Adoption of ERP systems: Does information transparency matter?

Information transparency affects perceived usefulness of ERP systems.Information transparency affects perceived ease of use of ERP systems.Perceived usefulness fully mediates the relationship between information transparency and attitude.Perceived ease of use partially mediates the relationship between information transparency and attitude.There is a strong significant relationship between attitude and ERP adoption. Research on the adoption of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems has drawn much attention in the information systems (IS) research. This study extends previous research on ERP adoption by examining the direct and indirect effects of perceived information transparency that result from the adoption of ERP systems. Based on the extensive review of literature grounded in the technology acceptance model and theory of reasoned action, a research model is proposed. The proposed model is validated by a survey of 106 ERP users. The results of this survey confirm that perceived information transparency of the ERP system has significant direct effects on perceived usefulness, ease of use, and indirect effects on attitude and adoption. Moreover, the perceived usefulness fully mediates the relationship between information transparency and the attitude toward using the ERP system. This study expands the existing body of knowledge on the adoption of ERP systems, and benefits ERP providers and vendors when formulating their business models.

[1]  Pablo Erat,et al.  Business customer communities and knowledge sharing: exploratory study of critical issues , 2006, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[2]  I. Ajzen.  The theory of planned behavior , 1991 .

[3]  Dorothy E. Leidner,et al.  Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues , 2001, MIS Q..

[4]  Carol Simon,et al.  Corporate information transparency , 2006 .

[5]  Peter E.D. Love,et al.  An exploratory study of indirect ICT costs using the structured case method , 2006, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[6]  Gaby Odekerken-Schröder,et al.  Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchial construct models: guidelines and impirical illustration , 2009 .

[7]  Wynne W. Chin,et al.  A Partial Least Squares Latent Variable Modeling Approach for Measuring Interaction Effects: Results from a Monte Carlo Simulation Study and an Electronic - Mail Emotion/Adoption Study , 2003, Inf. Syst. Res..

[8]  Gary J. Slater,et al.  Concepts, Methods, and Applications , 2011 .

[9]  Marinos Themistocleous,et al.  The impact of enterprise application integration on information system lifecycles , 2003, Inf. Manag..

[10]  Maria Madlberger,et al.  Cross-Organizational and Cross-Border IS/IT Collaboration: A Literature Review , 2008 .

[11]  C. M. Chitale,et al.  Collaborative knowledge sharing strategy to enhance organizational learning , 2012 .

[12]  Prashant Palvia,et al.  Exploring the effects of direct experience on IT use: An organizational field study , 2008, Inf. Manag..

[13]  Li-Chiu Chi,et al.  Do transparency and disclosure predict firm performance? Evidence from the Taiwan market , 2009, Expert Syst. Appl..

[14]  A. F. Salam,et al.  An extension of the technology acceptance model in an ERP implementation environment , 2004, Inf. Manag..

[15]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model , 2000, Inf. Syst. Res..

[16]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions , 2008, Decis. Sci..

[17]  Paul T. Jaeger,et al.  Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies , 2010, Gov. Inf. Q..

[18]  Majed Al-Mashari.  Enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems: a research agenda , 2002, Ind. Manag. Data Syst..

[19]  L. Preston,et al.  The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications , 1995 .

[20]  C. Fornell,et al.  Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. , 1981 .

[21]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of innovations , 1964, Encyclopedia of Sport Management.

[22]  Seokwoo Song,et al.  An Internet-Mediated Market Orientation (IMO): Building a Theory , 2002 .

[23]  Marko Sarstedt,et al.  PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet , 2011 .

[24]  Somendra Pant,et al.  Development of a framework to assess and guide IT investments: An analysis based on a discretionary-mandatory classification , 2008, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[25]  Maria Madlberger,et al.  Digital Cross-Organizational Collaboration: Towards a Preliminary Framework , 2009, AMCIS.

[26]  Kallol Kumar Bagchi,et al.  The impact of price decreases on telephone and cell phone diffusion , 2008, Inf. Manag..

[27]  George S. Day,et al.  Assessing Advantage: A Framework for Diagnosing Competitive Superiority , 1988 .

[28]  Narcyz Roztocki,et al.  Information Technology in Transition Economies , 2008 .

[29]  John A. Shuler,et al.  Implications of harmonizing the future of the federal depository library program within e-government principles and policies , 2010, Gov. Inf. Q..

[30]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[31]  Susan A. Brown,et al.  Do I really have to? User acceptance of mandated technology , 2002, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[32]  Joseph D. Piotroski,et al.  What Determines Corporate Transparency? , 2003 .

[33]  Tae Ho Eom,et al.  E-Government and Anti-Corruption: Empirical Analysis of International Data , 2008 .

[34]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[35]  Thomas Barnebeck Andersen,et al.  E-Government as an anti-corruption strategy , 2009, Inf. Econ. Policy.

[36]  Narcyz Roztocki,et al.  Contributing factors to information technology investment utilization in transition economies: An empirical investigation , 2008 .

[37]  Aimée C. Quinn.  Keeping the citizenry informed: early congressional printing and 21st century information policy , 2003, Gov. Inf. Q..

[38]  Robert O. Briggs,et al.  The Yield Shift Theory of Satisfaction and Its Application to the IS/IT Domain , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[39]  Erik Berggren,et al.  Organizational transparency drives company performance , 2007 .

[40]  Harold C. Relyea,et al.  Federal freedom of information policy: Highlights of recent developments , 2009, Gov. Inf. Q..

[41]  Soung Hie Kim,et al.  ERP training with a web-based electronic learning system: The flow theory perspective , 2007, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[42]  T. Jones,et al.  Stakeholder‐Agency Theory , 1992 .

[43]  Ibrahim M. Al-Jabri,et al.  End User Adoption of ERP Systems: Investigation of Four Beliefs , 2008, AMCIS.

[44]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .

[45]  M. Conner,et al.  The Theory of Planned Behaviour , 2004 .

[46]  Brad R. Rawlins,et al.  Measuring the relationship between organizational transparency and employee trust. , 2008 .

[47]  Darren B. Meister,et al.  Small Business Growth and Internal Transparency: The Role of Information Systems , 2004, MIS Q..

[48]  R. Mulgan.  TRUTH IN GOVERNMENT AND THE POLITICIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICE ADVICE , 2007 .

[49]  David Cuillier,et al.  Internet information-seeking and its relation to support for access to government records , 2009, Gov. Inf. Q..

[50]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Structural Equation Modeling and Regression: Guidelines for Research Practice , 2000, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[51]  Wynne W. Chin.  How to Write Up and Report PLS Analyses , 2010 .

[52]  Kevin Zhu,et al.  Information Transparency in Electronic Marketplaces: Why Data Transparency May Hinder the Adoption of B2B Exchanges , 2002, Electron. Mark..

[53]  Sue Abdinnour-Helm,et al.  Pre-implementation attitudes and organizational readiness for implementing an Enterprise Resource Planning system , 2003, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[54]  Dorothy E. Leidner,et al.  Knowledge Management Systems: Issues, Challenges, and Benefits , 1999, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[55]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies , 2000, Management Science.

[56]  Bongsug Chae,et al.  Mandates and technology acceptance: A tale of two enterprise technologies , 2005, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst..

[57]  Tom McManus,et al.  Transparency guru: an interview with Tom McManus , 2006 .

[58]  Douglas D. Heckathorn,et al.  Respondent-driven sampling : A new approach to the study of hidden populations , 1997 .

[59]  Fiona Fui-Hoon Nah,et al.  An Empirical Investigation on End-Users' Acceptance of Enterprise Systems , 2004, Inf. Resour. Manag. J..