CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Overview of the study

This section gives overview of the study of SAP training satisfaction in Felda Authority and Development Board (FELDA) and the impact that SAP brings towards accounting processes in FELDA, including the rationale, brief past literature, reasons for carrying out this study and significance contribution of this study.

(ERP) Enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems are software systems that enable companies to enjoy real time business environment and share common data across the organization (i.e. Gargeya and Brady, 2005, Spathis and Constantinides, 2003, Nah et al., 2001) that assure able to meet business requirement (Bradley and Lee, 2007). ERP systems are commonly used to replace legacy systems which require high maintenance (Bradley and Lee, 2007). There are many selections of ERP. However, the top five ERP system vendors are System Application and Product (SAP), Peoplesoft, Oracle, J.D. Edwards and Baan (Equey and Fragnière, 2008). Little and Best (2003) sum up majority of international organizations range from medium to large sizes have adopted ERP. Of these, the most popular choice is won by SAP R/3 (Little and Best (2003).

(SAP) System Application and Product (SAP) R/3 is an ERP system (Little and Best, 2003), originally developed and marketed in Germany. In the 1990s, SAP became better recognized outside Germany and attracted many companies due to its various benefits and functionalities (Martin and Cheung, 2000). It is comprised of a collection of modules including financial accounting, sales and distribution, materials management, production planning and human resources (i.e. Martin and Cheung, 2000, Finney and Corbett (2007). All modules are integrated with each other (i.e. Little and Best, 2003, Nah et al., 2001). The R/3 smoothen the progress of monitoring and controlling job, where it can be designed to be fit with companies roles and assigned to users performing these roles (Little and Best, 2003).

(How ERP works) As found by Gupta (2000), traditional systems take care of each business transaction separately. Amazingly, ERP discontinues treating these transactions individually. More astonishingly, data generated by various departments are stored in the same database for the use of multiple users, from multiple units, for multiple purposes at multiple places (Gupta, 2000). A transaction generated by one unit can automatically updates any other units’ transaction. The interconnections ensure that common information in a unit can be obtained by any other unit. This also brings means that ERP allows real time data processing (Vathanopas, 2007, Gupta, 2000, Nah et al., 2001). However, these functionalities require involvement and support of all level of employees from top management downward to shop-level employees (Amoako-Gyampah, 2004).

(Benefit SAP-6) R/3 helps in separating duties in an organization (Little and Best, 2003). Other than R/3 usefulness, one of ERP’s major strengths includes the restructuring companies to a better position (Nah et al., 2001, Willis and Willis-Brown; 2002; Kim et al.; 2005; Hong Seng Woo, 2007). While ERP may empower management and serve employees, customers and suppliers needs (Willis and Willis-Brown, 2002), this may lead to greater companies value (Spathis and Constantinides, 2003). The study of Spathis and Constantinides (2003) prove ERP offer huge significant benefits on accounting information and management processes. In addition to that, the sample company in Amoako-Gyampah (2004) study of which a healthcare products organization with over 20,000 employees worldwide chose SAP R/3 as they claim SAP‘s tight integration philosophy met their business need for integration. Furthermore, ERP offer seamless data integration or cross-functional within the companies (Amoako-Gyampah, 2004). This corroborates the purpose of ERP where it is designed to provide one common source of data. Lastly, ERP adopters may enjoy the productions of real-time data which is shared across the organization (Amoako-Gyampah, 2004, Mustacello and Chen, 2008; Finney and Corbett, 2007).

(Cost SAP -6) Perhaps, one of its shortcomings is the pain during implementation (Gargeya and Brady, 2005). For the adopters, the organization’s long term implementation process may cause fatigue and dissatisfaction. Worse, this also may cause imperfect system design and testing (Trimi et al., 2005). Moreover, the greatest disadvantage of an ERP system (Trimi et al, 2005) is stiff and expensive to implement (Bradley and Lee, 2007, Gargeya and Brady, 2005, Spathis and Constantinides, 2003). Implementation costs include software, hardware, consultant fees, cost for staff to operate the system and the very large cost component of user training (Trimi et al. 2005). This leads to over budget, in average of 189 percent for many companies, especially failed projects (Gargeya and Brady, 2005). The complexity of the system is another major complaint (Willis and Willis-Brown, 2002, Bradley and Lee, 2007). Consequently, companies will face high resistant to change from employees (Spathis and Constantinides, 2003) as employees do not insist to learn new ERP system due to its non-user friendly features compared to old system (Bradley and Lee, 2007, Pijpers and Montfort, 2006).

