Correlation Between Proper

Training / Involvement and ERP

Acceptance and the Mediating
Effects of Ability & Willingness
Kerem Köseoğlu

Yeditepe University

Abstract
This paper discusses training and project involvement as the key factors leading
to user acceptance of a new ERP system. If the users of the system received
enough training and were able to interact with it during the implementation
project, they should find the system easy to use, and this perception should
increase the level of utilization of the new ERP system. However, the user’s
motivation in terms of ability and willingness is expected to have a moderating
effect.

This paper adopts a quantitative study among the employees of companies using
ERP, and includes questionnaires and statistical analysis to see if the hypothesis
were supported or not.

Keywords: Enterprise Resource Planning, ERP, Enterprise System, Utilization,

Training, Involvement, Ease of Use, Motivation, Ability, Willingness

Introduction
ERP implementation is a serious change for any organization (Kwahk, 2006). ERP
systems provide many benefits to an organization in operational, managerial,
strategic and organizational levels (Shang). Despite all the advantages an ERP
system may bring to an organization, it is the people who are going to use it. And
if the members of the organization are having a hard time using the system, the
whole organization will be affected by that.

In this scope, a manager may ask himself the following question: “What should I
do to increase the level of utilization of our new ERP system?”

Many answers to this question can be found in the literature. One of the recent
studies has shown us that there is a correlation between the user’s perceived
ease of use and the level of utilization (Kwahk, 2006). This means; if the user
feels that the ERP system is easy to use, he/she is going to use it “better”. In the
same article, the author has found scientific support for his hypothesis that the
perceived ease of use stands as an intervening variable between the user’s
attitude towards change and the utilization of the system. This means; if the user

1
has a positive attitude toward change, he/she will have an easier time evaluating
the system as “easy to use”, and his/her utilization of the system will increase.

Although this model looks promising, a very important factor seems to be missing
there: Training. A new ERP system brings dramatic changes to an organization. If
the users are not prepared, they can’t be expected to use the new system
efficiently. Therefore, level of training quality and involvement should appear as
one of the factors affecting the utilization of the system.

While training is important, motivation is also expected to have an effect on the

utilization of the system. Motivation can be defined with a simple formula where
the level of ability is multiplied with the level of willingness (Draffan, 2007). If a
user doesn’t have the ability and/or willingness to use the new system, you can’t
expect him / her to be efficient no matter what the management has provided to
them.

Purpose of this paper is to research the correlation between training /

involvement and perceived ease of use (of the ERP system) and the moderating
effects of motivation in-between.

What Is ERP
ERP stands for enterprise resource planning. Enterprise resource planning is an
integrated software solution used to manage an organization's resources. ERP
systems integrate business management and administrative functions including
human resources, accounts payable, purchasing and finance (Case Western
Reserve University, 2004).

ERP is not a new concept. ERP systems are being developed since more than 30
years, and companies have been using them ever since. An ERP system is very
promising in terms of productivity and cost reduction.

Because ERP is usually a big and complex system designed and tailored to
correspond to organizational processes, implementation of an ERP system is also
a process itself and takes some time. Therefore, each ERP implementation is
considered as a project.

Usually, ERP implementation projects have two parties: The customer who has
bought the system, and a consultancy company doing the work. In Microsoft
Dynamics’ Sure Step Methodology, these parties are divided into the following
roles (Microsoft Corporation, 2006).

In terms of consulting roles; a project manager will manage the project, possibly
together with a customer project manager. Engagement manager facilitates
hand-over from sales, communicates with customer throughout the
implementation and manages customer engagement and customer relations. An
application consultant analyses business processes, describes requirements,
facilitates gap/fit analysis, designs modifications, tests modifications, configures
the system, performs training etc. A development consultant evaluates
requirements and participates in design of modifications, develops and unit tests

2
modifications. A technology consultant evaluates requirements and participates
in design of modifications, develops and unit tests modifications.

In terms of customer roles; a business decision maker makes business critical

decisions related to implementation project, controls budget and reviews
proposed solutions and estimates. In larger implementations the customer may
have a dedicated project manager to drive customer activities in the project.
Project management is done in cooperation with the consulting project manager.
An IT manager provides information on existing infrastructure and participates in
planning future infrastructure. A key user is a domain expert who has critical
knowledge of specific business functions, can describe business processes, helps
configure & test the system and trains end users. An end user supports the
system test and uses the system once implemented.

A typical project will have the following stages (Ramanathan):

• Business Process Study (As-Is): Regular interactions with the client grow in
order to understand the various business processes and the way they are
presently carried out. This enables the consultants to understand the
processes and terminology of the customer better.
• Pre-Implementation Training: A general training is provided to the
customer project team to make sure that they have a general
understanding of basic ERP concepts. This enables the customer team to
understand the terminology of the consultants better, and have a general
insight about what the software is capable of.
• Requirement Analysis (To-Be): The requirements of the customers are
analyzed in great detail. Alternative solutions are analyzed, and
development requirements are discovered.
• Blue Print Approval: This is the stage where the customer and the
consulting company agree on the target solution. Results of the analysis
are documented and signed by both parties.
• Implementation: Customizations and developments are carried out. Minor
misunderstandings and change requests of the blue print can be tolerated
during this stage.
• Testing: As customizations and developments are completed, the key
users set out to test the system to make sure that it works as intended and
that it satisfies the requirements.
• End-User Training: End-users are trained so that they gain the skills
required to use the new system.
• Master Data Migration: Real master data of the customer is installed into
the ERP system. This includes, but is not limited to, material master data,
chart of accounts, HR data, etc.
• Go-Live: The legacy system is shut down, and the new ERP system
becomes available to all users.
• Post Implementation Support: After go-live, the consultancy company
usually gives live support on the site to make sure that everything is
running smoothly.

