Effects of user perceptions of SAP ERP system on user learning and skills

  • Sung J. ShimEmail author
  • Minsuk K. Shim


This study examines the effects of playfulness and anxiety as perceived by users in relation to SAP enterprise resource planning (ERP) system on users’ learning of business processes and users’ skills to use the system. Data was collected from a survey of college students who took a course on business process integration with ERP system where students used SAP ERP system to complete course works on business processes. System playfulness is found to have a small positive effect on user learning and skills without any control but the positive effect disappears after controlling for gender and prior experiences. System anxiety is found to have a large negative effect on both user learning and skills. These results suggest that enhancing the playfulness of SAP ERP system can help improve the user’s learning of business processes and the user's skills to use the system, but that reducing the anxiety of the system is far more important in improving the user’s learning of business processes and the user’s skills to use the system.


Enterprise resource planning (ERP) SAP System playfulness System anxiety Business processes User learning User skills 



Support for travel expenses pertaining to this study was provided by the Institute for International Business of the Stillman School of Business at Seton Hall University for Sung J. Shim. We highly appreciate the reviewers’ insightful and helpful comments on our earlier manuscript.


  1. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 9(2), 89–211.Google Scholar
  3. Elkhani, N., Soltani, S., & Ahmad, M. N. (2014). The effects of transformational leadership and ERP system self-efficacy on ERP system usage. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 27(6), 759–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ERPsim. (2019). ERPsim, the business simulation for SAP. Retrieved from Accessed on 2 March 2019.
  5. Ganzel, R. (1998). Feeling squeezed by technology? Training, 35(4), 62–70.Google Scholar
  6. Gattiker, T. F., & Goodhue, D. L. (2005). What happens after ERP implementation: Understanding the impact of interdependence on plant-level outcomes. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 559–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hackbarth, G., Grover, V., & Yi, M. Y. (2003). Computer playfulness and anxiety: Positive and negative mediators of the system experience effect on perceived ease of use. Information & Management, 40, 221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1992). Multivariate data analysis with readings. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  9. Herzig, P., Strahringer, S., & Ameling, M. (2012). Gamification of ERP systems—Exploring gamification effects on user acceptance constructs. In Proceedings of the MKWI 2012 (pp. 793–804).Google Scholar
  10. Hsu, C., Chang, K., & Chen, M. (2012). The impact of website quality on customer satisfaction and purchase intention: Perceived playfulness and perceived flow as mediators. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 10(4), 549–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hung, S. Y., & Liang, T. P. (2001). Effect of computer self-efficacy on the use of executive support systems. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 101(5), 227–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jashapara, A., & Tai, W. (2011). Knowledge mobilization through e-learning systems: Understanding the mediating roles of self-efficacy and anxiety on perceptions of ease of use. Information Systems Management, 28(1), 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jo, J., Park, J., Ji, H., Yang, Y., & Lim, H. (2016). A study on factor analysis to support knowledge based decisions for a smart class. Information Technology and Management, 17(1), 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Laosethakul, K., & Leingpibul, T. (2010). Why females do not choose computing? A lesson learned from China. Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, 4(3), 173–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lauchlan, S. (2017). How SAP became the world’s third largest independent software supplier. Retrieved from Accessed on 10 Oct 2018.
  16. Magal, S. M. & Word, J. (2017). Business Process Integration with SAP ERP. Frisco, Texas: Epistemy Press LLC.Google Scholar
  17. Marakas, G. M., Yi, M. Y., & Johnson, R. D. (1998). The multilevel and multifaceted character of computer self-efficacy: Toward clarification of the construct and an integrative framework for research information. Information Systems Research, 9(2), 126–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mouakket, S. (2010). Extending the technology acceptance model to investigate the utilization of ERP systems. International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems, 6(4), 38–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  20. Park, J. H., Suh, H. J., & Yang, H. D. (2007). Perceived absorptive capacity of individual users in performance of enterprise resource planning (ERP) usage: The case for Korean firms. Information & Management, 44(3), 300–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research (2nd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  22. Saadé, R. G., & Kira, D. (2009). Computer anxiety in e-learning: The effect of computer self-efficacy. Journal of Information Technology Education, 8, 177–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. SAP University Alliances. (2018). SAP University alliances: Building talent for the digital future. Retrieved from Accessed on 10 Oct 2018.
  24. Simonson, M. R., Maurer, M., Montag-Torardi, M., & Whitaker, M. (1987). Development of a standardized test of computer literacy and a computer anxiety index. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3(2), 231–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Terzis, V., Moridis, C. N., & Economides, A. A. (2018). Continuance acceptance of computer based assessment through the integration of user’s expectations and perceptions. Computers & Education, 62, 50–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Venkatesh, Y., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Webster, J. (1989). Playfulness and computers at work. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar
  28. Webster, J., & Martocchio, J. J. (1992). Microcomputer playfulness: Development of a measure with workplace implications. MIS Quarterly, 16(2), 201–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wildstrom, S. H. (1998). They’re mad as hell out there. Business Week, 3600, 32–33.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Seton Hall UniversitySouth OrangeUSA
  2. 2.University of Rhode IslandKingstonUSA

Personalised recommendations