(CSF) With all the costs and disadvantages of ERP, increasingly we hear of the fall short of ERP implementations (Willis and Willis-Brown, 2002, Nah et al., 2001, Finney and Corbett, 2007; Gargeya and Brady, 2005). Resultantly, there has been long-drawn-out investigate concerning on critical success factors (CSF) of ERP implementations (Finney and Corbett, 2007; Gargeya and Brady, 2005, Kim et al., 2005, Hong Seng Woo, 2007; Mustacello and Chen, 2008). Accordingly, as suggest in prior literature, in order to ensure success of SAP implementation, CSF needs to be identified (Nah et al., 2001; Finney and Corbett, 2007; Kim et al., 2005, Hong Seng Woo, 2007); Gargeya and Brady, 2005; Mustacello and Chen, 2008).

These factors may act as impediment and in worse case may be the focal grounds of a failure of implementation project (i.e. Nah, Lau and Kuang, 2001; Willis and Willis-Brown, 2002). Finney and Corbett (2007) who compile and analyze current literature of CSFs of ERP implementation, found five mostly cited categories. It includes top management commitment and support, business process reengineering (BPR) and change management, system development and testing, training and education and the best and brightest project team. This study will add up this list focusing on good project management (Nah et al. 2001, Kim et al.; 2005, Gargeya and Brady, 2005, Hong Seng Woo; 2007, Mustacello and Chen, 2008), proper planning (Finney and Corbett, 2007; Gargeya and Brady, 2005, Nah et al. 2001), effective communication (Finney and Corbett, 2007; Hong Seng Woo, 2007; Mustacello and Chen, 2008, Nah et al. 2001), feedback from employees (Nah et al., 2001; Finney and Corbett, 2007) and monitoring and evaluating performance (Nah et al., 2001; Finney and Corbett, 2007).

(Importance of training) To outweigh the implementation costs, sufficient training should be given to employees. The training effort is ample and is a challenge to deliver effectively in a timely manner (Martin and Cheung, 2000). Trainings help companies by offering a smoother transition for the employees to accept the new system. Vathanophas (2007) argued there can be a hierarchical level of ERP training. The ERP consultants first train the IT staff that in turn train the individual departmental representatives or key users. These key users then teach their own departmental users or end users. It can be said that ERP implementations can be more successful if training is structured and focused. Training should give rise to satisfaction feel among users to boost their confidence level.

(TAM) Theoretically, the technology acceptance model by Davis, suggests successful implementation requires user acceptance (Bradley and Lee, 2007). Since ERP is such a complex technology (Gargeya and Brady, 2005), organizations undertake training as an approach to gain the advantage of technology acceptance. Thus, this study seeks to explore the relationship of training to ERP project success (i.e. accounting processes). The variables used are:

  • User perception of ease of use
  • User perception of usefulness

(Job position and business division) Job position and business division may theoretically see to influence SAP training satisfaction (Okpara, 2004). Differences are widely known to augment in the perceptions and attitudes of different hierarchical organizational members toward innovations and technology (Amoako-Gyampah, 2004). Managers perceived that technology would be easier to use compared to end users (Amoako-Gyampah, 2004). Concerning the need for more training and education, Bradley and Lee (2007) found that all level of employees show the need for more training. While difference job position gives different perception on ERP training, Ifinedo (2007) reported a positive relationship between organizational structures that facilitate ERP adoption. As a consequence, ERP will be less successful in companies where tasks are less specialized and organizational tasks are not properly segregated.

(Accounting processes) ERP provide huge benefits to accounting processes in company (Spathis and Constantinides, 2004). ERP systems provide companies the ability to improve business processes by integrating both financial and non-financial data among all functional areas within an organization. The study of Spathis and Constantinides (2004) highly rated “increased flexibility in information generation?, “increased integration of accounts application? and “improved quality of reports-financial statements? as perceived accounting benefits may be achieved in using ERP system.

Problem statement

(Present situation)

To remain competitive, FELDA have undertaken business process re-engineering of using SAP to replace the old legacy system. Throughout the Felda Group of Companies (FGOC), the implementation is executed by phase, since 2002. Currently, 20 companies are formally using SAP and have formal SAP system in place.