3
Conceptual Background and Hypotheses
Perceived Ease of Use and Utilization
Perceived ease of use, refers to "the degree to which a person believes that using
a particular system would be free of effort." This follows from the definition of
"ease": "freedom from difficulty or great effort." Effort is a finite resource that a
person may allocate to the various activities for which he or she is responsible
(Radner and Rothschild, 1975). On the other hand; utilization is reflected by the
extent to which the information system has been integrated into each individual’s
work routines (Rai, 2002).

Many empirical studies have suggested a significantly strong relationship

between intention and behavior. Therefore; the use of behavioral intention has
been justified as a dependent variable to surrogate actual behavior. Furthermore,
IT utilization is a reflection of the acceptance of the IT by users (Kwahk, 2006). All
else being equal, we claim, an application perceived to be easier to use than
another is more likely to be accepted by users. The more useful and the easier to
use an ERP system in enabling employees to accomplish their tasks, the more it
will be used (Kwahk, 2006).

H1: Perceived ease of use of an ERP system will have a positive effect on
utilization of the ERP system

H1.1: An increase of the perceived level of ease of use of an ERP

system will increase the level of system utilization

H1.2: A decrease of the perceived level of ease of use of an ERP system

will decrease the level of system utilization

Training / Involvement and Perceived Ease of Use

Being one of the key stages of an ERP implementation project, training is the
phase where the users get to know the system and how they are going to use it.
As mentioned above, a typical ERP project will have two trainings. The first
training is organized at the early stages of the project. It is aimed at key users
and the project team, and the purpose is to make a general introduction of the
ERP system to the employees of the company. After this training, the consultants
and users are expected to have a common ground of understanding and
communication. The second training is organized at the late stages of the project;
probably close to the go-live date. It is aimed at end users, who do not need to
understand the depths of the ERP system. The purpose of this training is simply
to educate all of the employees so that they will know how to use the system to
perform their job-related tasks.

In general, there are four types of capabilities which are potentially trainable:
Knowledge, observable skills, problem solving skills and attitudes & beliefs
(Anderson, 2006). When ERP training is in question, all of these capabilities would
be targeted. The users’ knowledge about the new system is increased. They gain
observable skills of using the system. Their problem solving skills are increased
so that they know what to do when they encounter an error message.

4
However, the most important factor from our point of view is the improvement of
attitudes & beliefs. The extant training evaluation literature shows that training
can have large effects on knowledge and skill acquisition, as well as attitude
change (Anderson, 2006). If a proper training is provided to an end-user, he/she
will gain the knowledge, observable skills and problem solving skills required to
be able to use the system. Compared to the first moment he/she saw the GUI1
where everything seemed to be so complicated and hard; the user will have an
easy time using the tool to perform job-related tasks.

This situation is expected to result in a change on the user’s attitude towards the
ERP system. If the user has the proper knowledge and skills to use the system, he
/ she would start to perceive it as “easy to use”. In other words; if a proper
training has been provided to the user, he / she will be expected to perceive the
ERP system as “easy to use”. In that context; users without a proper training are
expected to perceive the system as “hard to use”.

H2: There is a positive correlation between the quality of the training and
the user’s perceived ease of use

H2.1: A high quality training will have a positive effect on the level of
perceived ease of use

H2.2: A low quality training will have a negative effect on the level of
perceived ease of use

While a former training is one of the most significant alternatives to arm the user
with proper skills to use the system, practice alone is another one.

Human brain learns in two ways. The first way is learning by training /
memorizing. This is the usual type of learning in a formal training discussed
above. However; the second and generally strongest type of learning is learning
by practice (Arntz, 2008). Arntz, Chasse and Vicente provide an excellent parable
of riding a bike. You can read a book on the subject the whole day, for example. If
your brother, who also has no former experience on bikes, has been riding the
bike in the backyard meanwhile, he will be a better rider at the end of the day.

Although end users are provided with formal trainings, key users are involved in
many details of the ERP system since the first day of the project. They “ride the
bike” among the experts: ERP consultants. As the project advances, key users
work literally side-by-side with consultants and see how many tasks are being
performed on the system. In an incremental degree, key users even start using
the system themselves to support consultants. Some of their typical duties in this
scope are to participate in the blueprint meetings, create master data,
performing tests of implemented scenarios, using the system with test data to
make sure that the configuration matches the company’s requirements,
preparing end-user documentations, etc. It is also typical for a key user to

1 Graphical User Interface

5
navigate & discover certain functions of the system in their spare time and ask
consultants about the details.

As the project advances, the key users gain more and more practical experience;
which is comfortably comparable to the formal training of end users in terms of
experience. At the go-live date, the key users will surely have more experience
than end users. But this fact doesn’t mean that the end users don’t interact with
the ERP system until the day their training starts. There are key users who are
involved in the project since the first day, that’s a fact. There are also some end
users who don’t even see the GUI once until they are trained, that’s also a fact.
However, there are many end users who are involved in the project in some
degree – usually not as much as key users of course. Some end users with
specialized knowledge about certain business processes are invited to project
meetings and they get to see and understand some parts of the ERP system.
Some end users are occasionally invited to the project to share the workload of
the key users, where they gain practical experience. There are many similar
occurrences where end users get the chance to involve the project.

