European Journal of Information Systems

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 150–161

Investigating enterprise systems adoption: uncertainty avoidance, intrinsic motivation, and the technology acceptance model

Article

Abstract

Enterprise systems are gaining interest from both practitioners and researchers because of their potential linkages to organizational and individual user's productivity. Information systems (IS) researchers have been investigating the implementation and adoption issues of enterprise systems based on the organizational IS management perspectives. However, there are few papers that investigate enterprise systems management and implementation issues based on the informal control mechanisms, although the enterprise systems are control tools in the organization. Specifically, this paper applies Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) adoption and implementation to the informal controls, such as cultural control and self-control, which can be viewed as a tacit perspective in knowledge management. Uncertainty avoidance and perceived enjoyment are used as informal controls in the ERP implementation in this paper, and are linked to the technology acceptance variables to investigate the relationships among them. Sociotechnical design, organizational control mechanism, knowledge management, and individual motivation are reviewed to support this potential linkage in the model. Field data via the online survey of ERP systems user group (n=101) are analyzed with partial least squares and supported our hypotheses. Uncertainty avoidance cultural control and intrinsic motivation as self-control are the important antecedents of ERP systems adoption. Furthermore, the result helps the systems manager understand that informal controls should be applied to the ERP systems implementation to enhance tacit and social aspects of IS management.

