toward the system varied along a range of acceptance, equivocation,

resistance, and rejection. At the beginning of the implementation, the users' attitudes

were very positive and accepting of the system. As the project progressed, their

attitudes toward the system dipped to equivocation, resistance, and then rejection,

before rising back to acceptance as the project concluded. The users’ attitude toward

the system changed over time, depending on three factors: (1) the dynamics between

the users and the consultants, (2) the dynamics between various user groups, and (3)

knowledge about the technical and socio-technical systems. The dynamics between

users and consultants can become strained when users feel the consultants are

limiting the users' influence. The users' attitudes toward the system vary depending

on their perceived influence with the consultants. The dynamics between various

user groups can become strained when compromises must be made that do not satisfy

all groups. In regard to technical and socio-technical knowledge, the users' attitudes

toward the system was less satisfactory when their knowledge of these aspects of the

system was limited, and became more satisfactory as their knowledge increased. The

author calls for more research in helping users resolve conflicts of interest and

increasing user knowledge.

14- (Wang, Shih, Jiang, & Klein, 2006) “The Relative Influence Of Management

Control And User–IS Personnel Interaction On Project Performance”

Research has failed to establish a conclusive link between levels of user

involvement and information system project success. Communication and control

theories indicate that the quality of interactions between users and information

personnel may serve to better the coordination in a project and lead to greater

52

success. In this study, a model is developed that directly relates management control

to the quality of interaction and project success, with interaction quality as a potential

intermediary. These variables provide a more distinct relationship to success as

interactions are more structurally defined and controlled. A survey of 196 IS

professionals provides evidence that management control techniques improve the

quality of user–IS personnel interactions and eventual project success. These formal

structures provide guidelines for managers in controlling the critical relations

between users and IS personnel.

15- (Wu, & Marakas, 2006) “The Impact Of Operational User Participation on

Perceived System Implementation Success: An Empirical Investigation”

This study reports on a laboratory experiment using 210 students to

investigate user participation in the analysis and design stages and the impact on

system success. User participation was observed along two dimensions: the degree

and the extent of participation, where degree of participation was either "high" or

"low." The extent of participation differentiated between participation in analysis,

participation in design, or both. System success was measured along three

dimensions: (1) degree of satisfaction with development process, (2) perceived

ownership, and (3) intention to use. The authors conclude that user participation

positively influences system success. High participation in either analysis or design

resulted in more successful systems than low participation in both. Also, high

participation in analysis activities reduces the necessity of further participation in

design activities. However, if users do not participate in analysis activities, high

participation in design activities is still beneficial.

This study showed preliminary evidence that after meaningful participation in

one stage of analysis or design activities, further material participation in other stages

may not be necessary to promote user satisfaction with the process. The results of

this study suggest a basis for resource allocation with regard to end user participation

in systems development projects.

16- (Wu, & Wang, 2006) “Measuring ERP Success: The Ultimate Users' View”

This study aims to develop a reliable and valid instrument for measuring ERP

ultimate‐user satisfaction.

53

Initial ERP system characteristics and the implementation context were

investigated. Some previously validated instruments were selected for examination

using rigorous interview techniques. A modified version of 22 semantic differential

items measuring end-user satisfaction and two seven-point Likert-style global items

measuring perceived overall satisfaction and perceived ERP success level was

developed. The instrument was then distributed to Taiwanese users that interact

directly with an ERP system. 1,253 questionnaires were sent to ultimate users in the

participating companies and received 276 completed questionnaires. Of these

responses, 12 were considered incomplete and were discarded.

The results of this study suggest a ten‐item instrument to measure three

components of ultimate‐user satisfaction in an ERP environment: ERP project team

and service, ERP product, and user knowledge and involvement.

17- (Guimaraes, Staples, & McKeen, 2004) “Empirically Testing Some Main

User-Related Factors For Systems Development Quality”

The importance of user-related factors has long been recognized as important

to system success by various researchers. This study attempts to test the importance

of these variables as determinants of system quality.

The study investigated six user constructs and their relationship with user

satisfaction. The constructs are user participation, user expertise, user/developer

communication, user training, user influence, and user conflict. User participation

was determined using a nine-item measure and user satisfaction was determined

using a 10-item measure. The authors surveyed 228 project managers and users. The

results of regression analysis indicate that user participation is the best predictor of

user satisfaction, followed by user training and user expertise. User/developer

communication, user influence, and user conflict were not significant.

18- (Pastor, & J. Casanovas, 2003) "A goal/Question/Metric Research Proposal to

Monitor User Participation And Involvementin in ERP Implementation

Projects"

This study attempts to define a set of metrics for monitoring user participation

and involvement within ERP implementation projects by using the

Goals/Questions/Metrics method. The results of this work are twofold. First, a

literature review is presented on the user participation and involvement topic as

54

related with ERP implementation projects. And second, the use of the

Goals/Questions/Metrics method is proposed to develop a metrics plan to monitor

and control user participation and involvement within ERP implementation projects.

19- (Jiang, Chen, & Klein, 2002) “The Importance of Building A Foundation

For User Involvement in Information System Projects”

This study investigated pre-project partnering activities on user support risks

and project performance. The authors write that “Pre-project partnering activities

allow management, IS users, IS project managers, IS development teams, and

sponsors to work together before the project begins.” The impact of project

partnering activities on user support risks and project performance were significant.

Regression analysis indicated that project performance was significantly associated

with pre-project partnering activities and user support risk.

Results also indicate the extent of user support risk is significantly and

negatively associated with pre-project partnering activities. The authors concluded

that “the more the pre-project partnering activities were conducted for an IS project,

the lower the risk of a lack of user support and the better the project performance”

20- (Doll, & Deng, 2002) “The Collaborative Use Of Information Technology:

End-User pParticipation And System Success”

In this study, Doll and Deng surveyed 402 users in 18 companies to study

user participation success in developing collaborative and non-collaborative

applications. A collaborative system “is defined as any software application that is

actually being used by individuals to help them coordinate their work with others”

and a non-collaborative system is one designed for individuals, where “each user is

seen by the system as a discrete unit or a point of input in a sequential process.”

System success is not explicitly defined in this paper; however, user satisfaction is

used throughout this paper as the measure to test the hypotheses. User participation

was measured using an instrument which identifies thirty-three decision issues

grouped into three factors: (1) systems analysis, (2) system implementation, and (3)

administration. An eight-point scale was used to measure if users participated as

much as they wanted to in systems analysis. The authors conclude that user

55

participation is not more effective in the development of collaborative systems over

non-collaborative systems. However, user participation is equally effective in both

systems in relation to user satisfaction. They also suggest that users be encouraged to

participate as much as they would like to in the development of such systems, but

only in information needs analysis, suggesting that user participation in other areas of

design may actually be detrimental.

21- (Wu, & Wang, 2002) “Development Of A Tool For Measuring Key-User

Satisfaction in An ERP Environment”

This study aims to investigate ERP key-user satisfaction in the specific

context of implementing a package-based ERP system from external contractor.

A two-phase approach was used in the study. Phase 1: an initial research

model based on a literature review and examination of ERP characteristics and

environment was developed and examined for instrument completeness and clarity

via five case interviews. Phase 2: a revised research model based on the results of

interview was developed and tested via a survey of key users selected from the top

1000 firms in Taiwan

Table (3.1): Summary of Some Previous Studies

# Study Variables Findings

1 (Bradford, 2014) User involvement

User activities

(functional

requirements;

presentation

requirements;

quality assurance

activities; and

project management

activities)

User satisfaction

(project delivery;

business

functionality; and

technical

Business user involvement on

requirements gathering

activities showed mixed

results. Their involvement on

gathering functional

requirements was supported.

However, their involvement

with gathering presentation

requirements suggested that it

negatively impacted their

satisfaction with the project.

And business user involvement

on quality assurance and

project management activities

suggest that the business users

do not perceive benefits from

56


functionality) their involvement

2 (Hsu et al., 2013) Structural social

capital

Relational social

capital

Cognitive social

capital

User coproduction

System quality

User satisfaction

Project performance

User coproduction can lead to

higher project performance,

better system quality, and

higher levels of user

satisfaction

3 (Hsu et al., 2012) User participation

System outcomes

The study results confirm that

the ability to achieve quality

interactions among developers

and users heightens the

achievement of user influence

4 (Wang et al., 2011) User advocacy

Project performance

User socialization

Extrinsic motivation

User advocacy is positively

related to project performance

5 (Harris &

Weistroffer, 2009)

NA This study provide a review of

28 empirical research studies

that investigate the significance

of user involvement in system

success.

The study concludes that user

involvement in the systems

development process is indeed

important to system success

6 (Sridhar et al.,

2009)

User involvement

User participation

Quality of IS

planning projects

User involvement has

significant positive effect on

user participation, as well as on

the quality of IS planning

projects. However the effect of

user participation on the

57


quality of projects is mixed and

needs further research

7 (He & King, 2008) NA A meta-analysis of 82 studies

finding UI impacts attitudinal /

behavioural outcomes and to a

lesser degree productivity

outcomes

8 (Discenza et al.,

2008)

User involvement

(user partnering and

hands on activities)

Software (software

reliability, response

time,

responsiveness, and

others)

Both user partnering and hands

on activities directly affect

system success

9 (Hsu &Weng,

2008)

User attributes

(computer anxiety,

involvement,

training)

Perceived attributes

of innovation

(compatibility,

complexity,

observability, trial

ability)

Organizational

attributes (top

management

support,

centralization,

formalization)

User satisfaction

(system quality, user

productivity, and

time to decision)

The results show a significant

effect of user involvement and

training experience on user

satisfaction. Observability and

top management support also

had effects on user satisfaction

10 (Hsu et al., 2008) User review (project

management

User review reduced the

magnitude of the impact of

58


activities)

Software

responsiveness

(output generation

and customization)

Requirements

uncertainty (system

requirements)

user requirements uncertainty

on software responsiveness.

The result implied that users

needed to act to control

progress and act as product

quality gate keepers in the IS

development process. The

study concluded that users

should not only play the role as

requirements providers but

should continue to engage in

the subsequent development

process to make sure that user

requirements were fulfilled

11 (Geethalakshmi &

Shanmugam,

2008)

Non-technical

components of the

software

(management

support and

participation, user

support and

participation,

requirement

management,

estimation and

schedule, project

manager and

relationship with

development staff,

software process

management and

software

development

Success and failure

of the software

development

The level of customer and user

interaction contributes more to

project success than other

variables studied

The next important factors to

be software process

management, and estimation

and schedule.

(Pries-Heje, 2008) Users' attitudes

Users’ attitude toward the

system was affected by three

factors: (1) the dynamic

59


between the users’ and the

consultants, (2) the dynamic

between various user groups,

and (3) knowledge about the

technical and socio-technical

systems; managing these

dynamics properly helps user

attitude

12 (Wang et al., 2006) Management control

Quality of

interaction

Project success

Management control

techniques improve the quality

of user–IS personnel

interactions and eventual

project success

13 (Wu & Marakas,

2006)

User participation

System success

(degree of

satisfaction with

development

process, perceived

ownership, and

intention to use.

User participation positively

influences system success

14 (Wu & Wang,

2006)

NA The results of this study

suggest a ten‐item instrument

to measure three components

of ultimate‐user satisfaction in

an ERP environment: ERP

project team and service, ERP

product, and user knowledge

and involvement.

15 (Guimaraes et al.,

2004)

User participation

User expertise

User/developer

communication

User training

User influence

User conflict

User participation is the best

predictor of user satisfaction,

followed by user training and

user expertise. User/developer

communication, user influence,

and user conflict were not

significant.

60


User satisfaction

16 (Jiang et al., 2002) IS project activities

User support risks

Project performance

The impact of project

partnering activities on user

support risks and project

performance were significant.

Regression analysis indicated

that project performance was

significantly associated with

pre-project partnering activities

and user support risk.

Results also indicate the extent

of user support risk is

significantly and negatively

associated with pre-project

partnering activities. The

authors concluded that “the

more the pre-project partnering

activities were conducted for

an IS project, the lower the risk

of a lack of user support and

the better the project

performance”

17 (Doll & Deng,

2002)

User participation

(systems analysis,

system

implementation, and

administration)

System success

(user satisfaction)

User participation is not more

effective in the development of

collaborative systems over

non-collaborative systems.

User participation is equally

effective in both systems in

relation to user satisfaction

3.3 General Commentary on Reviewed Studies

The review of previous studies showed that these studies varied according to

their objectives, the sectors dealt with, the variables that studied, methodologies that

followed and study environment. Based on reviewing the previous studies, some

notes can be highlighted in this section.

61

3.3.1 Aspects of the agreement

1. Environment of the Study

The current study agrees with the most of the previous studies, in that they

addressed similar environments. These studies targeted the work environment of

companies and employees who use information systems (ERP and others) in their

work. For example, the study of (Bradford, 2014) targeted business users in different

companies using IS in their work in the USA. Also, the study of (Wang et al., 2011)

targeted major companies using IS in Taiwan. In addition, the following studies

were applied in similar environments: (Hsu et al., 2013), (Hsu et al., 2012), (Wang et

al., 2011), (Sridhar et al., 2009), (Discenza et al., 2008), (Hsu & Weng, 2008), (Hsu

et al., 2008).

2. Models and Variables

The current study agrees with (Bradford, 2014) study in using a multiple

factor user satisfaction model to assess the impact of user involvement on the success

of IS projects.

It also agrees with most of the previous studies in using multiple variables to

measure user involvement and system success, for example the study of (Discenza et

al., 2008) uses involvement activities and user partnering to measure user

involvement, and software functionality to measure system success. Also, (Hsu et

al., 2008) uses project management activities as constructs of user involvement and

output generation and customization as a measure of system responsiveness.

The current study agrees with most of the previous study in using a model

that aims to assess the relationship between UI and system success, these previous

studies include (Bradford, 2014; Hsu et al., 2013; Hsu et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2011;

Harris & Weistroffer, 2009; Sridhar et al., 2009; Discenza et al., 2008;

Geethalakshmi & Shanmugam, 2008; Wu & Marakas, 2006; Guimaraes et al., 2004;

Jiang et al., 2002).

3. Methodology and Study Tools

Most of previous studies had adopted methodologies which are similar to the

methodology which has been adopted by the current study. The current study agrees

with most of previous studies in using the questionnaire as a research tool to collect

62

primary data. Example of the studies that had gathered data using a survey;

(Bradford, 2014); Hsu et al., 2013; Hsu et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2011; Discenza et

al., 2008; Hsu et al., 2008; Geethalakshmi & Shanmugam, 2008).

3.3.2 Aspects of the disagreement

1. Environment of the Study

All of the previous studies had addressed environments of organizations using

IS in their work and most of these organizations have some differences in their

working environment than the working environment of the UN agencies.

2. Models and Variables

The current study is different than most of the previous studies in that it uses

a multiple factor model to assess the impact of user involvement impact on ERP

system success, it distinguishes four user involvement activities separately

(functional requirements, presentation requirements, quality assurance activities, and

project management activates), it also uses two variables to measure user satisfaction

(system technical functionality and business functionality). Most of the previous

studies however does not provide such separation, for examples the study of (Hsu et

al., 2013) does not provide separation of coproduction and participation user

activities, also other studies such (Hsu et al., 2012), (Wang et al., 2011), (Sridhar et

al. 2009) do not include such split.

3. Methodology and Study Tools

The current study disagrees with some of previous studies because the

questionnaire was not the only tool that had been used to collect primary data. For

example, the study of (Pries-Heje, 2008) used interviews, and the studies of (Wu &

Wang 2006) and (Wu &Wang, 2002) started with exploratory study, where

interviews were conducted, then a survey was conducted.

3.3.3 Drawn Benefits from Previous Studies

1. To enrich the Literature Review of the study.

2. To design the study tool (questionnaire).

3. To interpret the results of the current study.

63

3.3. 4 Distinguishing Aspects of the Current Study

1. This is the first study that addresses user involvement in ERP system project at

UNRWA.

2. This study attempts to contribute to the literature by using a comprehensive

model to study the impacts of multiple user involvement activities on user

satisfaction with the ERP system in a United Nations environment.

3. This study provides a set of recommendations that would benefit UN agencies

and international organization aiming to implement ERP systems.

3.4 Chapter Summery

Chapter 3 presented previous studies which had addressed the same field of

the current study.

The studies were presented according to the date of the publication from the

latest to the oldest one. Then, the researcher registered a general commentary on

reviewed studies including the distinguished aspects of the current study.

Chapter 4

Research Methodology

65

Chapter Four

Research Methodology

4.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the methodology that was used in this research. The

adopted methodology to accomplish this study uses the following techniques: the

information about the research design, research population, questionnaire design,

statistical data analysis, content validity and pilot study.

4.2 Research Methodology

The research followed the analytical/descriptive approach in addition to the

statistical analysis.

The data was collected from the primary and secondary resources. The

secondary resources include the use of books, journals, statistics and web pages. The

primary data was collected by using a questionnaire that was developed specifically

for this research.

Many of measurement tools “questionnaires” used by other researchers were

reviewed in order to develop the study questionnaire which was distributed to 150

respondents to collect the primary data, the researcher retrieved 127 out of them.

4.3 Population and sample size:

In this research the whole population sample methodology was adopted; the

sample size was the same as population. The population of the research consisted of

ERP system users of UNRWA international and local staff members working at the

three UNRWA Headquarter offices in Gaza, Amman, and Jerusalem. The total

number of those users is 150 staff. The list of ERP system users at UNRWA HQ was

provided by the SAP public sector module stream leader at HQ Amman.

The researcher reached the study population physically or via e-mails.

The response percentage was 84.67% from population, Table (4.1) shows the

population and the response according to UNRWA Headquarter Offices:

Table (4.1): The population and the response according to UNRWA HQ Offices

UNRWA HQ office work Population Responses Percent

Gaza 50 41 32.3

Amman 75 69 54.3

Jerusalem 25 17 13.4

Total 150 127 100.0

66

4.4 Pilot Study

A pilot study of 30 respondents for the questionnaire was conducted before

collecting the results of the sample. It provided a trial run for the questionnaire,

which involves testing the wordings of question, identifying ambiguous questions,

testing the techniques that used to collect data, and measuring the effectiveness of

standard invitation to respondents. The pilot study indicated that the questionnaire

was well received and interpreted by the respondents and thus no changes were made

to the original version.

4.5 Data Measurement

In order to be able to select the appropriate method of analysis, the level of

measurement must be understood. For each type of measurement, there is/are an

appropriate method/s that can be applied and not others. In this research, ordinal

scales were used. Ordinal scale is a ranking or a rating data that normally uses

integers in ascending or descending order. The numbers assigned to the important (1,

2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) do not indicate that the interval between scales are equal, nor do they

indicate absolute quantities. They are merely numerical labels. Based on Likert scale

we have the following:

Table (4.2): The numbers assigned scale

Item Strongly

agree Agree

Agree

somewhat Neutral

Disagree

somewhat Disagree

Strongly

disagree

Scale 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

The measurement scales that were used in research questionnaire were

adapted from the research of (Bradford, 2014).

4.6 Statistical analysis Tools

The researcher used data analysis both qualitative and quantitative data

analysis methods. The Data analysis made utilizing (SPSS 24). The researcher utilize

the following statistical tools:

1) Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of normality.

2) Pearson correlation coefficient for Validity.

3) Cronbach's Alpha for Reliability Statistics.

4) Frequency and Descriptive analysis.

5) Simple linear regression.

67

6) Parametric Tests (One-sample T test, Independent Samples T-test and Analysis

of Variance (ANOVA)).

T-test is used to determine if the mean of an item is significantly different

from a hypothesized value 4 (Middle value of Likert scale). If the P-value (Sig.) is

smaller than or equal to the level of significance, 0.05 then the mean of an item is

significantly different from a hypothesized value 4. The sign of the Test value

indicates whether the mean is significantly greater or smaller than hypothesized

value 4. On the other hand, if the P-value (Sig.) is greater than the level of

significance 0.05 , then the mean an item is insignificantly different from a

hypothesized value 4.

The Independent Samples T-test is used to examine if there is a statistical

significant difference between two means among the respondents toward the impact

of user involvement and participation on ERP system in UNRWA HQ as a case

study due to (gender, Occupation Type and Qualification).

The One- Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) is used to examine if there is

a statistical significant difference between several means among the respondents

toward the impact of user involvement and participation on ERP system in UNRWA

HQ as a case study due to (age, Occupation and Years of Experience).

4.7 Validity of Questionnaire

Validity refers to the degree to which an instrument measures what it is

supposed to be measuring. Validity has a number of different aspects and assessment

approaches. Statistical validity is used to evaluate instrument validity, which include

internal validity and structure validity. The used measurements were relaying on

literature reviews and researcher development as mentioned on data measurement

section (See Appendix 1). The questionnaire has been given to (7) referees (See

Appendix 2) to judge its validity according to its content, the clearness of its items

meaning, appropriateness to avoid any misunderstanding and to assure its linkage

with the main study aims.

68

4.7.1 Internal Validity

Internal validity of the questionnaire is the first statistical test that used to test

the validity of the questionnaire. It is measured by a scouting sample, which

consisted of 30 questionnaires through measuring the correlation coefficients

between each item in one field and the whole field.

Table (4.3) clarifies the correlation coefficient for each item of the “Users

involved in ERP project” and the total of the field. The p-values (Sig.) are less than

0.05, so the correlation coefficients of this field are significant at α = 0.05, so it can

be said that the items of this field are consistent and valid to be measure what it was

set for.

Table (4.3): Correlation coefficient of each item of “Users involved in ERP

project” and the total of this field

No. Item Pearson Correlation

Coefficient

P-Value

(Sig.)

1. I was involved as a direct end user

of the system .736 0.000*

2. I was involved as representative

on behalf of system users .850 0.000*

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level

Table (4.4) clarifies the correlation coefficient for each item of the

“Functional Requirements” and the total of the field. The p-values (Sig.) are less than

0.05, so the correlation coefficients of this field are significant at α = 0.05, so it can

be said that the items of this field are consistent and valid to be measure what it was

set for.

Table (4.4): Correlation coefficient of each item of “Functional Requirements”

and the total of this field

No. Item

Pearson

Correlation

Coefficient

P-Value

(Sig.)

1. I defined/helped define the system processes

to suit the work requirements .910 0.000*

2. I defined/helped define the information

requirement (the user needs) of the system .914 0.000*

3. I defined/helped define the system

calculations such as sorting, filtering,

totaling, percentages, and other mathematics

.920 0.000*

69

No. Item

Pearson

Correlation

Coefficient

P-Value

(Sig.)

4. I defined/helped define data storage

requirements .920 0.000*

5. I defined/helped define the system security .878 0.000*

6. I defined/helped define user security .870 0.000*

7. I clarified/helped clarify the task complexity .925 0.000*


Table (4.5) clarifies the correlation coefficient for each item of the

“Presentation Requirements” and the total of the field. The p-values (Sig.) are less

than 0.05, so the correlation coefficients of this field are significant at α = 0.05, so it

can be said that the items of this field are consistent and valid to be measure what it

was set for.

Table (4.5): Correlation coefficient of each item of “Presentation Requirements”


No. Item

Pearson

Correlation

Coefficient

P-Value

(Sig.)

1. I defined/helped define input forms .945 0.000*

2. I defined/helped define output forms .951 0.000*

3. I defined/helped define the screen

layouts and displays of the system .958 0.000*

4. I defined/helped define graphical

representation of data .921 0.000*

5. I defined/helped define reports’ formats .951 0.000*

6. I defined/helped define queries .952 0.000*


Table (4.6) clarifies the correlation coefficient for each item of the "Quality

Assurance" and the total of the field. The p-values (Sig.) are less than 0.05, so the

correlation coefficients of this field are significant at α = 0.05, so it can be said that

the items of this field are consistent and valid to be measure what it was set for.

70

Table (4.6): Correlation coefficient of each item of "Quality Assurance" and the

total of this field

No. Item

Pearson

Correlation

Coefficient

P-Value

(Sig.)

1. I facilitated the use of one or more

automated testing tools .921 0.000*

2. I designed/help design the test scripts

to validate functionality .880 0.000*

3. I executed/helped execute the tests

scripts to validate functionality .854 0.000*

4. I verified system functionality by

testing prototypes of the system .874 0.000*

5. I verified/helped verify the data to be

migrated to the system .835 0.000*


Table (4.7) clarifies the correlation coefficient for each item of the "Project

Management" and the total of the field. The p-values (Sig.) are less than 0.05, so the



Table (4.7): Correlation coefficient of each item of “Project Management” and

the total of this field

No. Item

Pearson

Correlation

Coefficient

P-Value

(Sig.)