Just like the formal training, practical experience also arms the user with the
required skills to user the ERP system. Within the same scope discussed in terms
of training, practical experience resulting in project involvement is expected to
increase the perceived ease of use. Even if an employee has gained the required
knowledge and skills through practical experience, he/she is still expected find
the system easy to use. Because the level of practical experience will increase
with the actual level of project involvement; an increase of perceived ease of use
is expected as a result of an increased level of involvement.

H3: There is a positive correlation between the user’s level of involvement

and perceived ease of use

H3.1: A high level of involvement will have a positive effect on the level
of perceived ease of use

H3.2: A low level of involvement will have a negative effect on the level
of perceived ease of use

Ability and Willingness

Ability is a general term concerning the power or capacity to act financially,
legally, mentally, physically, or in some other way (Anderson, 2006). In the scope
of this paper, we are going to focus on the cognitive abilities of ERP users which
are related to the level of computer literacy.

Computer literacy is the knowledge and ability to use computers and technology
efficiently. Computer literacy can also refer to the comfort level someone has
with using computer programs and other applications that are associated with
computers. As of 2005, having basic computer skills is a significant asset in the
developed countries (Wikipedia, 2008).

6
In previous studies, it was found that variables such as computer experience and
computer familiarity influenced levels of computer literacy (Zin, 2000). This
means; the more a person has experience and familiarity with computers, the
more comfort he / she will find using programs and applications.

Today, many software applications have similar interfaces. Just like you know
where to find the gear and wheel in a new car, a computer literate user is
expected to find out by common sense how to perform basic tasks of a new
application (Karat, 1995). Therefore; in a typical application, one could expect the
level of computer literacy to relate directly to the level of perceived ease of use.

However; in terms of complexity, ERP systems are not in the same league as
typical desktop applications; such as word processors, spreadsheets and Internet
browsers. Understanding the logic behind a certain ERP program will require the
user to be experienced in the corresponding business area. You can hire a bright
computer engineer graduated from a top college. If he / she doesn’t know
anything about bookkeeping and finance, his / her former knowledge on
computers won’t help too much while trying to make a financial posting on the
ERP system. He / she would have to be familiar with terms like assets, liabilities,
tax-accounts, etc. On the other hand; a typical accountant with a relatively low
level of computer literacy can start understanding and using the same financial
program more efficiently after being trained.

Computer literacy alone won’t make a skilled ERP user out of an employee.
However; considering two employees with the same level of project involvement
and same degree of ERP training, it makes sense to expect that the employee
with a higher level of technical abilities would learn easier and faster.

It is obvious that former experience on computers will have a positive impact on

the learning curve of new computer software. However; in case of an ERP system,
it is not expected to result directly in an increase in the level of perceived ease of
use. It is rather expected to moderate the correlation between the level of
training quality / involvement and the perceived ease of use.

H4: The user’s technical abilities will moderate the correlation between the
quality of training and perceived ease of use

H4.1: Users with strong technical abilities will experience a high

correlation between the quality of training and perceived ease of use

H4.2: Users with weak technical abilities will experience a low

correlation between the quality of training and perceived ease of use

H5: The user’s technical abilities will moderate the correlation between the
user’s level of involvement and perceived ease of use

H5.1: Users with strong technical abilities will experience a high

correlation between their levels of involvement and perceived ease of
use

7
 H5.2: Users with weak technical abilities will experience a low
correlation between their levels of involvement and perceived ease of
use

Despite the fair expectations of the users’ technical abilities to mediate the
correlation between training / involvement and perceived ease of use, it is also
fair to assume that if a user doesn’t really want to use the ERP system, he / she
can’t be expected to perform tasks effectively.

The central assumption made by expectancy theory is that human behavior is

the result of conscious choices made by individuals among alternative courses of
action. According to this theory, such choices are made by the individuals with
the goal of maximizing the pleasure and minimize the pain that results from their
choice (Anderson, 2006). This theory suggests that trainees have preferences
among the different outcomes that can result from participation in training.
Trainees also have expectations regarding the likelihood that effort invested in
training will result in mastery of training content (Colquitt, 2000).

In our case of an ERP system, the basic outcome of the training / involvement is
somewhat the same for all the users – gaining the ability to use the system.
However, when looked deeply, does the user believe that the ability of using the
ERP system will benefit him / her? Or, from a broader vision, does the user
believe that the decision of implementing the ERP system will benefit the
company at all? Answers of these questions are expected to have an impact on
the user’s ERP experience.

Let’s assume that there are two users with the same background, who had the
same level project involvement and same training during the project. If one of the
users believes that the ability of using the ERP system will benefit his / her own
carrier and the company, he / she will try hard to get the most out of the
consultants during their time in the project. Compared to the other presumably
neutral employee, this user will end up knowing more about the ERP system, and
is expected to have a relatively easy time using it.

Within the scope of this vision, it can be expected that a user’s willingness of
using the ERP system should have a moderating effect on the results of project
involvement and trainings.