Keywords

informal control enterprise systems sociotechnical design TAM 

References

  1. Agarwal R and Karahanna E (2000) Time flies when you're having fun: cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology use. MIS Quarterly 24(4), 665–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agarwal R and Prasad J (1997) The role of innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies. Decision Sciences 28(3), 557–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ajzen I and Fishbein M (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  5. Akkermans H and van Helden K (2002) Vicious and virtuous cycles in ERP implementation: a case study of interrelations between critical success factors. European Journal of Information Systems 11, 35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Al-Mudimigh A, Zairi M and Al-Mashari M (2001) ERP Software implementation: an integrative framework. European Journal of Information Systems 10, 216–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Amoako-Gyampah K and Salam AF (2004) An extension of the technology acceptance model in an ERP implementation environment. Information & Management 41, 731–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ash C and Burn JM (2003) Assessing the benefits from e-business transformation through effective enterprise management. European Journal of Information Systems 12, 297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bagchi K, Cerveny R, Hart P and Peterson M (2003) The influence of national culture in information technology product adoption. Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems 957–965.Google Scholar
  10. Barclay D, Higgins C and Thompson R (1995) The partial least squares approach to causal modeling: personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technology Studies 2, 285–309.Google Scholar
  11. Bollen K and Lennox R (1991) Conventional wisdom on measurement: a structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin 110, 305–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chan CYN (2001) An Empirical Investigation of Interactivity and Consumer Online Experience in Hypermedia Computer-Mediated Environments. University of Auckland.Google Scholar
  13. Chin WW (1998) The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In Modern Methods for Business Research (MARCOULIDES GA, Ed), pp 295–336, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
  14. Chin WW and Frye TA (1998) PLS-Graph (Version 2.91.03.04).Google Scholar
  15. Chung J and Tan FB (2004) Antecedents of perceived playfulness: an exploratory study on user acceptance of general information-searching websites. Information and Management 41, 869–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Compeau D, Higgins CA and Huff S (1999) Social cognitive theory and individual reactions to computing technology: a longitudinal study. MIS Quarterly 23(2), 145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Csikszentmihalyi M (1990) Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13(3), 319–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Davis FD, Baggozzi RP and Warshaw PR (1992) Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 22, 1111–1132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Davison RM (2002) Cultural complications of ERP. Communications of the ACM 45(7), 109–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Deci EL and Ryan RM (1985) Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human Behavior. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. der Heijden H (2004) User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Quarterly 28(4), 695–704.Google Scholar
  23. Devaraj S, Fan M and Kohli R (2002) Antecedents of B2C channel satisfaction and preference: validating e-commerce metrics. Information Systems Research 13(3), 316–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dorfman PW and Howell JP (1988) Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. Advances in International Comparative Management 3, 127–150.Google Scholar
  25. Eisenhardt KM (1985) Control: organizational and economic approaches. Management Science 31(2), 134–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Falk RF and Miller NB (1992) A Primer for Soft Modeling. The University of Akron, Akron, OH.Google Scholar
  27. Ford DP, Connelly CE and Meister DB (2003) Information systems research and Hofstede's culture's consequences: an uneasy and incomplete partnership. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 50(1), 8–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fornell C and Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equations models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fornell C and Bookstein L (1982) Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research 19, 440–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fowler M (2003) The New Methodologies, martinfowler.com/articles/newMethodologies.html.
  31. Gefen D (2004) What makes an ERP implementation relationship worthwhile: linking trust mechanisms and ERP usefulness. Journal of MIS 21(1), 263–288.Google Scholar
  32. Gefen D, Straub D and Boudreau M (2000) Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practices. Communications of the AIS 4(7) (tutorial).Google Scholar
  33. Ghani J and Deshpande S (1994) Task characteristics and the experience of optimal flow in human–computer interaction. Journal of Psychology 128(4), 381–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ghani J, Supnick R and Rooney P (1991) The experience of flow in computer-mediated and in face-to-face groups. In Proceedings of the12th International Conference on Information Systems, New York.Google Scholar
  35. Grover V, Jeong SR, Kettinger W and Teng J (1995) The Implementation of BPR. Journal of MIS 12(1), 109–144.Google Scholar
  36. Hackbarth G, Grover V and Yi M (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
  37. Hanseth O, Ciborra C and Braa K (2001) The control devolution: ERP and the side effects of globalization. The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems 32(4), 34–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hofstede G (1980) Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. SAGE Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.Google Scholar
  39. Hoffer JA, George JF and Valacich JS (2004) Modern Systems Analysis and Design 4th edn, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  40. Hoffman T (1999) Study: 85% of IT departments fail to meet biz needs. Computerworld. October 11, 1999.Google Scholar
  41. Hogg MA and Terry DJ (2000) Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review 25(1), 121–140.Google Scholar
  42. Hopwood A (1974) Accounting and Human Behavior. Prentice-Hall, London, UK.Google Scholar
  43. Igbaria M and Tan M (1997) The consequences of information technology acceptance on subsequent individual performance. Information & Management 32, 113–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Irani Z and Love PED (2002) Developing a fame of reference for ex-ante IT / IS investment evaluation. European Journal of Information Systems 11(1), 74–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jaworski BJ (1988) Toward a theory of marketing control: environmental context, control type, and consequences. Journal of Marketing 52, 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Karahanna E and Straub D (1999) The psychological origins of perceived usefulness and ease of use. Information & Management 35, 237–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kirsch LJ (1996) Portfolios of control modes and IS project management. Information Systems Research 8(3), 215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kirsch LJ (2000) Software project management: an integrative perspective for an emerging paradigm. In Framing the Domains of IT Management (ZMUD RW, Eds), pp 285–304, Pinnaflex Educational Resources Inc., Cincinnati, OH.Google Scholar