1. I scheduled/helped schedule portion of the

project activities .898 0.000*

2. I assisted in problem solving in the project .805 0.000*

3. I participated in the identification, mitigation,

and resolutions of risks and conflicts .901 0.000*

4. I was kept informed concerning

progress/problems of the project activities .884 0.000*

5. I communicated with a non IS staff regarding

the progress of the project .725 0.000*

6. I designed/helped design the user training

program for the system .745 0.000*

7. I trained/helped train other users to this

system .602 0.000*

8. I was trained on how to use the system .469 0.000*

9. I implemented/helped implement the system

into production use .762 0.000*


71

Table (4.8) clarifies the correlation coefficient for each item of the "Business

Functionality" and the total of the field. The p-values (Sig.) are less than 0.05, so the



Table (4.8): Correlation coefficient of each item of “Business Functionality” and

the total of this field

No. Item

Pearson

Correlation

Coefficient

P-Value

(Sig.)

1. The system is frequently and

regularly used .747 0.000*

2. The system delivers results in a

timely manner .771 0.000*

3. The system delivers accurate results

based on the data provided .786 0.000*

4. The system is considered to have

the desired quality .936 0.000*

5. The system provides the desired

financial benefits .893 0.000*

6. The system meets our operational

efficiency requirements .912 0.000*

7. The system is easy to use

.830 0.000*

8. The system helps users to make

rational decision .904 0.000*


Table (4.9) clarifies the correlation coefficient for each item of the "Technical

functionality" and the total of the field.

Table (4.9): Correlation coefficient of each item of “Technical functionality”


No. Item

Pearson

Correlation

Coefficient

P-Value

(Sig.)

1. The system is reliably available for my

needs .924 0.000*

2. I perceive that the system repairs are easy

to perform .899 0.000*

3. System functionality and performance are

easy to test .959 0.000*

4. I consider the system to be technically

stable .895 0.000*


72

The p-values (Sig.) are less than 0.05, so the correlation coefficients of this

field are significant at α = 0.05, so it can be said that the items of this field are

consistent and valid to be measure what it was set for.

4.7.2 Structure Validity of the Questionnaire

Structure validity is the second statistical test that used to test the validity of

the questionnaire structure by testing the validity of each field and the validity of the

whole questionnaire. It measures the correlation coefficient between one field and all

the fields of the questionnaire that have the same level of liker scale.

Table (4.10) clarifies the correlation coefficient for each field and the whole

questionnaire. The p-values (Sig.) are less than 0.05, so the correlation coefficients of

all the fields are significant at α = 0.05, so it can be said that the fields are valid to be

measured what it was set for to achieve the main aim of the study.

Table (4.10): Correlation coefficient of each field and the whole of questionnaire

No. Field Pearson

Correlation

Coefficient

P-Value

(Sig.)

Users involved in ERP project .704 0.000*

1. Functional Requirements .953 0.000*

2. Presentation Requirements .922 0.000*

3. Quality Assurance .929 0.000*

4. Project Management .886 0.000*

User involvement activities .986 0.000*

1. Business Functionality .988 0.000*

2. Technical functionality .962 0.000*

User Satisfaction .896 0.000*


4.8 Reliability of the Research

The reliability of an instrument is the degree of consistency which measures

the attribute; it is supposed to be measuring (George & Mallery, 2006). The less

variation an instrument produces in repeated measurements of an attribute, the higher

its reliability. Reliability can be equated with the stability, consistency, or

dependability of a measuring tool. The test is repeated to the same sample of people

on two occasions and then compares the scores obtained by computing a reliability

coefficient (George & Mallery, 2006). To ensure the reliability of the questionnaire,

Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha should be applied.

73

4.9 Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha

Cronbach’s alpha (George & Mallery, 2006) is designed as a measure of

internal consistency, that is, do all items within the instrument measure the same

thing? The normal range of Cronbach’s coefficient alpha value between 0.0 and +

1.0, and the higher values reflects a higher degree of internal consistency. The

Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was calculated for each field of the questionnaire.

Table (4-11) shows the values of Cronbach's Alpha for each field of the

questionnaire and the entire questionnaire. For the fields, values of Cronbach's Alpha

were in the range from 0.715 and 0.977. This range is considered high; the result

ensures the reliability of each field of the questionnaire. Cronbach's Alpha equals

0.982 for the entire questionnaire which indicates an excellent reliability of the entire

questionnaire.

Table (4.11): Cronbach's Alpha for each field of the questionnaire

No. Field Cronbach's Alpha

Users involved in ERP project 0.715

1. Functional Requirements 0.963

2. Presentation Requirements 0.977

3. Quality Assurance 0.922

4. Project Management 0.907

User involvement activities 0.977

1. Business Functionality 0.944

2. Technical functionality 0.938

User Satisfaction 0.966

All items of the questionnaire 0.982

The Thereby, it can be said that the researcher proved that the questionnaire

was valid, reliable, and ready for distribution for the whole population sample.

4.10 Chapter Summery

This chapter provided a description of the methodology used to achieve the

objectives of the study, the population and the sample of the study, the procedure of

designing and applying the study tool, description of the research tool, test validity

and reliability of questionnaire that the researcher adopted in analyzing the collected

data.

The chapter also included different tables which showed the sample

distribution. A sample of 30 participants was used as a pilot study to determine the

74

validity and reliability of the tool of the study, content validity was approved by

introducing the tool to seven referees.

Internal consistency was approved by using Pearson correlation coefficient

and reliability determined by using Cronbach alpha formulas. The results show that

all Pearson, and Cronbach alpha coefficients are high, which indicated that the study

tool was highly consistent and reliable.

Chapter 5

Data Analysis and

Discussion

76

Chapter Five

Data Analysis and Discussion

5.1 Introduction

This chapter includes detailed description of the findings resulted from

applying the statistical tests on the collected data from the questionnaires and

discussion of the results with explanations of the meaning of these results. The

purpose of this chapter is to provide a comprehensive overview of the entire data set

collected and the characteristics of the respondents. In addition, it serves to describe

the statistical procedures applied to the data in order to interpret and apply the data to

the research questions.

5.2 Test of normality

The One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test procedure compares the observed

cumulative distribution function for a variable with a specified theoretical distribution, which

may be normal, uniform, Poisson, or exponential. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z is computed

from the largest difference (in absolute value) between the observed and theoretical

cumulative distribution functions. This goodness-of-fit test tests whether the observations

could reasonably have come from the specified distribution. Many parametric tests require

normally distributed variables. The one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test can be used to test

that a variable of interest is normally distributed (Henry & Thode, 2002). Table (5.1) shows

the results for Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of normality. From Table (5.1), we can see that the

p-value for each variable is greater than 0.05 level of significance, therefore these variables

are normally distributed. Consequently, parametric tests should be used to perform the

statistical data analysis.

Table (5.1): Kolmogorov-Smirnov test

Field Kolmogorov-Smirnov

Statistic P-value

Users involved in ERP project 1.020 0.248

Functional Requirements 1.106 0.173

Presentation Requirements 0.981 0.291

Quality Assurance 0.599 0.866

Project Management 0.776 0.583

User involvement activities 1.025 0.244

Business Functionality 0.876 0.426

Technical functionality 0.983 0.290

User Satisfaction 0.847 0.469

All items of the questionnaire 0.956 0.321

77

5.3 The characteristics of sample demographic

Table (5.2) shows that 51.2% of the respondents are males and 48.8% of the

respondents are females. It can be concluded from the result that the percentage of

male employees at UNRWA HQ are slightly higher than the percentage of female

employees. Nevertheless, the small difference between the percentages can be

attributed to the fact that UNRWA is adopting the United Nations’ policy in

providing recruitment equal opportunities for males and females.

Table (5-2): Respondents’ distribution according to gender

Gender Frequency Percent

Male 65 51.2

Female 62 48.8

Total 127 100.0

Table (5.3) shows that 3.15% of the respondents are Less than 30 years old,

51.18% of the sample between 30 and 40 years, 34.65% are between 41 and 50 years

and 11.02% of the sample Over 50 years old.

Table (5.3): Respondents’ distribution according to age

Age Frequency Percent

Less than 30 years old 4 3.15

Between 30 and 40 years 65 51.18

Between 41 and 50 years 44 34.65

Over 50 years old 14 11.02

Total 127 100.0

It can be seen from table (5.3) that there is a low percentage of respondents

whose ages are less than 30 (3.15%), this can be attributed to the limited employment

opportunities offered by UNRWA which is caused by the shortage of funding

UNRWA has been facing in the last years, also UNRWA opens many of its new

positions as internal vacancies.

Table (5.4) shows that 63.8% of the respondents are “Bachelor” holders and

36.2% of the sample are “Master” holders.

Table (5.4): Respondents’ distribution according to qualification

Qualification Frequency Percent

Diploma - -

Bachelor 81 63.8

Master 46 36.2

PhD - - Total 127 100.0

78

We can see from table (5.4) that the respondents are either have a bachelor

degree or a master degree, this can be explained, from the researcher point of view,

to the fact that staff members who are using ERP system at UNRWA HQ hold

positions that require certain education degrees, also this provides an indication that

UNRWA HQ is equipped with qualified human resources.

Table (5.5) shows the response according to the UNRWA HQ staff members’

position type, it shows that 15.0% of the respondents are international staff member

and 85.0% are local staff members.

Table (5.5): Respondents’ distribution according to occupation type

Occupation Type Frequency Percent

International position 19 15.0

Local position 108 85.0 Total 127 100.0

From the researcher point of view, the 15% percentage of international

positions can be explained by the fact the UNRWA HQ office at Gaza has no

international staff members.

The table (5.6) shows the response according to the UNRWA staff members’

positions titles.

Table (5.6): Respondents’ distribution to staff members’ positions

Occupation Frequency Percent Director 1 0.8 Deputy Director - - Head of department 6 4.72 Deputy Head of Department 2 1.57 Senior Officer 44 34.65 Officer 37 29.13 Assistant 33 25.98

Other 4 3.15

Total 127 100.0

We can see that the highest percentages go to the senior officers and officers,

from the researcher point of view this can be explained with the fact the officers and

senior officers perform several transactions on the system and use the system on a

daily basis.

79

Table (5.7) shows that 12.6% of the respondents have experience between 3-5

years, 17.3% of the sample have experience between 6-10 years and 70.1% of the

sample have experience more than 10 years.

Table (5.7): Respondents’ distribution according to years of experience

Years of Experience Frequency Percent

Less than 3 years - -

Between 3-5 years 16 12.6

Between 6-10 years 22 17.3

More than 10 years 89 70.1

Total 127 100.0

The high percentage of staff members who have experience more than 10

years can be referred from the researcher’s point view to the funding shortage that

UNRWA has been facing in the last years which in its turn affected the creation of

new posts.

Table (5.8) shows that 32.3% of the respondents are working in Gaza, 54.3%

working in Amman and 13.4% of the sample are working in Jerusalem.

Table (5.8): Respondents’ distribution according to UNRWA HQ office

This is consistent with the number of employees at different HQ offices with HQ

Amman with the highest number of employees, followed by Gaza HQ office, and

lastly Jerusalem HQ office.

Table (5.9) shows that 34.65% of the respondents are using Finance Module,

29.13% are using Public Sector Module, 22.05% are using more than one module,

8.66% are using HR Module, and 5.51% are using Supply Chain Management

Module

Table (5.9): Respondents’ distribution according to the SAP Module they are using

Which Component of the SAP software are you using? Frequency Percent

Human Resources Module 11 8.66

Public Sector Module 37 29.13

Supply Chain Management Module 7 5.51

Finance Module 44 34.65

More than one Module 28 22.05

Total 127 100.0

UNRWA HQ office work Frequency Percent

Gaza 41 32.3

Amman 69 54.3

Jerusalem 17 13.4

Total 127 100.0

80

The researcher believes that the low percentage of using supply chain

management module is because most of the major supply requests are performed at

the field level.

5.4 Descriptive Analysis and Answering the Research Questions

5.4.1 Answering the first research question

RQ1: Were UNRWA HQ staff members involved in ERP project?

The mean of item #1 “involvement as end user” equals 5.43 (77.62%), Test-

value = 8.90, and P-value = 0.000 which is smaller than the level of significance

0.05 . The sign of the test is positive, so the mean of this item is significantly

greater than the hypothesized value 4. We conclude that the respondents agreed to

this item.

The mean of item #2 “involvement as a representative on behalf of system

users” equals 3.59 (51.29%), Test-value = -2.07, and P-value = 0.020 which is

smaller than the level of significance 0.05 . The sign of the test is negative, so the

mean of this item is significantly smaller than the hypothesized value 4. We conclude

that the respondents disagreed to this item. The mean of the field “Users involvement

in ERP project” equals 4.51 (64.45%), Test-value = 3.81, and P-value= 0.000 which

is smaller than the level of significance 0.05 The sign of the test is positive, so

the mean of this field is significantly greater than the hypothesized value 4. We

conclude that the respondents agreed to field of “Users’ involvement in ERP project.