H6: The user’s willingness of using the ERP system will moderate the
correlation between the quality of training and perceived ease of use

H6.1: Users with a strong will of using the system will experience a high
correlation between the quality of training and perceived ease of use

H6.2: Users with a weak will of using the system will experience a low
correlation between the quality of training and perceived ease of use

8
 H7: The user’s willingness of using the ERP system will moderate the
correlation between the user’s level of involvement and perceived ease of
use

H7.1: Users with a strong will of using the system will experience a high
correlation between their levels of involvement and perceived ease of
use

H7.2: Users with a weak will of using the system will experience a low
correlation between their levels of involvement and perceived ease of
use

Methodology
The research phase of this paper is consistent of two stages: preliminary
interviews, and a quantitative study.

Purpose of the interviews was to make sure that the dimensions and sub-
dimensions mentioned in the model are accurate. Therefore, interviews have
been conducted with experienced ERP consultants. As a result of this process, the
model and some questions were slightly modified.

In the quantitative stage, the questionnaire has been posted to an Internet site,
and the link was sent to ERP users of various companies. All of these companies
are using SAP as their ERP solution. The distribution took place using the
snowball technique. This means; the researcher, who is also a SAP consultant
himself, has sent the link of the questionnaire to all of his customers, and also to
other SAP consultants so that they forward to their own customers. All of the
messaging process was conducted via E-Mail.

This technique may attain criticism at the first sight. However; SAP is a computer
based system. Therefore, all of SAP users are guaranteed to spend at least half of
their working time on their computers; and they already have instinctive
knowledge about E-Mail and Internet usage. There are around 600 SAP
consultants in Turkey, and approximately 70 of them were involved in the
snowball process. As a result, 198 answers were collected. After eliminating not
applicable entries, a sum of 177 entries were left.

Ease of Use and Utilization

To measure the perceived ease of use and its correlation with system utilization,
the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989) has been used. The Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM) is an information systems theory that models how users
come to accept and use a technology. The model suggests that when users are
presented with a new software package, a number of factors influence their
decision about how and when they will use it(Wikipedia, 2008). TAM is considered
as the extension of Ajzen and Fishbein’s “Theory of Reasoned Action” (TRA).

9
The original TAM tool has been slightly modified to make sure that the questions
match the ERP area. The sample questions in the original tool were targeting an
E-Mail system. The E-Mail related sentences were replaced with ERP-related
content.

Here is an exact list of the questions, where a 6-scale Likert-Style answer was
expected.

Ease of Use
I often become confused when I use SAP
I make errors frequently when using SAP
lnteracting with SAP is often frustrating
I need to consult the documentation often when using SAP
lnteracting with SAP requires a lot of my mental effort
I find it easy to recover from errors encountered while using SAP
SAP is rigid and inflexible to interact with
I find it easy to get SAP to do what I want it to do
SAP often behaves in unexpected ways
I find it cumbersome to use SAP
My interaction with SAP is easy for me to understand
It is easy for me to remember how to perform tasks using SAP
SAP provides helpful guidance in performing tasks
Overall, I find SAP easy to use

Utilization
I personally use SAP to perform my daily tasks
I am dependent on SAP
I am satisfied with my daily SAP experience
SAP has a large, positive impact on my effectiveness and productivity in
my job
SAP is an important and valuable aid to me in the performance of my job.

Training Quality
The quality of the training has been measured using a modified version of the
“Kirkpatrick Model” (Kirkpatrick, 2006). The "Kirkpatrick Model" for evaluating
training programs is the most widely used approach in the corporate,
government, and academic worlds. First developed in 1959, it focuses on four
key areas: reaction, learning, behavior, and results.

Here is an exact list of the questions, where a 6-scale Likert-Style answer was
expected.

Content of program was practical

The leader was effective
Schedule of session was appropriate
Facilities were appropriate
Size of group was conductive for learning
I understand how to apply what I learned to my job
I do not anticipate barriers in applying what I learned

10
 I was satisfied with the session
I would recommend this session to others
Overall, my impression of this course was excellent
The course objectives were clearly stated and used understandable terms
This course met the defined objectives
Both the facility and equipment used met all needs of the course
The course materials were both useful and easy to follow
The instructors demonstrated thorough knowledge and understanding of
the topic
The instructors presented information in a clear, understandable and
professional manner
The amount of time scheduled for this course was exactly what was
needed to meet the objectives
This course related directly to my current job responsibilities

Involvement, Ability, Willingness

To measure the user’s abilities, willingness and level of involvement in the ERP
implementation project, a custom questionnaire has been developed based upon
former experience on ERP projects. This questionnaire has also been discussed
among experienced ERP consultants, and was modified to its current state.

Involvement
What is your role in the ERP project? (N/A, User, Key User, Project
Manager)
To what extent did you participate the project? (None, only trainings,
occasionally, more than half of my working time at days consultants were
here)
Which phases did you participate? (As-Is, To-Be, Blue Print Preparation,
Implementation, Tests, Trainings, Go-Live)
Are you currently using SAP? (Yes / No)

Ability
Level of education (Primary school, Middle school, High school, College,
Master, PhD)
Graduated from a technical school (Yes / No)
I have used SAP or a similar ERP system before (Yes / No)

Willingness
I believe that using SAP will benefit my company (Likert-Style)
I believe that using SAP will benefit my own carrier (Likert-Style)

Results
To test the study hypotheses, linear regression analyses have been conducted.
Anova and T-Test analysis techniques have also been used. Here is the
demographic profile of attended employees.