(Wrong with present situation)

Numerous complaints received by the Customer Support Centre in term of the complexity of the system. Many problems logged at Customer Support Centre, requiring guidance on the use of the system. Worst, the problems logged are rising especially during account closing or stock count. Although training prior to implementations had been conducted, many refresh training after the implementations are requested by different companies independently. Many employees of finance unit claim SAP make daily job become difficult due to complexity of SAP. For instance, they feel reporting purpose using SAP takes time to perform. Yet, some of them feel SAP really helps especially during account closing. Countless criticisms on these harms, blaming on the several major issues faced during implementation of SAP were not fully solved.

(Needs to be done)

Consequently, this study seeks whether users of different groups of employees (i.e. job position and business division) are satisfied on the adequacy of SAP training given by Felda Prodata Systems Sdn. Bhd. (FPSSB) and external consultants. Moreover, the impact of SAP on accounting processes will be explored.

Research objectives

The main objectives of this study is to examine whether users (i.e. staff of finance department in FELDA) are satisfied on the adequacy of training given prior and post the implementation.

The breakdown objectives of this study are:

  • To determine the critical success factors of SAP implementation in FELDA. 1H- H01
  • To gain insight on perception of groups of employees (i.e. job position and business division) of finance department in FELDA on training adequacy. 2H- H02, H03
  • To analyze the relation between training and education satisfaction, and perceptions of ease of use and perception of usefulness (i.e. effectiveness and efficiency) on SAP system in the finance department in FELDA. 1H- H04
  • To explore the impact of SAP implementation on the accounting processes at FELDA. 1H- H05
  • 4 Research questions
  • What are the critical success factors in implementing SAP in FELDA?

· Do different groups of employees (i.e. job position and business division) of finance departments in FELDA perceive training adequacy differently?

· Do training and education satisfaction have impact on perceptions of ease of use and perception of usefulness (i.e. effectiveness and efficiency) on SAP system in the finance department in FELDA?

· How does the implementation of SAP affect the accounting processes at FELDA?

Definition of terms

Satisfaction of user on the SAP training will act as the independent variable. The dependant variables are the perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEU) of SAP. Davis (1989) cited in Bradley and Lee (2007) explains the perceived usefulness is attributed by efficiency (perform job faster) and effectiveness (achieve desired results in performing the job).

There are other variables use in this study to look for differences in perception of training satisfaction, including job position and business division.

Overview of research methodology

SAP’s website lists many of the world’s largest companies as its clients (Trimi et al. 2005). To remain competitive (Spathis and Constantinides, 2003), FELDA have undertaken the Felda Group of Companies (FGOC), the implementation is executed by phase, since 2002. Currently, 22 subsidiaries are formally using SAP and have formal SAP system in place. FELDA face many problems in installing SAP such as resistance to change among employees and useless training which did not achieve the purpose it brings (Bradley and Lee, 2007).

The data collected is from Felda Group of Companies (FGOC) who formally used SAP in place. Multiple regression analysis was used to determine the effect of training satisfaction on use and usefulness. ANOVA was used on survey data to look for difference in perception of training satisfaction by job position and business divisions.

Significance of this study

This study is interesting to examine as to fill in the gap in the literature by providing empirical evidence on the adequacy of SAP training conducted at FELDA and the impact on accounting benefits that SAP brought in. FELDA organization may use it in improving their business operation activities. It is a hope that this study can also be used by other companies in dealing with ERP implementation.

Summary

As FELDA is using SAP system formally, this study focuses on SAP training satisfaction in FELDA in relation to the perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use among finance department staff in FELDA. The CSFs of SAP implementation and its impact on FELDAs’ accounting processes are also explored. Regardless of the seamless integration offered in a real-time environment, ERP also badly comes with numerous disadvantages including cost overruns, fatigue implementation and less user-friendly characteristics. By proposing a model on the basis of the Technology Acceptance Model by Davis, this study hopes to support any existing literature on the adequacy or appropriateness of SAP training and the impact on accounting benefits.

Organization of dissertation

This study is organized as follows. Chapter 1 briefly highlights the literature review, research methodology, rationale and reasons for carrying out this study. Chapter 2 debates literature reviews on previous studies related to SAP. This is followed by Chapter 3 on the research methodology adopted in this study. Chapter 4 describes and discusses the findings of the study. The final chapter concludes with major findings, limitations of the study and recommendations on future research.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter reviews the literature concerning ERP and SAP definition as well as past studies conducted on benefits and costs of ERP and SAP, and the need of training on ERP. Related literature describes user’s satisfaction on ERP training and the impact of job position and business division on perceive ness of SAP training adequacy. The chapter then highlights some theories relevant to the ERP impact on accounting processes.

Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)

Enterprise resource planning (ERP) come into view as a system for a whole business that offer to share data throughout the entire organization, generate and access information in a real time world (Vathanopas, 2007, Gupta, 2000, Trimi et al., 2005, Finney and Corbett, 2007; Gargeya and Brady, 2005, Kim et al., 2005, Hong Seng Woo, 2007; Mustacello and Chen, 2008, Nah et al., 2001) five years ago (Willis and Willis-Brown, 2002). It is one of the most popular software system emerged in this world (Hong Seng Woo, 2007). Realizing its huge benefits, ERP systems have been widely implemented by numerous firms throughout the world (i.e. Willis and Willis-Brown, 2002, Gupta, 2000). According to Equey and Fragnière (2008), as at 2001, there are more than 100 ERP suppliers. Of these, only five are the current market leader, of which System Application and Product (SAP), Peoplesoft, Oracle, J.D. Edwards and Baan. Little and Best (2003) sum up majority of international organizations range from medium to large sizes have adopted ERP. And again, of these, the most popular choice is won by SAP R/3 (Little and Best (2003).

System Application and Product (SAP)

The call for for ERP systems has permit SAP R/3 to dominate the ERP system market (Little and Best, 2003). SAP was opted in reorganization project of large companies in 16 countries in Europe (Martin and Cheung, 2000). Soliman and Youssef (1998) highlight, according to a Fortune magazine survey, there are over 7,000 companies in 50 different countries using the SAP R/3 system. While SAP R/3 is currently the most leading ERP system (Little and Best, 2003), industry watchers and consultants rated SAP as the best system that able to fit with company’s requirement (Amoako-Gyampah, 2004).

SAP R/3 is an ERP (Little and Best, 2003). It is an integrated software system, originally developed and marketed in Germany (Martin and Cheung, 2000). It a product of the German software company, SAP AG. (Amoako-Gyampah, 2004). In the 1990s, SAP became better known outside Germany (Martin and Cheung, 2000). Its centre of attraction is its high level integration and vast functionality (i.e. Amoako-Gyampah, 2004, Gupta, 2000). It is comprised of a collection of modules including financial accounting, materials management, sales and distribution, production planning and human resources (i.e. Martin and Cheung, 2000, Finney and Corbett, 2007). All modules are integrated with each other (i.e. Nah et al., 2001). The R/3 means that facilitates the monitoring and controlling job, where it can be designed to be fit with companies roles and assigned to users performing these roles (Little and Best, 2003).

How ERP works

Old system or ERP perform the same function of storing data and information, process and present them whenever requested by user. However, for traditional system, there is no link between the systems being used by different departments or units. According to Gupta (2000), traditional systems take care of each business transaction separately. An ERP does the same thing in a different modern manner. Surprisingly, ERP discontinues treating these transactions individually. Data generated by various departments are stored in the same database for the use of multiple users, from multiple departments, for multiple purposes at multiple places (Gupta, 2000). The software is capable to integrate data from several different functions of an organization such as finance, human resources, logistics, marketing and manufacturing (Amoako-Gyampah, 2004). In simpler words, user from finance unit can view common data keyed in by human resources unit.

ERP allows real time data processing (Vathanopas, 2007, Gupta, 2000, Nah et al., 2001). The emergence of ERP in early 1990 led to linkage between departments such as accounting and sales management (Gupta, 2000). For instance, a purchase order entered by procurement unit sends a materials request to store unit. At the same time, the purchase order transaction appears as an expense on general ledger. Supplier also can monitor latest stock level and whenever the materials run low, they can add the stock without having to be notified by client. The interconnections ensure that common information in a unit can be obtained by any other unit. This makes it simpler to see how the entire business as a whole is operating.

ERP systems by their very nature offer cross-functional transact and information system (IS) is widely used in an organization. The wave of changes covers inside out the company where it modifies the way employees does their jobs and how the company operates (Hong Seng Woo, 2007). Hence, the implementation inevitably enquires the involvement of all level of employees from top management downward to shop-level employees (Amoako-Gyampah, 2004).