Thus, to answer the first research question, the results can interpreted as that

UNRWA HQ staff members were relatively highly involved in ERP project, and

most respondents were involved as direct end users of the system.

Table (5.10): Means and Test values for “Users’ Involvement in ERP Project”

# Item

Mea

n

S.D

Pro

po

rtio

na

l m

ean

(%)

Tes

t v

alu

e

P-v

alu

e

(Sig

.)

Ra

nk

1. I was involved as a direct end user of

the system 5.43 1.82 77.62 8.90 0.000* 1

2. I was involved as representative on

behalf of system users 3.59 2.23 51.29

-

2.07 0.020* 2

All items of the field 4.51 1.51 64.45 3.81 0.000*

* The mean is significantly different from 4

81

5.4.2 Answering the second research question

RQ2: How do the respondents evaluate their involvement in the activities

related to the creation of ERP system functional requirements?

The mean of item #1 “defining/helping in defining the system processes to

suit the work requirements” equals 5.02 (71.65%), Test-value = 5.84 and P-value =

0.000 which is smaller than the level of significance 0.05 . The sign of the test is

positive, so the mean of this item is significantly greater than the hypothesized value

4. We conclude that the respondents agreed to this item.

The mean of item #5 “defining/helping in defining the system security”

equals 3.65 (52.19%), Test-value = -1.90, and P-value = 0.030 which is smaller than

the level of significance 0.05 . The sign of the test is negative, so the mean of this

item is significantly smaller than the hypothesized value 4. We conclude that the

respondents disagreed to this item.

Table (5.11): Means and Test values for “Functional Requirements”

# Item

Mea

n

S.D

Pro

port

ion

al

mea

n

(%)

Tes

t valu

e

P-v

alu

e (S

ig.)

Ran

k

1. I defined/helped define the

system processes to suit the

work requirements

5.02 1.96 71.65 5.84 0.000* 1


information requirement (the

user needs) of the system

4.78 2.00 68.28 4.38 0.000* 2


system calculations such as

sorting, filtering, totaling,

percentages, and other

mathematics

4.54 2.03 64.90 3.02 0.002* 3

4. I defined/helped define data

storage requirements 4.10 2.05 58.61 0.56 0.287 5


system security 3.65 2.05 52.19

-

1.90 0.030* 7

6. I defined/helped define user

security 3.68 2.13 52.53

-

1.71 0.045* 6

7. I clarified/helped clarify the task

complexity 4.39 2.07 62.65 2.10 0.019* 4



82

The mean of the field “Functional Requirements” equals 4.31 (61.55%), Test-

value = 1.91, and P-value= 0.029 which is smaller than the level of significance

0.05 . The sign of the test is positive, so the mean of this field is significantly


field of “Functional Requirements ".

Therefore, as an answer to the second research question, the respondents

point to a good level of involvement in the activities related to the creation of ERP

system functional requirements.

5.4.3 Answering the third research question


related to the creation of ERP system presentation requirements?

The mean of item #5 “defining/helping in defining reports’ formats” equals

4.63 (66.14%), Test-value = 3.46, and P-value = 0.000 which is smaller than the

level of significance 0.05 . The sign of the test is positive, so the mean of this

item is significantly greater than the hypothesized value 4. We conclude that the

respondents agreed to this item.

The mean of item #4 “I defined/helped define graphical representation of

data” equals 3.79 (54.11%), Test-value = -1.13, and P-value = 0.131 which is greater

than the level of significance 0.05 . Then the mean of this item is insignificantly

different from the hypothesized value 4. We conclude that the respondents (Do not

know, neutral) to this item.

The mean of the field “Presentation Requirements” equals 4.36 (62.35%),

Test-value = 2.13, and P-value= 0.018 which is smaller than the level of significance



field of “Presentation Requirements”.


point to a good level of involvement in the activities related to the creation of ERP

system presentation requirements.

83

Table (5.12): Means and Test values for “Presentation Requirements”

# Item

Mea

n

S.D

Pro

po

rtio

nal

mea

n

(%)

Tes

t v

alu

e

P-v

alu

e (S

ig.)

Ra

nk

1. I defined/helped define input forms 4.61 1.99 65.92 3.48 0.000* 2

2. I defined/helped define output forms 4.46 2.09 63.78 2.50 0.007* 4

3. I defined/helped define the screen

layouts and displays of the system 4.09 2.08 58.38 0.47 0.320 5

4. I defined/helped define graphical

representation of data 3.79 2.13 54.11

-

1.13 0.131 6

5. I defined/helped define reports’

formats 4.63 2.05 66.14 3.46 0.000* 1

6. I defined/helped define queries 4.61 2.14 65.80 3.19 0.001* 3



5.4.4 Answering the fourth research question


related to ERP system quality assurance?

The mean of item #5 “verifying/helping in verifying the data to be migrated

to the system” equals 4.91 (70.08%), Test-value = 5.29, and P-value = 0.000 which is

smaller than the level of significance 0.05 . The sign of the test is positive, so the

mean of this item is significantly greater than the hypothesized value 4. We conclude

that the respondents agreed to this item.

The mean of item #2 “designing/helping in designing the test scripts to

validate functionality” equals 4.19 (59.84%), Test-value = 1.09, and P-value = 0.139

which is greater than the level of significance 0.05 . Then the mean of this item is

insignificantly different from the hypothesized value 4. We conclude that the

respondents (Do not know, neutral) to this item.

The mean of the field “Quality Assurance” equals 4.54 (64.88%), Test-value

= 3.61, and P-value=0.000 which is smaller than the level of significance 0.05 .

The sign of the test is positive, so the mean of this field is significantly greater than

the hypothesized value 4. We conclude that the respondents agreed to field of

“Quality Assurance ".

84


point to a good level of involvement in ERP system quality assurance activities.

Table (5.13): Means and Test values for “Quality Assurance”

# Item

Mea

n

S.D

Pro

po

rtio

nal

mea

n

(%)

Tes

t v

alu

e

P-v

alu

e (S

ig.)

Ra

nk

1. I facilitated the use of one or more

automated testing tools 4.54 1.76 64.90 3.47 0.000* 3

2. I designed/help design the test

scripts to validate functionality 4.19 1.95 59.84 1.09 0.139 5

3. I executed/helped execute the tests

scripts to validate functionality 4.47 1.90 63.89 2.80 0.003* 4

4. I verified system functionality by

testing prototypes of the system 4.60 1.90 65.69 3.55 0.000* 2

5. I verified/helped verify the data to

be migrated to the system 4.91 1.93 70.08 5.29 0.000* 1



5.4.5 Answering the fifth research question

RQ5: How do the respondents evaluate their involvement in the ERP

system project management activities?

The mean of item #9 “I implemented/helped implement the system into

production use” equals 5.18 (74.02%), Test-value = 7.25 and P-value = 0.000 which

is smaller than the level of significance 0.05 . The sign of the test is positive, so

the mean of this item is significantly greater than the hypothesized value 4. We

conclude that the respondents agreed to this item.

The mean of item #6 “I designed/helped design the user training program for

the system” equals 3.66 (52.31%), Test-value = -1.86, and P-value = 0.032 which is

smaller than the level of significance 0.05 . The sign of the test is negative, so the

mean of this item is significantly smaller than the hypothesized value 4. We conclude

that the respondents disagreed to this item.

P-value for item #5 “I communicated with a non IS staff regarding the

progress of the project” and item #7 I trained/helped train other users to this system”,

85

P-value is larger than the level of significance 0.05 , respondents are rather

neutral when it comes to these items, this can be attributed as users are not fully

involved in these two items but rather involved to a certain degree that differs from

one user to another.

The mean of the field “Project Management” equals 4.47 (63.87%), Test-

value = 3.70, and P-value= 0.000 which is smaller than the level of significance



field of “Project Management ".


point to a good level of involvement in ERP system project management activities.

Table (5.14): Means and Test values for “Project Management”

# Item

Mea

n

S.D

Pro

port

ion

al

mea

n (

%)

Tes

t valu

e

P-v

alu

e (S

ig.)

Ran

k

1. I scheduled/helped schedule portion

of the project activities 4.45 2.00 63.55 2.53 0.006* 5

2. I assisted in problem solving in the

project 4.78 1.81 68.28 4.86 0.000* 3

3. I participated in the identification,

mitigation, and resolutions of risks

and conflicts

4.36 2.02 62.32 2.02 0.023* 6

4. I was kept informed concerning

progress/problems of the project

activities

4.46 1.78 63.67 2.89 0.002* 4

5. I communicated with a non IS staff

regarding the progress of the project 4.24 1.97 60.52 1.35 0.089 8

6. I designed/helped design the user

training program for the system 3.66 2.05 52.31

-

1.86 0.032* 9

7. I trained/helped train other users to

this system 4.24 2.08 60.63 1.32 0.094 7

8. I was trained on how to use the

system 4.87 1.80 69.52 5.43 0.000* 2

9. I implemented/helped implement the

system into production use 5.18 1.84 74.02 7.25 0.000* 1



86

5.4.6 Answering the sixth research question

RQ6: To what extent are the respondents satisfied with ERP system

business functionality?

The mean of item #1 “system usage” equals 6.06 (86.61%), Test-value =

18.48, and P-value = 0.000 which is smaller than the level of significance 0.05 .

The sign of the test is positive, so the mean of this item is significantly greater than

the hypothesized value 4. We conclude that the respondents agreed to this item.

The mean of item #8 “making rational decisions” equals 4.73 (67.60%), Test-




this item.

Table (5.15): Means and Test values for “Business Functionality”

# Item

Mea

n

S.D

Pro

port

ion

al

mea

n

(%)

Tes

t valu

e

P-v

alu

e

(Sig

.)

Ran

k

1. The system is frequently and

regularly used 6.06 1.26 86.61

18.

48 0.000* 1

2. The system delivers results in a

timely manner 5.66 1.19 80.88

15.

73 0.000* 3

3. The system delivers accurate results

based on the data provided 5.72 1.26 81.66

15.

36 0.000* 2

4. The system is considered to have the

desired quality 4.94 1.52 70.64

6.9

9 0.000* 4

5. The system provides the desired

financial benefits 4.88 1.63 69.74

6.0

9 0.000* 5

6. The system meets our operational

efficiency requirements 4.80 1.71 68.62

5.3

0 0.000* 7

7. The system is easy to use 4.87 1.35 69.63

7.3

2 0.000* 6

8. The system helps users to make

rational decision 4.73 1.58 67.60

5.2

4 0.000* 8

All items of the field 5.21 1.18 74.42

11.

59 0.000*


The mean of the field “Business Functionality” equals 5.21 (74.42%), Test-

value = 11.59, and P-value=0.000 which is smaller than the level of significance

87



field of “Business Functionality ".

Thus, the results show that respondents are highly satisfied with the ERP


5.4.7 Answering the seventh research question

RQ7: To what extent are the respondents satisfied with ERP system

technical functionality?

The mean of item #4 “system technical stability” equals 5.08 (72.55%), Test-




this item.

The mean of item #2 “system repairs are easy to perform” equals 4.38

(62.54%), Test-value = 2.56, and P-value = 0.000 which is smaller than the level of

significance 0.05 The sign of the test is positive, so the mean of this item is

significantly greater than the hypothesized value 4 . We conclude that the

respondents agreed to this item.

Table (5.16): Means and Test values for “Technical functionality”

# Item

Mea

n

S.D

Pro

port

ion

al

mea

n

(%)

Tes

t valu

e

P-v

alu

e (S

ig.)

Ran

k

1. The system is reliably available for

my needs 5.03 1.48 71.88 7.86 0.000* 2

2. I perceive that the system repairs are

easy to perform 4.38 1.67 62.54 2.56 0.006* 4

3. System functionality and

performance are easy to test 4.72 1.58 67.38 5.12 0.000* 3

4. I consider the system to be

technically stable 5.08 1.65 72.55 7.37 0.000* 1



88

The mean of the field “Technical functionality” equals 4.80 (68.59%), Test-

value = 6.23, and P-value=0.000 which is smaller than the level of significance


greater than the hypothesized value 4.

Thus, the results show that respondents are highly satisfied with the ERP


5.5 Research Hypothesis Analysis

Hypothesis 1: Functional Requirement activities positively impact user satisfaction

H1a: The creation of ERP system functional requirements positively impacts


We use simple linear regression, and obtain the following results:

Table (5.21) shows the correlation coefficient R =0.632 and R-Square = 0.399.

This means 39.9% of the variation in business functionality is explained by

functional requirement activities.

Table (5.21) shows the Analysis of Variance for the regression model. F=83.151,

Sig. = 0.000, so there is a significant relationship between the dependent variable

business functionality and the independent variable “functional requirements

activities".

We can conclude that the ERP system functional requirements activities positively

impacts business functionality.

The results obtained above agree with the literature including (Bradford, 2014)

study which indicates that the user’s activities in IS projects in relation to the

creation of functional requirements positively impact user satisfaction in relation

to system business functionality. It also agrees (Discenza et al., 2008) study and

(Jiang et al., 2002) study which found that user activities directly affect system

success measures including system quality, performance, and responsiveness.

Table (5.21): Result of simple linear regression analysis – H1a

Variable B T Sig. R R-Square F Sig.

(Constant) 3.450 16.479 0.000* .632 0.399 83.151 0.000**

functional requirement 0.408 9.119 0.000*

* The variable is statistically significant at 0.05 level

* * The relationship is statistically significant at 0.05 level

89

H1b: The creation of ERP system functional requirements positively impacts

ERP system technical functionality.


- Table (5.22) shows the correlation coefficient R =0.504 and R-Square = 0.254.

This means 25.4% of the variation in technical functionality is explained by

functional requirement activities

- Table (5.22) shows the Analysis of Variance for the regression model. F=42.641,


technical functionality and the independent variable “functional requirements

activities ".

- We can conclude that the ERP system functional requirements activities positively

impacts technical functionality.

- The results obtained above agree with the literature including (Bradford 2014)

which indicates that the user’s activities in IS projects in relation to the creation of

functional requirements activities positively impacts user satisfaction in relation to

system technical functionality. It also agrees (Discenza et al., 2008) study and

(Jiang et al., 2002) study which found that user activities directly affect system

success measures including system quality, performance, and responsiveness. The

results obtained here are also consistent with (Doll & Deng, 2002) study which

indicates that user participation in system analysis (including determining the

user’s information needs) affects user satisfaction.

Table (5.22): Result of simple linear regression analysis – H1b

Variable B T Sig. R R-

Square F Sig.

(Constant) 3.072 10.692 0.000* .504 0.254 42.641 0.000**

functional requirement 0.401 6.530 0.000*



Hypothesis 2: Presentation Requirement activities positively impact user satisfaction:

H2a: The creation of ERP system presentation requirements positively

impacts ERP system business functionality.


90



presentation requirements activities.



business functionality and the independent variable “presentation requirements

activities ".

- We can conclude that the creation of ERP system presentation requirements

positively impacts business functionality.

- The results obtained above contradicts to (Bradford 2014) study findings which

showed that presentation requirement activities negatively impact IS business

functionality. However, the literature did not support such negative impact

indicated in (Bradford 2014) study as the requirements in most studies were not

separated into two constructs (functional and presentation). And thus the results

obtained for this study agree with the literature and shows that ERP users at

UNRWA HQ who participated significantly in the creation of ERP system

presentation requirements are satisfied with the system business functionality.

- The findings obtained here agree with (Hsu et al., 2008) study wihich mentioned

that user review in relation to output generation and customization positively

impacts user uncertainty with the system. It also consistent to some level with

(Discenza et al., 2008) study and (Jiang et al., 2002) study which found that user

activities directly affect system success measures including system quality,

performance, and responsiveness. The results obtained here are also consistent

with (Doll & Deng, 2002) study which indicates that user participation in system

analysis (including Developing input forms/screens and developing output format)

affects user satisfaction.


Variable B T Sig. R R-Square

F Sig.

(Constant) 3.542 17.477 0.000* .627 0.393 80.896 0.000**

Presentation requirements 0.382 8.994 0.000* * The variable is statistically significant at 0.05 level


91

H2b: The creation of ERP system presentation requirements positively

impacts ERP system technical functionality.




presentation requirements activities.



technical functionality and the independent variable “presentation requirements

activities ".

- We can conclude that the creation of ERP system presentation requirements

positively impacts system technical functionality.

- The results obtained above contradicts to (Bradford 2014) study findings which

showed that presentation requirement activities negatively impact IS technical

functionality. However, the literature did not support such negative impact

indicated in (Bradford 2014) study as the requirements in most studies were not

separated into two constructs (functional and presentation). And thus the results

obtained for this study agrees with the literature and shows that ERP users at

UNRWA HQ who participated significantly in the creation of ERP system

presentation requirements are satisfied with the system technical functionality.

- The findings obtained here agree with (Hsu et al., 2008) study which mentioned

that user review in relation to output generation and customization positively

impacts user uncertainty with the system. It also consistent to some level with

(Discenza et al., 2008) study and (Jiang et al., 2002) study which found that user

activities directly affect system success measures including system quality,

performance, and responsiveness. The results obtained here are also consistent

with (Doll & Deng, 2002) study which indicates that user participation in system

analysis (including Developing input forms/screens and developing output format)

affects user satisfaction.

92



F Sig.

(Constant) 2.920 11.133 0.000* .574 0.329 61.407 0.000**

Presentation requirements 0.431 7.836 0.000*

* The variable is statistically significant at 0.05 level * * The relationship is statistically significant at 0.05 level

Hypothesis 3: Quality assurance activities positively impact user satisfaction:

H3a: The performance of quality assurance activities positively impact ERP





quality assurance activities.



business functionality and the independent variable “quality assurance activities ".

- We can conclude that the performance of quality assurance activities positively

impact business functionality.

- The results obtained above agree with previous studies (Khan et al., 2011),

(Tudhope et al., 2000) which support that quality assurance activities such as

using prototypes in IS project is a technique that improves the IS quality. The


indicates that user participation in system analysis (including validation and

prototyping) affects user satisfaction.

However, the study contradicts with (Bradford, 2014) study findings which

showed that quality assurance activities negatively impact IS business functionality,

this negative relation is explained by (Bradford 2014) by suggesting that users

typically focus on performing their own work and not to be involved in testing

someone’s else’s work which can be perceived as unproductive for themselves, but

here in our study the work and roles of ERP system users at UNRWA HQ are

interrelated and thus their involvement in activities related to checking system

93

quality assurance are perceived as productive and useful activities that would leave

them with a good perception and understanding of the system.



F Sig.

(Constant) 3.039 13.899 0.000* .688 0.473 112.183 0.000**

Quality assurance 0.478 10.592 0.000* * The variable is statistically significant at 0.05 level


H3b: The performance of quality assurance activities positively impact ERP





quality assurance activities.



technical functionality and the independent variable “quality assurance activities "

- We can conclude that the performance of quality assurance activities positively

impact technical functionality.

- The results obtained above agree with previous studies (Khan et al., 2011),

(Tudhope et al., 2000) which support that quality assurance activities such as

using prototypes in IS project is a technique that improves the IS quality. The


indicates that user participation in system analysis (including validation and

prototyping) affects user satisfaction. However, the study contradicts with

(Bradford, 2014) study findings which showed that quality assurance activities

negatively impact IS technical functionality, this negative relation is explained by

(Bradford, 2014) by suggesting that users typically focus on performing their own

work and not to be involved in testing someone’s else’s work which can be

perceived as unproductive for themselves, but here in our study the work and

roles of ERP system users at UNRWA HQ are interrelated and thus their

94

involvement in activities related to checking system quality assurance are

perceived as productive and useful activities that would leave them with a good

perception and understanding of the system.



F Sig.

(Constant) 2.485 8.342 0.000* .596 0.355 68.787 0.000**

Quality assurance 0.510 8.294 0.000* * The variable is statistically significant at 0.05 level


Hypothesis 4: Project management activities positively impact user satisfaction:

H4a: The execution of project management activities positively impacts ERP





project management activities.



business functionality and the independent variable “project management

activities”.

- We can conclude that the execution of project management activities positively

impacts business functionality.

- The results obtained above agree with previous studies like (Sridhar et al., 2009)

which indicates that there is a positive relationship between UI and project

planning, and with (Franz & Robey, 1986) study which notes that UI in pre- and

post-implementation periods contributed to a smooth implementation of an

information system, and also with (Wagner & Newell, 2007) study which found

similar results related to post implementation activities. The findings here are also

consistent to some level with (Wang et al., 2006) study which indicated that

management control techniques leads to IS project success., and with

(Geethalakshmi & Shanmugam, 2008) study which found that software process

management, estimation and schedule contributes to IS success. However, the

95

findings contradicts with (Bradford 2014) study findings which showed that

project management activities negatively impact IS business functionality



Square F Sig.

(Constant) 2.704 10.763 0.000* .684 0.467 109.659 0.000**

Project management 0.560 10.472 0.000*



H4b: The execution of project management activities positively impacts ERP





project management activities.



technical functionality and the independent variable "project management

activities".

- We can conclude that the execution of project management activities positively

impacts technical functionality.

- The results obtained above agree with previous studies like (Sridhar et al., 2009)

which indicates that there is a positive relationship between UI and project

planning, and with (Franz & Robey, 1986) study which notes that UI in pre- and

post-implementation periods contributed to a smooth implementation of an

information system, and also with (Wagner & Newell, 2007) study which found

similar results related to post implementation activities. The findings here are also

consistent to some level with (Wang et al., 2006) study which indicated that

management control techniques leads to IS project success., and with

(Geethalakshmi & Shanmugam, 2008) study which found that software process

management, estimation and schedule contributes to IS success. However, the

study contradicts with (Bradford 2014) study findings which showed that project

management activities negatively impact IS technical functionality.

96



Square F Sig.

(Constant) 2.272 6.471 0.000* .560 0.314 57.152 0.000**




Hypothesis 5: All user involvement activities positively impact user satisfaction:

H5a: All user involvement activities (functional requirements, presentation

requirements, quality assurance, and project management) positively

impact ERP system business functionality.

We use Multiple Linear Regression Model and obtain the following results:

Table (5.29) show the flowing results:

- The Multiple correlation coefficient R =0.747 and R-Square = 0.557. This means

55.7% of the variation in ERP system business functionality is explained by all of the

independent variables together “functional requirements, presentation requirements,

quality assurance, project management " .

- The Analysis of Variance for the regression model. F=38.417, Sig. = 0.000, so there

is a significant relationship between the dependent variable ERP system business

functionality and the independent variables " functional requirements, presentation

requirements, quality assurance, project management ".

- For the variable “Presentation requirements ", the t-test = 0.404, the P-value (Sig.)

=0.687, which is greater than 0.05, hence this variable is statistically insignificant.

Then there is insignificant effect of functional requirements on ERP system business

functionality.

- For the variable “Functional requirements ", the t-test = 0.394, the P-value (Sig.)

=0.694, which is greater than 0.05, hence this variable is statistically insignificant.

Then there is insignificant effect of functional requirements on ERP system business

functionality.

- For the variable “Quality assurance ", the t-test =3.094, the P-value (Sig.) =0.002,

which is smaller than 0.05, hence this variable is statistically significant. Since the

97

sign of the test is positive, then there is significant positive effect of the variable

quality assurance on ERP system business functionality.

- For the variable “Project management ", the t-test =4.064, the P-value (Sig.)

=0.000, which is smaller than 0.05, hence this variable is statistically significant.

Since the sign of the test is positive, then there is significant positive effect of the

variable project management on ERP system business functionality.

- In addition, based on the P-value (Sig.), the most significant independent variable is

Project management, then Quality assurance, then functional requirements and

Presentation requirements.

- The results shows that project management activities have the highest impact on user

satisfaction with ERP system business functionality, this can be seen as indication to

the importance of involving users in these activities as the participation of users in

solving the problems arising in the ERP project, receiving a training on the system,

and scheduling project activities would affect the way they work on the system and

how they perceive the technical aspects of the system.

Table (5.29): Result of multiple linear regression analysis - H5a


Square F Sig.

(Constant) 2.478 10.425 0.000*

0.747 0.557 38.417 0.000**

Functional requirements 0.039 0.404 0.687

Presentation requirements 0.036 0.394 0.694

Quality assurance 0.235 3.094 0.002*




H5b: All user involvement activities (functional requirements, presentation

requirements, quality assurance, and project management) positively

impact ERP system technical functionality.

We use Multiple Linear Regression Model and obtain the following results:

Table (5.30) show the flowing results:

98

- The Multiple correlation coefficient R =0.652 and R-Square = 0.407. This means

40.7% of the variation in ERP system technical functionality is explained by all of

the independent variables together “functional requirements, presentation

requirements, quality assurance, project management “.

- The Analysis of Variance for the regression model. F=22.587, Sig. = 0.000, so there

is a significant relationship between the dependent variable ERP system technical

functionality and the independent variables " functional requirements, presentation

requirements, quality assurance, project management ".