11
 Gender

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Female 57 32,2 32,2 32,2
Male 120 67,8 67,8 100,0
Total 177 100,0 100,0

Income Level (YTL)

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid < 500 2 1,1 1,1 1,1
500-1000 7 4,0 4,0 5,1
1000-3000 82 46,3 46,3 51,4
3000-5000 58 32,8 32,8 84,2
5000-10000 26 14,7 14,7 98,9
> 10000 2 1,1 1,1 100,0
Total 177 100,0 100,0

Marital Status

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Married 75 42,4 42,4 42,4
Single 100 56,5 56,5 98,9
Divorced 2 1,1 1,1 100,0
Total 177 100,0 100,0

Graduated From

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid High School 12 6,8 6,8 6,8
College 133 75,1 75,1 81,9
Master 31 17,5 17,5 99,4
PhD 1 ,6 ,6 100,0
Total 177 100,0 100,0

Technical Education

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Technical Faculty 115 65,0 65,0 65,0
Non-Technical Faculty 62 35,0 35,0 100,0
Total 177 100,0 100,0

12
 Age Interval

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 20-26 29 16,4 16,4 16,4
26-32 61 34,5 34,5 50,8
32-38 57 32,2 32,2 83,1
38-44 16 9,0 9,0 92,1
44-50 7 4,0 4,0 96,0
50-56 7 4,0 4,0 100,0
Total 177 100,0 100,0

After collecting the data, answers to negative questions have been transformed
into the opposite direction of the Likert scale. As usual in linear regression
analysis; at the first step, a data reduction progress has been conducted and
questions corresponding to various variables have been grouped into factors. At
this stage, the Utilization and Willingness variables have been resolved into a pair
of single factors.

Perceived ease of use has been differentiated into two factors: Confusion and
User-Friendliness. Confusion is related to the extent in which the user gets
confused, makes mistakes, needs to consult documentation, etc when using SAP.
User-Friendliness is the area involving factors like the level of easiness of error-
recovery, ease of modifying SAP’s behavior, usability, understandability and the
quality of internal guidance of the software.

Training variable has also been differentiated into two factors: Content
Satisfaction and Context Satisfaction. Content satisfaction involves questions
about the employee’s satisfaction of the transferred knowledge. It simply reflects
how successful the trainer was. Context satisfaction involves questions about the
physical training environment. It reflects contextual factors such as the accuracy
of timing, suitability of the training materials, etc.

Variable Factor Variance Reliability

Perceived Confusion 34,8% 85,6%

Ease of Use

User- 27,7% 82,3%

Friendliness

Training Content 43,9% 95,3%

Satisfaction

Context 27,3% 86,3%

Satisfaction

13
Utilization System 100% 90%
Utilization

Willingness Willingness 100% 77,5%

In terms of user-friendliness, SAP seems to have a positive impression on

employees. On the 6-item Likert scale, mean of Confusion2 is 4.33 and User-
Friendliness is 4.22.

Statistics

EAS_CONF EAS_USER
N Valid 177 177
Missing 0 0
Mean 4,3376 4,2250
Median 4,5000 4,3333
Mode 5,00 4,83
Sum 767,75 747,83

The first hypothesis, indicating that perceived ease of use of an ERP system will
have a positive effect on utilization of the ERP system, has been supported in this
research - between the factors User-Friendliness and System Utilization (β =
0.528, R2 = 0.275). This result was also supported in former studies mentioned
previously (Kwahk, 2006).

b
Model Summary

Adjusted Std. Error of

Model R R Square R Square the Estimate
1 ,528a ,279 ,275 ,90797
a. Predictors: (Constant), EAS_USER
b. Dependent Variable: UTILIZATION

2 Note that answers to negative questions had been reversed; so 6 would mean that no
one is confused at all

14
 ANOVAb

Sum of
Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 55,786 1 55,786 67,667 ,000a
Residual 144,272 175 ,824
Total 200,057 176
a. Predictors: (Constant), EAS_USER
b. Dependent Variable: UTILIZATION

a
Coefficients

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1,926 ,331 5,822 ,000
EAS_USER ,630 ,077 ,528 8,226 ,000
a. Dependent Variable: UTILIZATION

The second hypothesis, indicating that there is a positive correlation between the
quality of the training and the user’s perceived ease of use, has been partly
supported. The first significant correlation that has been found is between the
factors Content Satisfaction and Confusion (β = 0.272, R 2 = 0.069). However, no
scientific support has been found for the moderating effect of Willingness.

b
Model Summary

Adjusted Std. Error of

Model R R Square R Square the Estimate
1 ,272a ,074 ,069 ,94382
a. Predictors: (Constant), EDU_CONTENT
b. Dependent Variable: EAS_CONF

ANOVAb

Sum of
Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 12,503 1 12,503 14,036 ,000a
Residual 155,890 175 ,891
Total 168,393 176
a. Predictors: (Constant), EDU_CONTENT
b. Dependent Variable: EAS_CONF

15
 a
Coefficients

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 3,092 ,340 9,092 ,000
EDU_CONTENT ,275 ,073 ,272 3,746 ,000
a. Dependent Variable: EAS_CONF