Benefits of ERP vs. cost

ERP adopters seem to experience one or two opposite outcomes. For some, ERP aids in restructuring companies to a better position (Nah et al., 2001, Willis and Willis-Brown; 2002; Kim et al.; 2005; Hong Seng Woo, 2007). For instance, ERP may empower management and serve employees, customers and suppliers needs (Willis and Willis-Brown, 2002). This may bring greater companies value (Spathis and Constantinides, 2003). As found by Willis and Willis-Brown (2002), ERP facilitates companies in term of information pertaining to customers. Customer’s data is collected such as pattern of orders, product preferences and any complaint or satisfaction received. Conversely, suppliers are responsible in monitoring their own inventory level supplied to their client. When the materials run low, they can add the stock without having to be notified by client. In contrast, employees may have facilities to take the ERP with them. This service is referred as mobile ERP, where it is one of the greatest opportunities today. One example is that ERP allows the setup of pricing and promotion programs automatically attached with invoicing and billing. In addition to that, the satellite-based global positioning system (GPS) technology offers another excellent opportunity. Companies can use the ERP system in better tracking the status of materials such as the movement of tagged inventory from receiving, work-in-process, inspection, packaging and distribution.

R/3 helps in separating duties in an organization (Little and Best, 2003). The R/3 facilitates the monitoring and controlling job, where it can be designed consistent with companies’ roles and assigned to users performing these roles. The SAP system itself restricts users’ access to certain functions within the system, which means that users have to be authorized to perform a certain action. These authorizations are associated with roles. And the roles are assigned to users. These authorizations are necessary for users or staffs to perform their duties. If a staff’s authorization profile contains no authorizations then the staff cannot have access to respective action on the system.

ERP advantages have been well explained in the study of Spathis and Constantinides (2003). The study explores ERP system benefits on accounting information and management processes for companies adopting ERP system in Greece. The most highly rated perceived benefits achieved involve increase flexibility in information generation, improved quality of reports-financial statements, increased integration of applications and easy maintenance of databases. This clearly suggests that ERP has significant impact on accounting procedures.

The evidences of Spathis and Constantinides (2003) study also support the argument that ERP is successful in fulfilling the adopters’ business purposes and requirements. The integration of applications, the production of real-time information for decision making, improves both accounting information and business operations. The sample company in Amoako-Gyampah (2004) study of which a healthcare products organization with over 20,000 employees worldwide chose SAP R/3 as they claim SAP‘s tight integration philosophy met their business need for integration.

ERP transaction systems meant to offer companies with seamless data integration and it appears that this benefit is likely to be understood by employees regardless of their position within the companies (Amoako-Gyampah, 2004). The integration involved the automatically update of different modules at different locations within the organization at different time periods. For example, say ordering goods was being completed at one location, pricing was being started at another department and financials would have nearly been completed at another location. ERP are designed to eliminate multiple sources of data, eliminate multiple data entries and provide more accurate and timely data. This corroborates the purpose of ERP where it is designed to provide one common source of data.

Companies adopting ERP enjoy integration business applications using real-time information. The productions of real-time data are shared across the organization. This is important in business environment where effectiveness and efficiency in operations and real-time data are among crucial factors for business success (Spathis and Constantinides, 2003). Consequently, generation of timely information improves decision making process, planning and monitoring of ERP adopters.

Despite ERP’s promises, the greatest disadvantage of an ERP system (Trimi et al, 2005) is stiff and expensive to implement (Bradley and Lee, 2007, Gargeya and Brady, 2005, Spathis and Constantinides, 2003). In fact, Trimi et al. (2005) conclude ERP is expensive by their nature. Generally, software development represents about 80 percent of total implementation cost. Implementation costs include software, hardware, external consultant fees and internal staff for installation, and not to forget a very large cost spent on training of staff to operate the system. Studies have shown that, for every dollar spent on ERP software, 3 to 10 dollars might be required for the users training (Amoako-Gyampah, 2004).

For the adopters, the organization’s long term implementation process may caused fatigue and dissatisfaction. Worse, the level of dissatisfaction appears to be arising (Willis and Willis-Brown, 2002). The main problem faced by ERP implementers is the decision to customize or not in suiting the system with the organization (Gupta, 2000). Company adopters will demand ERP to meet their needs. They spend excessive time trying to retrofit the business process to ERP. Thus, the companies which customize will end writing more code of which requiring more time and cost. It can be said that the changeover may take a longer time causing cost overruns (Spathis and Constantinides, 2003). Since most external consultants are charged on man-hour basis, project time overruns substantially inflate costs.

Many companies, especially failed projects, found themselves over budget, in average of 189 percent (Gargeya and Brady, 2005). Inflating implementation costs that exceed budget has caused many companies to trim project efforts. Companies will then attempt relying heavily on limited-knowledge internal expertise. Generally, the decision was forced by over price set by external knowledgeable consultants. The result was improper setup and configuration (Willis and Willis-Brown, 2002).