- For the variable “Functional requirements ", the t-test =-1.883, the P-value (Sig.)


Since the sign of the test is negative, then there is significant negative effect of the

variable functional requirements on ERP system technical functionality.

- For the variable “Presentation requirements ", the t-test =2.537, the P-value (Sig.)



variable presentation requirements on ERP system technical functionality.

- For the variable “Quality assurance ", the t-test =2.334, the P-value (Sig.) =0.021,

which is smaller than 0.05, hence this variable is statistically significant. Since the

sign of the test is positive, then there is significant positive effect of the variable

quality assurance on ERP system technical functionality.

- For the variable “Project management ", the t-test =2.835, the P-value (Sig.)



variable project management on ERP system technical functionality.

- In addition, based on the P-value (Sig.), the most significant independent variable is

Project management, then Presentation requirements, then Quality assurance and

Functional requirements.

- The results shows that project management activities have the highest impact on user

satisfaction with ERP system technical functionality, this can be seen as indication to

the importance of involving users in these activities as the participation of users in

solving the problems arising in the ERP project, receiving a training on the system,

99

and scheduling project activities would affect the way they work on the system and

how they perceive the technical aspects of the system.

Table (5.30): Result of multiple linear regression analysis - H5b

Variable B T Sig. R R-Square F Sig.

(Constant) 2.023 6.066 0.000*

0.652 0.407 22.587 0.000**

Functional requirements -0.254 -1.883 0.031*

Presentation requirements 0.328 2.537 0.012*

Quality assurance 0.248 2.334 0.021*




Hypothesis 6: There are no significant differences in response of the research sample

due to personal characteristics:

H6a: There are no significant differences among participants response due

to gender.

Table (5.31) shows that the p-value (Sig.) is smaller than the level of

significance = 0.05 for the field “Technical functionality”, then there is significant

difference among the respondents toward this field due to gender. We conclude that

the personal characteristics’ gender has an effect on this field.

For the other fields, the p-value (Sig.) is greater than the level of significance

= 0.05, then there is insignificant difference among the respondents toward these

fields due to gender. We conclude that the personal characteristics’ gender has no

effect on the other fields.

Thus, the result in this section partially support (H6a) as there is a significant

difference among participants response due to gender in one field.

This supports that the gender has no effect on the user involvement activities

in the ERP system as both males and females were involved and performed their

activities according to their positions and responsibilities. The gender effect appears

under the user satisfaction of system technical functionality, this is probably, and

from the researcher point of view, due to the different perception and expectations of

the required system technical functionality between males and females.

100

Table (5.31): Independent Samples T-test of the fields and their p-values for

gender

No. Field Means

Test Value Sig. Male Female

Users involved in ERP project 4.68 4.34 1.262 0.209

1. Functional Requirements 4.35 4.26 0.260 0.795

2. Presentation Requirements 4.47 4.26 0.623 0.535

3. Quality Assurance 4.42 4.67 -0.839 0.403

4. Project Management 4.43 4.52 -0.361 0.719

User Involvement activities 4.41 4.42 -0.030 0.976

1. Business Functionality 5.30 5.11 0.904 0.368

2. Technical functionality 5.07 4.52 2.133 0.035*

User Satisfaction 5.22 4.92 1.412 0.160

All items of the questionnaire 4.66 4.56 0.425 0.672

* The mean difference is significant a 0.05 level

H6b: There are no significant differences among participants response due

to age.

Table (5.32) shows that the p-value (Sig.) is greater than the level of

significance = 0.05 for each field, then there is insignificant difference among the

respondents toward each field due to age. We conclude that there is no significant

differences among participants response due to age as personal characteristics’ age

has no effect on each field.

Table (5.32): ANOVA test of the fields and their p-values for age

No. Field

Means

Test

Value Sig.

Less

than 40

years

Between

41 and

50 years

Over 50

years old

Users involved in ERP

project 4.51 4.39 4.93 0.678 0.509

1. Functional Requirements 4.38 4.26 4.10 0.158 0.854

2. Presentation Requirements 4.49 4.35 3.79 0.775 0.463

3. Quality Assurance 4.73 4.30 4.37 0.978 0.379

4. Project Management 4.60 4.53 3.65 2.664 0.074

User involvement activities 4.54 4.38 3.93 0.951 0.389

1. Business Functionality 5.20 5.09 5.62 1.052 0.352

2. Technical functionality 4.66 4.89 5.23 1.054 0.352

User Satisfaction 5.02 5.03 5.49 0.897 0.411

All items of the

questionnaire 4.68 4.57 4.44 0.234 0.792

H6c: There are no significant differences among participants response due to

qualification.

101

Table (5.33) shows that the p-value (Sig.) is smaller than the level of

significance = 0.05 for the fields “Presentation Requirements, Technical

functionality and User Satisfaction”, then there is significant difference among the

respondents toward this fields due to qualification. We conclude that the personal

characteristics’ qualification has an effect on this fields.

For the other fields, the p-value (Sig.) is greater than the level of significance

= 0.05, then there is insignificant difference among the respondents toward these

fields due to qualification. We conclude that the personal characteristics’

qualification has no effect on the other fields.

Thus, the result in this section partially support (H6c) as there is a significant

difference among participants response due to qualification in some fields.

This result is seen as logical from the researcher point of view as the

qualification can affect the perception of system requirements and expected system

functionality, it also effects the level of involvement in ERP project activities.


qualification

No. Field Means

Test Value Sig. Bachelor Master

Users involved in ERP project 4.43 4.65 -0.786 0.433

1. Functional Requirements 4.09 4.70 -1.824 0.071

2. Presentation Requirements 4.08 4.87 -2.240 0.027*

3. Quality Assurance 4.50 4.62 -0.378 0.706

4. Project Management 4.31 4.75 -1.657 0.100

User involvement activities 4.24 4.74 -1.782 0.077

1. Business Functionality 5.06 5.47 -1.900 0.060

2. Technical functionality 4.60 5.15 -2.084 0.039*

User Satisfaction 4.91 5.36 -2.036 0.044*

All items of the questionnaire 4.44 4.92 -1.942 0.054


H6d: There are no significant differences among participants response due to

occupation type.


significance = 0.05 for the fields “Users involved in ERP project and Quality

Assurance”, then there is insignificant difference among the respondents toward this

fields due to occupation type. We conclude that the personal characteristics’

occupation type has no effect on this fields.

102

For the other fields, the p-value (Sig.) is smaller than the level of significance

= 0.05, then there is significant difference among the respondents toward these

fields due to occupation type. We conclude that the personal characteristics’

occupation type has an effect on the other fields.

Thus, the result in this section doesn’t support (H6d) as there is a significant

difference among participants response due to occupation type.

For all the fields we can see that the means for international positions is

higher than the means for local positions, this indicate that users working in

international positions agreed more than users working in local positions, this can

indicate that the level of involvement for users at international positions was higher

than the level of involvement for users at local positions which resulted in higher

level of satisfaction as well. And this can be referred to the fact that international

staff usually have more seniority and decision making authority than local staff.


Occupation type

No. Field

Means Test

Value Sig. International

position

Local

position

Users involved in ERP project 5.13 4.40 1.957 0.053

1. Functional Requirements 5.76 4.05 3.984 0.000*

2. Presentation Requirements 5.84 4.10 3.807 0.000*

3. Quality Assurance 5.07 4.45 1.493 0.138

4. Project Management 6.27 4.15 6.946 0.000*

User involvement activities 5.82 4.17 4.676 0.000*

1. Business Functionality 6.18 5.04 4.161 0.000*

2. Technical functionality 5.95 4.60 3.950 0.000*

User Satisfaction 6.11 4.89 4.232 0.000*

All items of the questionnaire 5.87 4.39 4.828 0.000*


H6e: There are no significant differences among participants response due to

occupation.


significance = 0.05 for the field “Presentation Requirements”, then there is

insignificant difference among the respondents toward this field due to occupation.

We conclude that the personal characteristics’ occupation has no effect on this field.

103



fields due to occupation. We conclude that the personal characteristics’ occupation

has an effect on the other fields.

Thus, the result in this section doesn’t support (H6e) as there is a significant

difference among participants response due to occupation.

These results are seen as logical from the researcher point view, as different

users holding different position would have different involvement activities and

different perception on satisfaction of the system, we can see that means are higher

for staff holding higher positions and this is considered as logical from the researcher

point of view as the persons holding higher positions usually have more experience

and insight to provide inputs and make decisions in relation to the system.

Table (5.35): ANOVA test of the fields and their p-values for occupation

No. Field

Means

Test

Value Sig.

Head of

department

and more

Deputy

Head of

Department

Senior

Officer Officer Assistant

Users

involved in

ERP project

5.89 5.23 3.96 3.86 4.00 9.001 0.000*

1. Functional

Requirements 4.30 4.98 4.26 3.73 2.14 4.135 0.004*

2. Presentation

Requirements 4.48 4.82 4.25 4.08 2.50 1.818 0.130

3. Quality

Assurance 4.20 5.07 4.14 4.62 2.50 3.410 0.011*

4. Project

Management 4.79 5.36 3.90 4.04 2.72 10.454 0.000*

User

involvement

activities

4.49 5.09 4.12 4.08 2.48 5.076 0.001*

1. Business

Functionality 5.44 5.88 4.86 4.81 3.81 8.456 0.000*

2. Technical

functionality 5.22 5.48 4.28 4.55 3.25 5.964 0.000*

User

Satisfaction 5.37 5.75 4.67 4.72 3.63 7.930 0.000*

All items of

the

questionnaire

4.81 5.29 4.27 4.26 2.89 6.800 0.000*


104

H6f: There are no significant differences among participants response due to

experience.


significance = 0.05 for the fields “Users involved in ERP project and Project

Management”, then there is insignificant difference among the respondents toward

this fields due to years of experience. We conclude that the personal characteristics’

years of experience has no effect on this fields.



fields due to years of experience. We conclude that the personal characteristics’ years

of experience has an effect on the other fields.

Thus, the result in this section doesn’t support (H6f) as there is a significant

difference among participants response due to experience.

These results are found to be logical from the researcher point view, as the

years of experience would affect the user activities and user perception of system

functionality.

Table (5.36): ANOVA test of the fields and their p-values for years of experience

No. Field

Means

Test Value

Sig. Between 3-5 years

Between 6-10 years

More than 10 years

Users involved in ERP project 3.91 4.23 4.69 2.341 0.100

1. Functional Requirements 3.30 3.54 4.68 6.822 0.002*

2. Presentation Requirements 3.20 3.74 4.73 6.108 0.003*

3. Quality Assurance 4.16 3.72 4.81 4.374 0.015*

4. Project Management 3.92 4.60 4.54 1.356 0.262

User involvement activities 3.65 3.97 4.67 4.378 0.015*

1. Business Functionality 4.80 4.78 5.39 3.603 0.030*

2. Technical functionality 3.88 4.28 5.10 7.139 0.001*

User Satisfaction 4.49 4.61 5.29 5.024 0.008*

All items of the questionnaire 3.91 4.17 4.85 5.186 0.007*


Table (5.37) summarizes the achieved hypothesis according to the findings mentioned

above:

105

Table (5.37): Summery of the Achieved Hypothesis

Result Hypothesis

Accepted Hypothesis 1: Functional Requirement activities positively impact the two

user satisfaction measures

Accepted H1a: The creation of ERP system functional requirements positively

impacts business functionality

Accepted H1b: The creation of ERP system functional requirements positively

impacts technical functionality

Accepted Hypothesis 2: Presentation Requirement activities positively impact the

two user satisfaction measures

Accepted H2a: The creation of ERP system presentation requirements positively

impacts business functionality

Accepted H2b: The creation of ERP system presentation requirements positively

impacts technical functionality

Accepted Hypothesis 3: Quality assurance activities positively impact the two user

satisfaction measures

Accepted H3a: The performance of quality assurance activities positively impact

business functionality.

Accepted H3b: The performance of quality assurance activities positively impact

technical functionality.

Accepted Hypothesis 4: Project management activities positively impact the two

user satisfaction measures

Accepted H4a: The execution of project management activities positively impacts

business functionality

Accepted H4b: The execution of project management activities positively impacts

technical functionality

Accepted Hypothesis 5: All user involvement activities positively impact user

satisfaction

Accepted H5a: All user involvement activities (functional requirements,

presentation requirements, quality assurance, and project management)

positively impact ERP system business functionality

Accepted H5b: All user involvement activities (functional requirements,

presentation requirements, quality assurance, and project management)

positively impact ERP system technical functionality

Partially

accepted

Hypothesis 6: There are no significant differences in response of research

sample due to personal characteristics

106

5.6 Chapter Summary:

This chapter, Chapter 5, presented the results of the data analysis process of

the collected responses of the study questionnaire that was filled by 127 ERP system

users working in the three UNRWA HQ offices in Gaza, Amman, and Jerusalem.