  49. Kirsch LJ and Cummings LL (1997) Contextual influences on self-control of is professionals engaged in systems development. Accounting, Management, and Information Technologies 6(3), 191–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kohli R and Kettinger W (2004) Informating the clan: controlling physician costs and outcomes. MIS Quarterly 28(3), 363–394.Google Scholar
  51. Legis P, Ingham J and Collerette P (2003) Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management 40, 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Liang H, Xue Y, Boulton W and Byrd T (2004) Why western vendors don't dominate China's ERP market. Communications of the ACM 47(7), 69–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lucas H and Spitler V (1999) Technology use and performance: a field study of broker workstations. Decision Sciences 30(2), 291–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Malhotra Y (2002) Is knowledge management really an oxymoron? Unraveling the role of organizational controls in knowledge management. In Knowledge Mapping and Management (WHITE D, Ed), pp 1–13, Idea Group Publishing, Hershey.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Malhotra Y (2004) Desperately seeking self-determination: key to the new enterprise logic of customer relationships. Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  56. Manz CC, Mossholder KW and Luthans F (1987) An integrative perspective of self-control in organization. Administration & Society 191(1), 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Marakas GM, Johnson R and Palmer JW (2000) A theoretical model of differential social attributions toward computing technology: when the metaphor becomes the model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 45(3), 529–552.Google Scholar
  58. Marques J, Abrams D, Paez D and Martinez TC (1998) The role of categorization and in-group norms in judgments of groups and their members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75(4), 976–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Martinsons M (2004) ERP in China: one package, two profiles. Communications of the ACM 47(7), 65–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. McCoy S (2002) The effect of national culture dimensions on the acceptance of information technology: a trait based approach. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  61. McCoy S, Everard A and Jones B An examination of the technology acceptance model in Uruguay and US. Journal of Global Information Technology Management (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  62. McCoy S, Galletta D and King W (2005) Integrating national culture into IS research: the need for current individual-level measures. Communications of the AIS 15, 211–224.Google Scholar
  63. Meyer JW and Rowan B (1977) Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83, 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Moore G and Benbasat I (1991) Development of an instrument to measure the perception of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research 2(3), 192–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ouchi WG (1979) A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms. Management Science 25(9), 833–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Panagiotidis P and Edwards JS (2001) Organisational learning: a critical systems thinking discipline. European Journal of Information Systems 10, 135–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rogers E (1983) Diffusion of Innovation: Third Edition. Free Press, NY.Google Scholar
  68. Sia S, Tang M, Soh C and Boh W (2002) ERP systems as a technology of power: empowerment or panoptic control? The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems 33(1), 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Smith GD and Steadman LE (1981) Present value of corporate history. Harvard Business Review 59, 164–173.Google Scholar
  70. Soh C, Kien S and Tay-Yap J (2000) Cultural fits and misfits: is ERP a universal solution? Communications of the ACM 43, 47–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Stefanou CJ (2001) A framework for the ex-ante evaluation of ERP software. European Journal of Information Systems 10, 204–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Stout R (1980) Management or Control?: The Organizational Challenge. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
  73. Straub D, Loch K, Evaristo R, Karahanna E and Srite M (2002) Toward a theory-based measurement of culture. Journal of Global Information Management 10(1), 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tajfel H (1972) Social categorization (English Translation of ‘La Categorisation Sociale’). In Introduction a La Psychologie Sociale Vol. 1 (Moscovici S, Ed), pp 272–302, Larousse, Paris.Google Scholar
  75. Tarafdar M and Roy R (2003) Analyzing the adoption of enterprise resource planning systems in Indian organizations: a process framework. Journal of Global Information Technology Management 6(1), 31–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Taylor S and Todd P (1995) Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models. Information Systems Research 6(2), 144–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Thompson JD (1967) Organization in Action. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.Google Scholar
  78. Tornatzky L and Klein K (1982) Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption implementation: a meta analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 29(1), 28–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Venkatesh V (1999) Creation of favorable user perceptions: exploring the role of intrinsic motivation. MIS Quarterly 23, 239–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Venkatesh V (2000) Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research 11, 342–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Venkatesh V and Davis FD (1996) A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: development and test. Decision Sciences 27, 451–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Venkatesh V and Speier C (2000) Creating an effective training environment for enhancing telework. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 52, 991–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Venkatesh V, Speier C and Morris MG (2002) User acceptance enablers in individual decision making about technology: toward an integrated model. Decision Sciences 33, 297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Webster J and Ho H (1997) Audience engagement in multi-media presentation. Data Base for the Advances in Information Systems 28(2), 63–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wilkins AL and Ouchi WG (1983) Efficient cultures: exploring the relationship between culture and organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly 28, 468–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Williamson OE and Masten SE (1995) Transaction Cost Economics. Edward Elgar, Eldershot, Hants, England and Brookfield, VT.Google Scholar
  87. Wold H (1982) Systems under indirect observation using PLS. In A Second Generation of Multivariate Analysis Vol. I: Methods (Fornell C, Ed), pp 325–347, Praeger, New York.Google Scholar
  88. Yi MY and Davis FD (2003) Developing and validating an observational learning model of computer software training and skill acquisition. Information Systems Research 14(2), 146–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Yi MY and Hwang Y (2003) Predicting the use of web-based information systems: self-efficacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 59, 431–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Operational Research Society 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DePaul University, School of Accountancy and MISChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations