Investigating the Influence of Cultural Orientation and Innovativeness on ERP Adoption

Abstract This study investigates the phenomena of cultural orientation, such as power distance and collectivism, and personal innovativeness in IT (as stable individual differences) as well as general computer self-efficacy (as a dynamic individual difference) in the context of the technology acceptance model (TAM) for ERP system adoption. One hundred and one survey questionnaire results of an international user group utilizing an ERP system developed by one of the largest IT solution providers in the world were analyzed using PLS. Power distance negatively affects computer self-efficacy and innovativeness positively affects computer self-efficacy, as expected. Computer self- efficacy and innovativeness affect ease of use, while collectivism affects usefulness. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings for global IT management are discussed.

[1]  V. Venkatesh,et al.  Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: U.S. Vs. China , 2010 .

[2]  Jason Bennett Thatcher,et al.  An Empirical Examination of Individual Traits as Antecedents to Computer Anxiety and Computer Self-Efficacy , 2002, MIS Q..

[3]  J. King,et al.  Hardwiring Weak Ties: Interorganizational Computer-Mediated Communication, Occupational Communities, and Organizational Change , 1995 .

[4]  Deborah Compeau,et al.  Application of Social Cognitive Theory to Training for Computer Skills , 1995, Inf. Syst. Res..

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

[6]  A. Cherns.  Principles of Socio-Technical Design , 1993 .

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

[8]  Catherine E. Connelly,et al.  Information systems research and Hofstede's culture's consequences: an uneasy and incomplete partnership , 2003, IEEE Trans. Engineering Management.

[9]  A. Colli.  Contextualizing Performances of Family Firms , 2012 .

[10]  P. Dorfman,et al.  UNDERSTANDING CULTURES AND IMPLICIT LEADERSHIP THEORIES ACROSS THE GLOBE: AN INTRODUCTION TO PROJECT GLOBE , 2002 .

[11]  Maris G. Martinsons.  ERP in China: one package, two profiles , 2004, CACM.

[12]  Kee-Young Kwahk,et al.  Moderating effects of localization differences on ERP use: A socio-technical systems perspective , 2010, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[13]  John S. Edwards,et al.  Organisational learning—a critical systems thinking discipline , 2001, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[14]  Jae-Nam Lee,et al.  The role of readiness for change in ERP implementation: Theoretical bases and empirical validation , 2008, Inf. Manag..

[15]  Dennis F. Galletta,et al.  Integrating National Culture into IS Research: The Need for Current Individual Level Measures , 2005, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[16]  Henk Akkermans,et al.  Vicious and virtuous cycles in ERP implementation: a case study of interrelations between critical success factors , 2002, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[17]  Vallabh Sambamurthy,et al.  Sources of Influence on Beliefs about Information Technolgoy Use: An Empirical Study of Knowledge Workers , 2003, MIS Q..

[18]  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..

[19]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Quo vadis TAM? , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[20]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View , 2003, MIS Q..

[21]  David Gefen,et al.  What Makes an ERP Implementation Relationship Worthwhile: Linking Trust Mechanisms and ERP Usefulness , 2004, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[22]  Eileen M. Trauth,et al.  The importance of situating culture in cross-cultural IT management , 2003, IEEE Trans. Engineering Management.

[23]  James L. McKenney,et al.  Social Context and Interaction in Ongoing Computer-Supported Management Groups , 1995 .

[24]  Mun Y. Yi,et al.  Predicting the use of web-based information systems: self-efficacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology acceptance model , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[25]  C. Adams,et al.  A study on the characteristics of group decision making behavior: cultural difference perspective of Korea vs. U.S. , 1997 .

[26]  Terry S. Overton,et al.  Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys , 1977 .

[27]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Testing the technology acceptance model across cultures: A three country study , 1997, Inf. Manag..

[28]  M. Hogg,et al.  Social Identity and Self-Categorization Processes in Organizational Contexts , 2000 .

[29]  A. Bandura.  Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory , 1985 .

[30]  Richard D. Johnson,et al.  The Evolving Nature of the Computer Self-Efficacy Construct: An Empirical Investigation of Measurement Construction, Validity, Reliability and Stability Over Time , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[31]  Albert B. Cherns,et al.  The Principles of Sociotechnical Design , 1976 .

[32]  Héctor Betancourt,et al.  The Study of Culture, Ethnicity, and Race in American Psychology , 1993 .

[33]  N. Mzoughi,et al.  Impact of Supply Chain Management and ERP on Organizational Performance and Competitive Advantage: Case of Tunisian Companies , 2008 .

[34]  Ritu Agarwal,et al.  A Conceptual and Operational Definition of Personal Innovativeness in the Domain of Information Technology , 1998, Inf. Syst. Res..

[35]  Shih-Wei Chou,et al.  The influence of individual differences on continuance intentions of enterprise resource planning (ERP) , 2009, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[36]  HwangYujong,et al.  Predicting the use of web-based information systems , 2003 .

[37]  Kristin Braa,et al.  The control devolution: ERP and the side effects of globalization , 2001, DATB.

[38]  Wynne W. Chin.  The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. , 1998 .

[39]  Robert M. Mason,et al.  Cultural Determinants of Leaning Effectiveness from Knowledge Management Systems: A Multinational Investigation , 2009 .

[40]  Robert M. Davison,et al.  Empowerment or enslavement?: A case of process-based organisational change in Hong Kong , 2002, Inf. Technol. People.

[41]  G. Hofstede,et al.  Culture′s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values , 1980 .

[42]  G. Hofstede.  What is culture? A reply to Baskerville , 2003 .

[43]  Monideepa Tarafdar,et al.  Analyzing the Adoption of Enterprise Resource Planning Systems in Indian Organizations: A Process Framework , 2003 .

[44]  Terry Anthony Byrd,et al.  Why Western vendors don't dominate China's ERP market , 2004, CACM.

[45]  WellmanBarry,et al.  Work, friendship, and media use for information exchange in a networked organization , 1998 .

[46]  Mark Srite,et al.  The Role of Espoused National Cultural Values in Technology Acceptance , 2006, MIS Q..

[47]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation , 1991, Inf. Syst. Res..

[48]  Fethi Calisir,et al.  Predicting the behavioral intention to use enterprise resource planning systems , 2009 .