The chapter presented a comprehensive descriptive analysis of the sample

characteristics. Then, it presented the answering for the research questions. And

finally, the chapter presented the research hypotheses analysis.

Chapter 6

Conclusion and

Recommendations

108

Chapter 6

Conclusion and Recommendations

6.1 Introduction

In this chapter, we first present the conclusions and findings that were

achieved by the study, then study recommendations are presented, and finally the

implications for future studies are included.

6.2 Conclusions and Findings of the Study

This study investigated the impact of user involvement activities on ERP

system success using UNRWA HQ as a case study, the research used a multiple

factor model to identify how specific user characteristics and activities impact

various user satisfaction measures.

From the findings that were presented in the previous chapter, it was noted

that ERP system users at UNRWA HQ were involved to a good level in the ERP

projects, the results showed that 64.45% of the respondents were involved in the ERP

project activities, 77.62% of them were involved as direct user of the system.

The findings of the research also showed that ERP system users at UNRWA HQ

participated in the activities related to the creation of system functional and

presentation requirements and the quality assurance and project management

activities. Their participation was relatively high where 61.55% of the respondents

said that they participated in the creation of ERP system functional requirements,

62.35% participated in the creation of ERP system presentation requirements,

64.88% performed quality assurance activities, and 63.87% performed project

management activities.

In relation to user satisfaction of the ERP project, results showed that respondents are

highly satisfied with the system business and technical functionalities, with 74.42%

as satisfaction percentage with the system business functionality, and 68.59%

satisfaction percentage with the system technical functionality.

In terms of hypothesis test, the findings of this research revealed the following:

1- There is a positive impact of user involvement activities in ERP project on user

satisfaction.

109

2- Functional requirement activities performed by ERP system users at UNRWA

HQ positively impacted the two user satisfaction measures in relation to ERP

system business functionality and ERP system technical functionality.

3- Presentation requirement activities performed by ERP system users at UNRWA

HQ positively impacted the two user satisfaction measures in relation to ERP

system business functionality and ERP system technical functionality.

4- Quality assurance activities performed by ERP system users at UNRWA HQ

positively impacted the two user satisfaction measures in relation to ERP system

business functionality and ERP system technical functionality.

5- Project management activities performed by ERP system users at UNRWA HQ

positively impacted the two user satisfaction measures in relation to ERP system

business functionality and ERP system technical functionality.

6- The user involvement activity which has the highest impact on user

satisfaction with ERP system business functionality is the project

management activities, followed by qquality assurance activities, then the

functional requirements activities, and finally comes the presentation

requirements activities with the lowest impact.

7- The user involvement activity which has the highest impact on user

satisfaction with ERP system technical functionality is the project

management activities, followed by presentation requirements activities, then

quality assurance activities, and finally comes the functional requirements

activities with the lowest impact.

8- There are some significant differences in response of research sample due to

personal characteristics including gender, qualification, occupation type,

occupation, and experience.

110

6.3 Recommendations

The results and findings of this study showed that ERP system users at

UNRWA HQ were involved in the ERP project and participated significantly in the

project different activities including the creation of system functional and

personation requirements, project management activities, and quality assurance

activities. The findings of the study also showed that ERP users at UNRWA HQ are

satisfied with the ERP system technical and business functionality. And to benefit

from the UNRWA experience in relation to involving users in IS projects, the

researcher recommends the following:

UNRWA experience in involving the users in ERP project can be used as a

model for other UN agencies and international organizations which are going to

adopt an ERP system or other IS system. It is important for decision makers to

study and understand UNRWA experience in this field.

Though the organizational structure and the nature of work in the UN agencies

are different from other organizations including governmental bodies, academic

entities such as universities, and private companies, it is recommended that these

organizations study and understand UNRWA experience in the field of user

involvement in IS projects and to use the UNRWA experience in that domain as

model when transforming to a new IS system.

The study findings showed that involving users on ERP project activities is

found to be effective, and thus it is recommended that UNRWA and other

organizations benefit from this study by involving appropriate users on specific

activities that are shown to be effective.

As most of the ERP system transactions are controlled by UNRWA HQ, it is

recommended that UNRWA follow the same pattern of user involvement which

was implemented with the HQ users with the users working at the UNRWA field

offices if a future decision was taken to decentralize the system control to give

more authority to the field offices.

According to the findings of the study and to ensure user satisfaction of the ERP

system, it is recommended to involve users and ensure their participation in the

different project activities.

111

6.4 Implications for Future Research

This study has demonstrated the value of separating the gathering of system

requirements (traditionally considered to be a single construct) into the two distinct

constructs of functional and presentation requirements. The study showed that they

have different characteristics as determined by the system users themselves.

Therefore, we recommend that future research include a more sophisticated

separation of user activities and user profile to identify possible moderating factors.

Our sample set was limited to UNRWA users at HQ, therefore we propose

that future research could include a larger sample to be able to capture user

differences which can impact project performance.

It is recommended as well that future research include multiple measures of

user satisfaction.

Finally, future research would benefit from an analysis by UN agency on the

impact of user involvement on ERP projects as many UN agencies currently using

ERP systems. Such study would be important to document the differences among

different UN agencies.

112

References

113

References

Al-Mashari, M., et al. (2003). "Enterprise resource planning: A taxonomy of critical

factors." European journal of operational research 146(2): 352-364.

Alcide, D. W. (2006). Transformation of Organizational Legacy Logistics Systems

and Facilitating an Integrated Lean Enterprise: A Case Study Within the United

States Army, ProQuest.

Bancroft, N., et al. (1998). "Implementing SAP R/3: How to introduce a large system

into a large organisation." Manning: Greenwich.

Barki, H. and J. Hartwick (1994). "Measuring user participation, user involvement,

and user attitude." Mis Quarterly: 59-82.

Baronas, A.-M. K. and M. R. Louis (1988). "Restoring a sense of control during

implementation: how user involvement leads to system acceptance." Mis

Quarterly: 111-124.

Bevan, N. (2000, January 1). ISO and industry standards for user centered design.

Retrieved November 23, 2010, from SERCO: www.usability.serco.com/trump

BRADFORD REESE EICHHORN, P. M. P. (2014). The Impact of User Involvement

on Information System Projects (Doctoral dissertation, Cleveland State

University).

Briolat, D. and J. Pogman (2000). User involvement influence on project

productivity in a rad environment: A quasi-experiment. European Software

Control and Metrics Conference, Munich.

Brown, C. and I. Vessey (1999). ERP implementation approaches: toward a

contingency framework. Proceedings of the 20th international conference on

Information Systems, Association for Information Systems.

Cavaye, A. L. (1995). "User participation in system development revisited."

Information & Management 28(5): 311-323.

Chen, C. C., Liu, J. Y.-C., & Chen, H.-G. (2011). Discriminative effect of user

influence and user responsibility on information system development processes

and project management. Information and Software Technology, 149-158.

Chen, G.-h., et al. (2006). Critical success factors for ERP life cycle implementation.

Research and Practical Issues of Enterprise Information Systems, Springer: 553-

562.

114

Damodaran, L. (1996). User Involvement in the systems design process - a practical

guide for users. Behaviour & Information Technology, 363-377.

Davenport, T. H. (1998). "Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system." Harvard

business review 76(4).

De Moor, K., Berte, K., De Marez, L., Joseph, W., Deryckere, T., & Martens, L.

(2010).

User-driven innovation? Challenges of user involvement in future technology

analysis. Science and Public Policy, 51-61.

Discenza, R., Tesch, D., Klein, G., & Jiang, J. J. (2008). User involvement to

enhance expertise in system development. International Journal of Internet and

Enterprise Management, 5(4), 373-389.

Doll, W. J., & Deng, X. (2002). The collaborative use of information technology:

End-user participation and system success. Collaborative information

technologies, 82-105.

Eichhorn, B. R., & Tukel, O. I. (2016). A Review of User Involvement in Information

System Projects. Project Management: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and

Applications: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications, 1.

El-Kurd, Ahmed (2016). Critical Success Factors for ERP Implementation in

UNRWA as a Case Study, MBA Thesis, Islamic University–Gaza

Esteves, J. and J. Pastor (2000). Towards the unification of critical success factors

for ERP implementations. 10th Annual BIT Conference, Manchester, UK.

Fortune, J., & White, D. (2006). Framing of Project Critical Success Factors by a

systems model. International Journal of Project Management, 53-65.

Franz, C. R., & Robey, D. (1986). Organizational Context, User Involvement, and

the Usefulness of Information Systems. Decision Sciences, 329-356.

Geethalakshmi, S. N., & Shanmugan, A. (2008). Success and Failure of Software

Development: Practitioners‟ Perspective. In Proceedings of the International

MultiConference of Engineers and Computer Scientists (Vol. 1).

George, D. and Mallery P. (2006). SPSS for Windows Step by Step. A Simple Guide

and Reference, page 231. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA, USA

115

Guimaraes, T., Staples, D. S., & McKeen, J. D. (2004). Empirically testing some

main user-related factors for systems development quality. Quality control and

applied statistics, 49, 333-336.

Harris, M. A., & Weistroffer, H. R. (2009). A new look at the relationship between

user involvement in systems development and system success. Communications

of the Association for Information Systems, 24(1), 42.

Hartwick, J. and H. Barki (2001). "Communication as a dimension of user

participation." IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 44(1): 21-36.

Havelka, D., & Rajkumar, T. (2006). Using the Troubled Project Recovery

Framework: Problem Recognition and Decision to Recover. e-Service Journal,

43-73.

He, J., & King, W. R. (2008). The role of user participation in information systems

development: implications from a meta-analysis. Journal of Management

Information Systems, 25(1), 301-331.

Henry C. Thode, Jr. (2002). Testing for Normality. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

p. 479. ISBN 0-8247-9613-6.

Hoda, R., Noble, J., & Marshall, S. (2011). The impact of inadequate customer

collaboration on self-organizing Agile teams. Information and Software

Technology, 521-534.

Holland, C. P. and B. Light (1999). "A critical success factors model for ERP

implementation." IEEE software 16(3): 30.

Hsu, J. S., Hung, Y. W., Chen, Y. H., & Huang, H. H. (2013). Antecedents and

consequences of user coproduction in information system development projects.

Project Management Journal, 44(2), 67-87.

Hsu, J. S.-C., Chan, C.-L., Liu, J. Y.-C., & Chen, H.-G. (2008). The impacts of user

review on software responsiveness: Moderating requirements uncertainty.

Information & Management, 203-210.

Hsu, L. L., Lai, R. S., & Weng, Y. T. (2008). Understanding the critical factors effect

user satisfaction and impact of ERP through innovation of diffusion theory.

International Journal of Technology Management, 43(1-3), 30-47.

116

Hwang, M. I. and R. G. Thorn (1999). "The effect of user engagement on system

success: a meta-analytical integration of research findings." Information &

Management 35(4): 229-236.

Ives, B. and M. H. Olson (1984). "User involvement and MIS success: A review of

research." Management science 30(5): 586-603.

Ives, B., Olson, M. H., & Baroudi, J. J. (1983). The measurement of User

Information Satisfaction. Communications of the ACM, 785-793.

Jacobs, F. R. (2007). "Enterprise resource planning (ERP)—A brief history."

Journal of Operations Management 25(2): 357-363.

Jiang, J. J., Chen, E., & Klein, G. (2002). The importance of building a foundation

for user involvement in information system projects. Project Management

Journal, 33(1), 20-26.

Jiang, J. J., Muhanna, W. A., & Klein, G. (2000). User resistance and strategies for

promoting acceptance across system types. Information & Management, 37(1),

25-36.

JIU Website. (2016, December). Information About ERP Systems in UN Agencies

Retrieved from http://www.unjiu.org/

Kappelman, L. A. (1995). "Measuring user involvement: a diffusion of innovation

perspective." ACM SIGMIS Database 26(2-3): 65-86.

Kappelman, L. A. and E. R. McLean (1991). The Respective Roles Of User

Participation And User Involvement In Information System Implementation

Success. ICIS.

Kappelman, L. A., McKeeman, R., & Zhang, L. (2006). Early Warning Signs of IT

Project Failure: The Dominant Dozen. Information Systems Management, 31-36.

Khan, A. I., Qurashi, R. J., & Khan, U. A. (2011). A Comprehensive Study of

Commonly Practiced Heavy and Light Weight Software Methodologies.