The second significant correlation is between the factors Content Satisfaction and
User-Friendliness (β = 0.427, R2 = 0.182). There is also significant evidence of
the moderating effect of the Willingness in-between. The values for employees
with relatively low willingness are β = 0.371, R2 = 0.123, Sig. = 0.003; and the
values for employees with relatively high willingness are β = 0.314, R2 = 0.090,
Sig. = 0.001. However; no significant correlation involving Context Satisfaction
has been found.

b
Model Summary

Adjusted Std. Error of

Model R R Square R Square the Estimate
1 ,427a ,182 ,177 ,81022
a. Predictors: (Constant), EDU_CONTENT
b. Dependent Variable: EAS_USER

ANOVAb

Sum of
Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 25,571 1 25,571 38,953 ,000a
Residual 114,881 175 ,656
Total 140,452 176
a. Predictors: (Constant), EDU_CONTENT
b. Dependent Variable: EAS_USER

a
Coefficients

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 2,443 ,292 8,370 ,000
EDU_CONTENT ,394 ,063 ,427 6,241 ,000
a. Dependent Variable: EAS_USER

The third hypothesis, suggesting a positive correlation between the user’s level
of involvement and perceived ease of use, has been partly supported. The results

16
of the conducted Anova tests show that confusion level varies depending upon
the employee’s role in the project. The most significant confusion difference is
observed within employees who didn’t participate the project at all, or who had a
non-standard role at the project; such as network administration.

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

EAS_CONF
Levene
Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
1,856 4 172 ,120

ANOVA

EAS_CONF
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 19,085 4 4,771 5,496 ,000
Within Groups 149,308 172 ,868
Total 168,393 176

17
 Multiple Comparisons

Dependent Variable: EAS_CONF

Mean
Difference 95% Confidence Interval
(I) INV01 (J) INV01 (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
Tukey HSD No Participation User -1,04122* ,35634 ,032 -2,0236 -,0588
Key User -,66047 ,34676 ,319 -1,6165 ,2955
Project Manager -,63942 ,37669 ,438 -1,6779 ,3991
Other -,02841 ,38466 1,000 -1,0889 1,0321
User No Participation 1,04122* ,35634 ,032 ,0588 2,0236
Key User ,38075 ,17378 ,188 -,0984 ,8599
Project Manager ,40180 ,22772 ,398 -,2260 1,0296
Other 1,01281* ,24068 ,000 ,3493 1,6764
Key User No Participation ,66047 ,34676 ,319 -,2955 1,6165
User -,38075 ,17378 ,188 -,8599 ,0984
Project Manager ,02105 ,21241 1,000 -,5645 ,6066
Other ,63206* ,22625 ,045 ,0083 1,2558
Project Manager No Participation ,63942 ,37669 ,438 -,3991 1,6779
User -,40180 ,22772 ,398 -1,0296 ,2260
Key User -,02105 ,21241 1,000 -,6066 ,5645
Other ,61101 ,26990 ,162 -,1331 1,3551
Other No Participation ,02841 ,38466 1,000 -1,0321 1,0889
User -1,01281* ,24068 ,000 -1,6764 -,3493
Key User -,63206* ,22625 ,045 -1,2558 -,0083
Project Manager -,61101 ,26990 ,162 -1,3551 ,1331
Scheffe No Participation User -1,04122 ,35634 ,079 -2,1509 ,0684
Key User -,66047 ,34676 ,461 -1,7403 ,4193
Project Manager -,63942 ,37669 ,579 -1,8124 ,5336
Other -,02841 ,38466 1,000 -1,2262 1,1694
User No Participation 1,04122 ,35634 ,079 -,0684 2,1509
Key User ,38075 ,17378 ,313 -,1604 ,9219
Project Manager ,40180 ,22772 ,541 -,3073 1,1109
Other 1,01281* ,24068 ,002 ,2633 1,7623
Key User No Participation ,66047 ,34676 ,461 -,4193 1,7403
User -,38075 ,17378 ,313 -,9219 ,1604
Project Manager ,02105 ,21241 1,000 -,6404 ,6825
Other ,63206 ,22625 ,104 -,0725 1,3366
Project Manager No Participation ,63942 ,37669 ,579 -,5336 1,8124
User -,40180 ,22772 ,541 -1,1109 ,3073
Key User -,02105 ,21241 1,000 -,6825 ,6404
Other ,61101 ,26990 ,279 -,2294 1,4515
Other No Participation ,02841 ,38466 1,000 -1,1694 1,2262
User -1,01281* ,24068 ,002 -1,7623 -,2633
Key User -,63206 ,22625 ,104 -1,3366 ,0725
Project Manager -,61101 ,26990 ,279 -1,4515 ,2294
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

There is also significant relationship between ERP usage and both confusion &
user friendliness. Apparently; active ERP users find the system more user-friendly
and less confusing. However; no correlation has been found between user’s role
in the project and perceived user-friendliness of the ERP System.