Theoretically, Trimi et al. (2005) see many projects failures as a result of imperfect design and implementation of the system. The lack of knowledgeable and skilled staff resulted in the failure to implement some very useful features or in a worse case, critical operations (Willis and Willis-Brown, 2002). For instance, the critical failure would be associated with the companies’ ability to rapidly respond to situation with real-time information. Given any new arises or major SAP upgrade (Gargeya and Brady, 2005), changes are required to respond throughout the system (Trimi et al., 2005, Gupta, 2000) probably denying many of unique customizing or specific business process related to the respective companies. Different companies are unique which they have different cultures, their own way of doing things, operates with different procedures and business requirements. They do not wish to be assimilated into one corporate culture. Companies carry their unique business process which requires unique ERP customizing. Gargeya and Brady (2005) found Sobey’s, an $89 million Canadian grocery chain, abandoned the implementation process as it feel SAP could not handle its requirements. In a nutshell, planning an ERP project cannot be taken lightly (Gargeya and Brady, 2005).

Another major complaint (Willis and Willis-Brown, 2002) is the lack of user-friendly systems (Bradley and Lee, 2007). Few staffs may use the system as their perceptions of ease of use of the systems are set at a lower level. Personnel claim it is difficult to capture data at the inception of a particular transaction (Willis and Willis-Brown, 2002).

The main hurdle (Gupta, 2000) faced was high resistant to change (Spathis and Constantinides, 2003). Staffs do not insist to learn new technologies due to attachment to old system (Bradley and Lee, 2007, Pijpers and Montfort, 2006). Not surprisingly, many companies suffer guilt of making simplistic assumptions as they realized culture changes do not occur magically. These changes characterized by human psyche. If staffs are not ready or willing to change, change simply will not occur. Unisource, a $7 billion companies, terminate its SAP implementation plan due to internal problems of unable in dealing with cultural change (Gargeya and Brady, 2005).

Critical success factor in implementation of ERP

The difficulties and failure in implementing ERP have been widely cited in the literature (i.e. Nah, Lau and Kuang, 2001; Willis and Willis-Brown, 2002). For instance, Allied Waste Industries, Inc. decided to pull $130 million budgeted on SAP development and Waste Management, Inc., terminated SAP installation after spent about $45 million from expected $250 million on the project (Kim et al., 2005). Thus, it is important to identify predictors for the success of ERP implementation (Nah et al., 2001; Finney and Corbett, 2007; Kim et al., 2005, Hong Seng Woo, 2007); Gargeya and Brady, 2005; Mustacello and Chen, 2008).

Critical success factor (CSF) can be defined as any element or situation that can be characterized as necessary in order to succeed in any ERP implementation (Finney and Corbett, 2007). Below are the list of CSFs which are widely debated in the literature (Nah, et al., 2001; Finney and Corbett, 2007; Kim et al., 2005, Hong Seng Woo, 2007); Gargeya and Brady, 2005; Mustacello and Chen, 2008).

(Training and education) As ERP is not easy to use, training users in using ERP is important even for highly educated personnel or highly information technology (IT) skills personnel (Hong Seng Woo, 2007, Nah et al.; 2001, Mustacello and Chen; 2008, Gargeya and Brady ;2005, Finney and Corbett, 2007 and Gupta; 2000). Hong Seng Woo (2007), Nah et al. (2001) and Mustacello and Chen (2008) stress that sufficient training can help enlighten the opportunity for ERP system success. Heavy investment in training, support and education should be emphasized such as hands-on job (Finney and Corbett, 2007), on-site support staff and support centre (i.e. helpdesk, online user manual) (Nah et al., 2001).

It is common that training effort is downplayed or ignored, because it does not provide huge quantifiable benefits, more cost to pay (Gargeya and Brady, 2005) and being considered as an expense which can be reduce or eliminate easily (Hong Seng Woo, 2007). Worse, some companies assign quite a small amount of percentage to training effort regardless of how badly employees need it (Gargeya and Brady; 2005, Hong Seng Woo; 2007). This mistake certainly be the root cause (Gargeya and Brady; 2005) of many failed implementation attempts (Finney and Corbett, 2007, Hong Seng Woo, 2007, Nah et al., 2001).

Taking the lesson from ElectricCo in China (Hong Seng Woo, 2007), the company seeks training partnership with a China’s top university because this approach was cheaper than hiring external consultants. Furthermore, the courses used materials designed for Chinese audience. Although many Chinese businesses commonly rate training at lower level, the company rejected this norm by ensuring their employees received five hours training weekly. Distance-learning material for all level of employees is also being provided by the partnership. A formal training cascading program is constructed where higher personnel who have received training are required to train a staff beneath them.