International Journal of Computer Science Issues, 441-450.

Khang, D. B., & Moe, T. L. (2008). Success Criteria and Factors for International

Development Projects: A Life-Cycle-Based Framework. Project Management

Journal, 72-84.

Kujala, S. (2003). User involvement: a review of the benefits and challenges.

Behaviour & information technology, 22(1), 1-16.

117

Land, F. and R. Hirschheim (1983). "Participative systems design: Rationale, tools

and techniques." Journal of applied systems analysis 10(10): 15-18.

Leonard, A. (2004). Focusing on maturity levels for the effective management of end

users involved in software project teams. South African Journal of Business

Management, 17-25.

Leyh, C. (2014). Critical success factors for ERP projects in small and medium-sized

enterprises-The perspective of selected German SMEs. Computer Science and

Information Systems (FedCSIS), 2014 Federated Conference on, IEEE.

Liaquat, H., et al. (2002). "Enterprise Resource Planning: Global Opportunities &

Challenges." ISBN: 193070836x Idea Group Publishing.

Magal, S. R. and J. Word (2009). Essentials of business processes and information

systems, Wiley Publishing.

McKeen, J. D., et al. (1994). "The relationship between user participation and user

satisfaction: an investigation of four contingency factors." Mis Quarterly: 427-

451.

McKeen, J. D., & Guimaraes, T. (1997). Successful Strategies for User Participation

in Systems Development. Journal of Management Information Systems, 133-150.

Møller, C. (2005). "ERP II: a conceptual framework for next-generation enterprise

systems?" Journal of Enterprise Information Management 18(4): 483-497.

Monk, E. and B. Wagner (2012). Concepts in enterprise resource planning, Cengage

Learning.

Nah, F. F.-H. (2001). Enterprise Resource Planning: Solutions and Management:

Solutions and Management, IGI Global.

Nah, F. F.-H. and S. Delgado (2006). "Critical success factors for enterprise

resource planning implementation and upgrade." Journal of Computer

Information Systems 46(5): 99-113.

Ngai, E. W., et al. (2008). "Examining the critical success factors in the adoption of

enterprise resource planning." Computers in Industry 59(6): 548-564.

Parr, A. and G. Shanks (2000). "A model of ERP project implementation." Journal of

information Technology 15(4): 289-303.

Pastor, J. M. E. J. and J. Casanovas (2003). "A goal/question/metric research

proposal to monitor user involvement and participation in ERP implementation

118

projects." Information Technology and Organizations: Trends, Issues,

Challenges and Solutions 1: 325.

Petter, S., et al. (2013). "Information systems success: The quest for the independent

variables." Journal of Management Information Systems 29(4): 7-62.

Press, I., et al. (2002). "Enterprise Resource Planning Solutions and Management."

Pries-Heje, L. (2008). Time, attitude, and user participation: how prior events

determine user attitudes in ERP implementation. International Journal of

Enterprise Information Systems, 4(3), 48.

Rasmussen, R., Christensen, A. S., Fjeldsted, T., & Hertzum, M. (2011). Selecting

users for participation in IT projects: Trading a representative sample for

advocates and champions?. Interacting with Computers, 23(2), 176-187.

Robert Jacobs, F. (2007). "Enterprise resource planning (ERP)—A brief history."

Journal of Operations Management 25(2): 357-363.

Rockart, J. F. (1979). "Critical success factors." Harvard business review 57(2): 81-

91.

Ross, J. W. and M. R. Vitale (2000). "The ERP revolution: surviving vs. thriving."

Information systems frontiers 2(2): 233-241.

Saade, R. G., & Nijher, H. (2016). Critical success factors in enterprise resource

planning implementation: A review of case studies. Journal of Enterprise

Information Management, 29(1), 72-96.

Shang, S. and P. B. Seddon (2000). "A comprehensive framework for classifying the

benefits of ERP systems." AMCIS 2000 proceedings: 39.

Shanks, G., et al. (2000). "Differences in critical success factors in ERP systems

implementation in Australia and China: a cultural analysis." ECIS 2000

Proceedings: 53.

Sneller, R. (2014). "A Guide to ERP."

Somers, T. M. and K. Nelson (2001). The impact of critical success factors across the

stages of enterprise resource planning implementations. System Sciences, 2001.

Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on, IEEE.

Sridhar, V., Nath, D., & Malik, A. (2009). Analysis of user involvement and

participation on the quality of IS planning projects: An exploratory study.

Journal of Organizational and End User Computing (JOEUC), 21(3), 80-98.

119

Subramanyam, R., Weisstein, F. L., & Krishnan, M. S. (2010). User Participation in

Software Development Projects. Communications of the ACM, 137-141.

Tarhini, A., et al. (2015). "Analysis of the critical success factors for enterprise

resource planning implementation from stakeholders’ perspective: A systematic

review." International Business Research 8(4): 25.

Terry, J. (2008). Does the Customer Know Best? The Results of a Survey on

ECommerce Development. Issues in Informing Science and Information

Technology, 197-208.

Tesch, D., Kloppenborg, T. J., & Frolick, M. N. (2007). IT Project Risk Factors: The

Project Management Professionals Perspective. Journal of Computer

Information Systems, 61-69.

Tudhope, D., Beynon-Davies, P., & Mackay, H. (2000). Prototyping praxis:

Constructing computer systems and building belief. Human-Computer

Interaction, 15(4), 353-383.

Umble, E. J., et al. (2003). "Enterprise resource planning: Implementation

procedures and critical success factors." European journal of operational

research 146(2): 241-257.

UNRWA Website. (2016, December). General Information About UNRWA. Retrieved

from http://www.unrwa.org/

Van Bullen, C. and J. Rockart (1986). "A primer on critical success factors." Rockart

and Van Bullen, The rise of Management Computing, Dow Jones Irwin,

Homewood, Illinois.

Wallace, T. F. and M. H. Kremzar (2001). "ERP: Making it happen." New York.

Wagner, E. L., & Newell, S. (October 2007). Exploring the Importance of

Participation in the Post-Implementation Period of an ES Project: A Neglected

Area. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 508-524.

Wagner, E. L., & Piccoli, G. (2007). Moving Beyond User participation to Achieve

Successful IS Design. Communications of the ACM, 51-55.

Watson, E. E. and H. Schneider (1999). "Using ERP systems in education."

Communications of the AIS 1(2es): 3.

120

Wang, E. T., Chang, J. Y., Jiang, J. Y. J., & Klein, G. (2011). User advocacy and

information system project performance. International Journal of Project

Management, 29(2), 146-154.

Wang, E. T., Shih, S.-P., Jiang, J. J., & Klein, G. (2008). The consistency among

facilitating factors and ERP implementation success: A holistic view of fit.

Journal of Systems and Software, 1609-1621.

Wang, E. T., Shih, S. P., Jiang, J. J., & Klein, G. (2006). The relative influence of

management control and user–IS personnel interaction on project performance.

Information and Software Technology, 48(3), 214-220.

Wu, J. T. B., & Marakas, G. M. (2006). The impact of operational user participation

on perceived system implementation success: An empirical investigation. Journal

of Computer Information Systems, 46(5), 127-140.

Wu, J.-H., & Wang, Y.-M. (2006). Measuring ERP success: the ultimate user's view.

International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 882-903.

Wu, J. H., & Wang, Y. M. (2002, September). Development of a tool for measuring

key-user satisfaction in an ERP environment. In Pacific Asia Conference on

Information Systems (PACIS).

Zhang, L., et al. (2003). Critical success factors of enterprise resource planning

systems implementation success in China. System Sciences, 2003. Proceedings of

the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on, IEEE.

121

Appendices

122

Appendix (A) Judgment Committee

# Expert Name Organization

1 Dr.Akram Samour Islamic University of Gaza

2 Dr. Hatem Al Aydi Islamic University of Gaza

3 Dr. Hisham Madi Islamic University of Gaza

4 Dr. Nabil Alloh General Personnel Council

5 Dr.Nidal Al-Masry Al-Quds Open University

6 Dr. Sami Abu Naser Al- Azhar University

7 Dr.Sanaa Sayegh University College of Applied Sciences

123

Appendix (B) Questionnaire

Questionnaire Survey on the Impact of User Involvement on ERP System at


First: Cover Email/Letter

Dear Colleagues,

Enclosed in this email/letter is a link to a five minute survey that I have

developed as part of my studies in the Master of Business Administration Program.

I have focused my thesis topic around the analysis of the end user’s

involvement and participation in ERP system and how this involvement impacts

system performance.

Your participation in this study will be greatly appreciated, and I assure you

that you will be completing this questionnaire anonymously. This study and its

results will be solely used for the purpose of scientific research and will be treated

confidentially.

Thank you very much for your time and I hope to receive the completed

survey from you soon.

Kindly, fill and submit the questionnaire using the following link:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfcDwTXhhKNiH0ByDGZ6AT85hD4

LNEN7HvFJiXRA-ong4F0Bw/viewform

Yours Sincerely,

Fairouz Abuwarda

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfcDwTXhhKNiH0ByDGZ6AT85hD4LNEN7HvFJiXRA-ong4F0Bw/viewform

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfcDwTXhhKNiH0ByDGZ6AT85hD4LNEN7HvFJiXRA-ong4F0Bw/viewform

124

Second: Questionnaire

First, personal information

1- Gender

□ Male □ Female

2- Age:

□ Less than 30 years old □ Between 30 and 40 years

□ Between 41 and 50 years □ Over 50 years old

3- Qualification:

□Diploma □Master

□Bachelor □PhD

4- Occupation Type:

□International position □Local position

5- Occupation:

□Director □Deputy Director □Head of department

□Deputy Head of Department

□Senior Officer □Officer □Assistant

□Other

6- Years of Experience:

□Less than 3 years □Between 3-5 years □Between 6-10

years □More than 10 years

125

7- In which UNRWA HQ office you are working:

□Gaza □Amman □Jerusalem

8- Which Component of the SAP software are you using?

□ Human Resources Module □Public Sector Module □Supply

Chain Management Module □Finance Module □More than one

Module

Second Questions:

To what extent do you agree on the following statements?

Statement

1

Strongly

disagree

2 3 4

Neutral

5 6 7

Strongly

agree

I was involved as a business member of the ERP project

I was involved as a direct

end user of the system

I was involved as

representative on behalf of

system users

Functional Requirements

I defined/helped define the

system processes to suit the

work requirements


information requirement

(the user needs) of the

system


system calculations such as

126

Statement

1

Strongly

disagree

2 3 4

Neutral

5 6 7

Strongly

agree

sorting, filtering, totaling,

percentages, and other

mathematics

I defined/helped define data

storage requirements


system security

I defined/helped define user

security

I clarified/helped clarify the

task complexity

Presentation Requirements

I defined/helped define

input forms


output forms


screen layouts and displays

of the system


graphical representation of

data


reports’ formats


queries

Quality Assurance

I facilitated the use of one or

more automated testing

127

Statement

1

Strongly

disagree

2 3 4

Neutral

5 6 7

Strongly

agree

tools

I designed/help design the

test scripts to validate

functionality

I executed/helped execute

the tests scripts to validate

functionality

I verified system

functionality by testing

prototypes of the system

I verified/helped verify the

data to be migrated to the

system

Project Management

I scheduled/helped schedule

portion of the project

activities

I assisted in problem solving

in the project

I participated in the

identification, mitigation,

and resolutions of risks and

conflicts

I was kept informed

concerning

progress/problems of the

project activities

I communicated with a non

IS staff regarding the

128

Statement

1

Strongly

disagree

2 3 4

Neutral

5 6 7

Strongly

agree

progress of the project

I designed/helped design the

user training program for

the system

I trained/helped train other

users to this system

I was trained on how to use

the system

I implemented/helped

implement the system into

production use

Business Functionality

The system is frequently

and regularly used

The system delivers results

in a timely manner

The system delivers

accurate results based on the

data provided

The system is considered to

have the desired quality

The system provides the

desired financial benefits

The system meets our

operational efficiency

requirements

The system is easy to use

The system helps users to

make rational decision

129

Statement

1

Strongly

disagree

2 3 4

Neutral

5 6 7

Strongly

agree

Technical functionality

The system is reliably

available for my needs

I perceive that the system

repairs are easy to perform

System functionality and

performance are easy to test

I consider the system to be

technically stable

Documents

The Impact of User Involvement Activities on ERP System Success UNRWA Headquarter … · 2017. 3. 25. · Fairouz Mahmoud Abuwarda Supervised by: Dr. Khalid Abed Dahleez Assistant