Group Statistics

Std. Error
Currently Using SAP N Mean Std. Deviation Mean
EAS_CONF Yes 165 4,3409 ,97260 ,07572
No 12 4,2917 1,09665 ,31658
EAS_USER Yes 165 4,2263 ,89997 ,07006
No 12 4,2083 ,83220 ,24023

18
 Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Mean Std. Error Difference
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
EAS_CONF Equal variances
,134 ,715 ,168 175 ,867 ,04924 ,29327 -,52955 ,62804
assum ed
Equal variances
,151 12,292 ,882 ,04924 ,32551 -,65811 ,75660
not assumed
EAS_USER Equal variances
,182 ,671 ,067 175 ,947 ,01793 ,26785 -,51071 ,54656
assum ed
Equal variances
,072 12,945 ,944 ,01793 ,25024 -,52292 ,55878
not assumed

There are also some unforeseen results. Significant and direct correlation has
been found between Willingness and Utilization (β = 0.521, R2 = 0.267).

b
Model Summary

Adjusted Std. Error of

Model R R Square R Square the Estimate
1 ,521a ,271 ,267 ,91287
a. Predictors: (Constant), WILLINGNESS
b. Dependent Variable: UTILIZATION

ANOVAb

Sum of
Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 54,225 1 54,225 65,071 ,000a
Residual 145,832 175 ,833
Total 200,057 176
a. Predictors: (Constant), WILLINGNESS
b. Dependent Variable: UTILIZATION

a
Coefficients

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) ,747 ,481 1,552 ,123
WILLINGNESS ,709 ,088 ,521 8,067 ,000
a. Dependent Variable: UTILIZATION

Another unexpected result is the direct correlation between Willingness and User-
Friendliness (β = 0.458, R2 = 0.205).

19
 b
Model Summary

Adjusted Std. Error of

Model R R Square R Square the Estimate
1 ,458a ,209 ,205 ,79655
a. Predictors: (Constant), WILLINGNESS
b. Dependent Variable: EAS_USER

ANOVAb

Sum of
Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 29,415 1 29,415 46,359 ,000a
Residual 111,037 175 ,634
Total 140,452 176
a. Predictors: (Constant), WILLINGNESS
b. Dependent Variable: EAS_USER

a
Coefficients

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1,395 ,420 3,323 ,001
WILLINGNESS ,523 ,077 ,458 6,809 ,000
a. Dependent Variable: EAS_USER

Discussion
Although not the main focus of this paper, the demographic results represent
significant support that there are more male SAP users than female ones; almost
half of ERP users are single, and approximately 75% of them are graduated from
college. Most of the employees are less than 38 years old.

In terms of user-friendliness, SAP seems to be on a fairly good level. Approximate

Ease-Of-Use score of the system is 75%; which can be evaluated as a good score
for a very complex ERP system.

The correlation between user-friendliness and system utilization had been

supported in previous researches as well (Kwahk, 2006). The same result has
been duplicated in this paper. This result indicates that the more user-friendly
SAP is perceived, the more it’s going to be accepted in the company. Therefore,
managers can seek ways to transform the expected resistance and hard-to-use
prophecy towards the ERP system into a climate where people find it easy to use
and user-friendly.

20
But how? Another result answers this question by suggesting a correlation
between the employee’s content satisfaction of the training and his / her
perceived ease of use. This means; the more the employee is satisfied with the
content of the ERP training, the more user-friendly and less confusing he / she
will perceive the system. This should ring some bells for managers. In this scope,
their responsibility is to make sure that the employees get a high-quality and
efficient training. Many techniques and models have been suggested to measure
and increase the training quality, which are beyond the scope of this paper.
However; as mentioned before, Kirkpatrick’s evaluation model can be suggested
as a good starting point (Kirkpatrick, 2006). If the manager has doubts about the
quality of the training, he / she should not hesitate to ask the consulting company
to provide another one with an increased quality.

There is also scientific support that the employee’s actual willingness has a
significant effect on the user-friendliness perception, as well as system utilization.
Employees willing to use the system tend to perceive SAP as user-friendly more
easily than employees not willing to use it. This is another important implication
for managers, suggesting that employees should be persuaded in the usefulness
of the system to the company, as well as their own careers. Some incentives
upon a successful go-live may also help. If the employees genuinely want to use
the system, they will use it and perceive it as more user-friendly.

Another implication is the employee’s role in the project and their level of
confusion. Only employees who never participate the project (as user, project
manager, key user, etc) find SAP confusing. Employees with non-standard roles
also reported the system to be confusing; however, upon closer inspection, it
came out that most of those were technical people whose responsibilities were
network administration, user authorization management, etc. Therefore, they can
also be evaluated among the employees who did not participate the project.

The significant relationship between active ERP-Usage and level of perceived

ease of use also supports this implication. If a user sees the SAP GUI 3 for the first
time during a formal training one week before go-live, it is very natural for him /
her to find it confusing. The implication for managers is; people need to be
involved with SAP from time to time during the project. They don’t need to
participate meetings or decisions; but still, they can be involved in the system
with scheduled get-to-know workshops several times before the formal training. If
the workshops are conducted by key users, these organizations could allow end-
users to get to know the system better before the training, and key users will
have the chance to re-study their material. During these sessions, valuable
feedback may also be collected from end-users when the company still has time
to change things in the project.

Another suggestion is to make end-users participate the project with a supporting

role rotatively. If each end user joins key users a couple of times during the

3 Graphical user interface

21
project, key users will be happy to share their workload and end users will get to
have hands-on experience before the formal training.

Like any study, this paper is not without its limitations. First of all, the study has
been made among SAP users. Therefore, further research may be required before
generalizing the results towards the whole ERP concept. Most, if not all, of the
users participating the questionnaire are living in Istanbul / Turkey. Because
socio-economic and cultural status of Turkey may have an impact on the results,
the research may need to be repeated in different countries as well – before
generalizing the findings as cross-cultural.