(Top management commitment and support) Top management support, commitment and involvement is required in an ERP execution (Finney and Corbett, 2007; Gargeya and Brady, 2005, Kim et al., 2005, Hong Seng Woo, 2007; Mustacello and Chen, 2008) from beginning until end (Nah et al., 2001). Additionally, top management commitment was one of the most widely cited CSFs (Finney and Corbett, 2007, Mustacello and Chen, 2008). From a test of means, Mustacello and Chen (2008) prove that all levels of employees consider management commitment as important in ERP implementation in US.

Management has the authority and responsibility to hold up the project (Gargeya and Brady, 2005) and heavily involve in strategic planning (Finney and Corbett, 2007). Nah et al. (2001) and Hong Seng Woo (2007) recommend managers should set new goals and policies in the company that they expect from the project team. They must be able to lead and motivate the project team, listen to apprehensions, assist employees in change process and in occurrence of conflict, manager acts as a negotiator between parties, (Nah et al., 2001, and Hong Seng Woo, 2007). The implementation progress must be monitored at all times in tying it with the legitimized goals and objectives (Kim et al., 2005, Nah et al. 2001). Management should openly identify the project as a top precedence (Nah et al. 2001) in assuring effective communication and positive attitude of all employees towards the project (Gargeya and Brady, 2005), and they must be loyal and responsible with their own involvement (Nah et al. 2001, Gargeya and Brady, 2005). They must appear more visible in the company and lead a more active role in the project such as emerge in the company’s circulars, spending more time with employees or suppliers and carry out regular meetings with employees beneath them (Hong Seng Woo, 2007). This can be achieved by awarding bonuses to project success (Nah et al. 2001, Gargeya and Brady, 2005).

Another vital concern is top management must fully understand and support the changes ERP brought into the company. ERP implementation is not simply an IT project (Hong Seng Woo, 2007) or installation of a computer system (Mustacello and Chen, 2008). Unlike any other software system, ERP is more than technological changes (Hong Seng Woo, 2007). The wave of change covers inside out the company where it changes the way employees does their jobs and how the company operates. Top management should not push the ERP implementation mainly to their IT department but they are the one who must fully accountable of it (Mustacello and Chen, 2008).

(Good project management) Fine project management is crucial (Nah et al. 2001, Kim et al.; 2005, Gargeya and Brady, 2005, Hong Seng Woo; 2007.) The study of Mustacello and Chen (2008) shows a strong project management skill in project definition, scope, monitoring and status. Prior literature propose successful ERP implementation requires brilliant project management of clear aims and scope, careful progress observing, realistic timelines (Nah et al. 2001, Kim et al., 2005) and development of good resource plan (Hong Seng Woo, 2007). This includes amount of the systems installed, extent of business process reengineering required and engagement of business units. Any changes should be comprehensively checked in preventing any deviations from the scope. The critical concerns of the project should be identified. Deadline helps to tie within the timelines and budget to maintain cost borne to date. Lastly, the resources should not comprise of IT staffs only (Hong Seng Woo, 2007) as ERP implementation is not merely a technological change.

(Proper planning) Planning should not be taken nonchalantly in ERP implementation (Finney and Corbett, 2007; Gargeya and Brady, 2005, Nah et al. 2001). Planning refers to recognizing clear goals and objectives and ensuring a strong link between those goals and strategy (Finney and Corbett, 2007). While goals must be sensible, strategies should slot in certain degree of risk. An existence of a clear business plan modeling on how the business should operate behind the implementation development will help keep focus on goals set earlier. As said by Nah et al. (2001), a proper business plan delineates project definition, strategic benefits, resources and costs to be borne, risks and timeline.

In spite of of developing a firm business plan, some implementations project may not seem shine. Waste Management, Inc encountered lost control on unexpected cost and subsequently call off their ERP project. This failed cases mainly attributed by over budget, some by as much as 189 percent (Gargeya and Brady, 2005).

(Effective communication) Needless to say, management found ERP implementation projects as the most difficult systems development projects (Kumar et al., 2003 cited in Mustacello and Chen, 2008 pp. 67). Hence, communication among all level of employees impinges on the new change of ERP system is a necessity (Finney and Corbett, 2007; Hong Seng Woo, 2007; Mustacello and Chen, 2008, Nah et al. 2001). Effective communication should take place within the entire organization including suppliers and customers (Finney and Corbett, 2007, Hong Seng Woo, 2007).