Some of the users declared in personal feedback that they had their training a
long time ago. This may bring the risk that they can’t evaluate the training as
accurately as other people who participated their ERP training a short time ago.
In the ideal case, training evaluation should be made right after the training took
place. However; because this was not possible within the scope of this research,
it turns out to be one of its limitations.

The questionnaire of ability, willingness and involvement are made of custom-

developed questions. Although they were validated by experienced ERP
consultants, they did not pass through the test of time. On the other hand; other
instruments used here (such as TAM and Kirkpatrick Model) have passed through
the test of time and they had been used in various researches with success.
Although this may not be a problem, there is a possibility that the custom-
developed questionnaires interfere with the borrowed ones; and this is another
limitation of this research.

Acknowledging that ERP systems continue to grow with promising potential

benefits, this study has value for theoretical as well as practical development;
while several avenues for future research remain.

Bibliography
Anderson, N., Ones, D. S., Kepir Sinangil, H., & Viswesvaran, C. (2006). Handbook
of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology (Vols. I, II). California: SAGE.

Arntz, W., Chasse, B., & Vicente, M. (2008). What The Bleep Do We Know. (M.
Sağlam, Trans.) İstanbul, Turkey: İstanbul.

C. A. (2007). Kirkpatrick's Learning and Training Evaluation Theory. Retrieved 3

23, 2008, from BusinessBalls.com:
http://www.businessballs.com/kirkpatricklearningevaluationmodel.htm

Case Western Reserve University. (2004, July 5). Enterprise Resource Planning.
Retrieved 4 2, 2008, from Case Western Reserve University:
http://www.case.edu/projects/erp/projectdetails.html

Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an Integrative Theory of
Training Motivation: A Meta-Analytic Path Analysis of 20 Years of Research.
Journal of Applied Psychology , 85 (5), 678-707.

22
Courses by Wire. (2007, 2). Evaluating Training Effectiveness - Kirkpatrick's Four
Levels. Retrieved 3 23, 2008, from Courses by Wire:
http://www.coursesbywire.com/Articles/Evaluating%20Training%20Effectiveness
%20-%20Kirkpatrick's%20Four%20Levels.pdf

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User

Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly , 13 (3), 319-340.

Draffan, G. (2007, February). Ability and Willingness. Retrieved April 27, 2008,
from Natural Awareness: http://www.naturalawareness.net/ability%20and
%20willingness.pdf

Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-Technology Fit and Individual

Performance. MIS Quarterly (Management Information Systems Research Center,
University of Minnesota), 213-236.

Karat, J., & Dayton, T. (1995). Practical Education for Improving Software
Usability. Retrieved June 27, 2008, from SIGCHI:
http://sigchi.org/chi95/proceedings/papers/jk_bdy.htm

Kirkpatrick, D. L. (2006). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels.

Retrieved 3 23, 2008, from ASTD: http://astd2006.astd.org/PDF's/Handouts%20-
%20SECURED/M102.pdf

Kruse, K. (n.d.). Evaluating e-Learning: Introduction to the Kirkpatrick Model.

Retrieved 3 23, 2008, from E-Learning Guru: http://www.e-
learningguru.com/articles/art2_8.htm

Kwahk, K.-Y. (2006). ERP Acceptance: Organizational Change Perspective. Hawaii

International Conference on System Sciences, (pp. 1-10). Hawaii.

Microsoft Corporation. (2006). Microsoft Dynamics Sure Step Methodology.

Retrieved April 27, 2008, from Discover Dynamics:
http://discoverdynamics.co.uk/downloads/implementation/Sure_Step_Methodolog
y_Overview_Diagram.pdf

Rai, A., Lang, S. S., & Welker, R. B. (2002). Assessing the Validity of IS Success
Models: An Empirical Testand Theoretical Analysis. Information Systems
Research , 13 (1), 50-69.

Ramanathan, S., & Bhatia, A. (n.d.). ERP Project Cycle. Retrieved 4 2, 2008, from
ITToolbox: http://wiki.ittoolbox.com/index.php/ERP_Project_Cycle

Shang, S., & Seddon, P. B. (n.d.). A Comprehensive Framework for Classifying the
Benefits of ERP Systems. Retrieved April 27, 2008, from University of Melbourne:
http://www.dis.unimelb.edu.au/staff/peter/research/AMCIS2000ClassifyingTheBen
efitsOfERPSystems.doc

Sia, S. K., Tang, M., Soh, C., & Boh, W. F. (2002). Enterprise Resource Planning
(ERP) Systems as a Technology of Power: Empowerment or Panoptic Control? The
Data Base for Advances in Information Systems , 33 (1), 23-37.

23
Wikipedia. (2008, March 3). Computer Literacy. Retrieved June 27, 2008, from
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_literacy

Wikipedia. (2008, 2 8). Technology Acceptance Model. Retrieved 3 23, 2008, from
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_acceptance_model

Zin, N. A., Zaman, H. B., Judi, H. M., Mukti, N. A., Amin, H. M., Sahran, S., et al.
(2000). Gender Differences in Computer Literacy Level Among Undergraduate
Students in University Kebangsaan Malaysia. The Electronic Journal on
Information Systems in Developing Countries , 1-8.

24