Communication creates widespread understanding and acceptance of ERP as well as reducing perplexity (Hong Seng Woo, 2007). Naturally, people are defied to change especially the elderly employees. It is very intricate to implement ERP without cooperation and support from employees (Mustacello and Chen, 2008). Thus, it is crucial to inform employees on the assistances that ERP can grant them (Mustacello and Chen, 2008).

As can be found in Hong Seng Woo (2007) study, the top management conducted ongoing cycle of briefings with their employees, suppliers and customers as to ensure those parties are acquainted with what was going on with the company’s ERP implementation activities. They also initiated regular contact with key managers who in turn cascading it down to the employees beneath them. Other than that, updates of ERP implementation progress can be viewed anytime at the company’s intranet.

(Best and balance project team) Having right composition of ERP implementation team is very vital (Finney and Corbett, 2007; Gargeya and Brady, 2005, Nah et al. 2001, Hong Seng Woo, 2007). Yet, it may be hard to have (Hong Seng Woo, 2007).

Team member should possess a balance of both business and IT skills (Finney and Corbett, 2007, Hong Seng Woo, 2007). Hong Seng Woo (2007) suggests other than having technologically knowledgeable they should understand the company and its business. The team should consist of the organization’s best and brilliant individuals (Finney and Corbett, 2007; Nah et al. 2001) and be a cross-functional (Hong Seng Woo, 2007) to reflect the cross-functional nature of ERP system (Amoako-Gyampah, 2004; (Spathis and Constantinides, 2003).

The project manager should cherish a high level of team member’s morale and enthusiasm during the project. Team leader may create a positive working environment and recognizing team member’s effort (Finney and Corbett, 2007). The ERP project should be their top and only priority assign to their work job. All of them should be assigning to a location on a full time basis commitment (Finney and Corbett, 2007) to ease working together (Nah et al., 2001) and smoothen the project. In monetary amount, the team should be given reward and incentives in accomplishing the project goals (Nah et al., 2001).

The team should have a right mix of external consultants and internal staffs (Nah et al., 2001). Consultants need internal staffs to explain on business process and culture while staff can develop and learn the necessary IT skills for design and implementation. Internal staff should dig as much knowledge as possible because after go-live activities they are the one who will support the ERP users if any ERP problems arise.

An experience in ElectricCo can be taken as lesson on failed ERP project due to poor project team (Hong Seng Woo, 2007). The top management decided that IT department should run the project with all team members consists of mainly IT staffs and specialists. Although the team has vast knowledge on computer languages, system, network and internet, they are not familiar with the business operation. In addition to that, the specialist consultants had little practice working with Chinese companies and had little understanding of Chinese management, culture and practices. Worse, the communication among them is distracted as many of the consultants do not have the ability to speak Chinese languages.

(System development and testing) Conducting business process reengineering (BPR) and system development and testing is critical (Nah et al., 2001, Gargeya and Brady, 2005; Mustacello and Chen, 2008; Kim et al.; 2005) and was the third most commonly cited CSF (Finney and Corbett, 2007). BPR refers to how the business will operate after the system is totally can be used (Finney and Corbett, 2007) in go-live phase. BPR brings immense changes in the company, thus the project should seriously consider the inclusion of system testing, troubleshooting and simulation exercises before the system go-live (Finney and Corbett, 2007; Nah et al., 2001).

But before the testing can be conducted, the overall business procedure, business requirement and ERP architecture should be established (Nah et al., 2001). There should be a plan for cleansing and migrate data into the new ERP system. Many success of the implementation process lie on the conversion team to ensure data accuracy and matched during the migration process from legacy system to the new ERP system (Finney and Corbett, 2007). Another important matter is the business procedure (i.e. in term of flow chart for easy referring), requirements and system configuration must be documented as a basis of reference in the future.

Vigorous system testing (Nah et al., 2001) is needed in ensuring the system will operates efficiently and smoothen all system transact. While The Gilette Company endured five months of rigorous testing procedures before their successful go-live date (CIO, 2000 cited in Gargeya and Brady, 2005), Eastman Kodak completed the implementation in time and attributed testing as a primary factor for their success (PR Newswire, 2001 cited in Gargeya and Brady, 2005). The fear in an ERP implementation project is after months or years of ongoing development, the team member are exhausted and just focusing on completing it in a rushing dispirited manner. The result is testing is reduced or ignored. Needless to say, the penalty of not having enough system testing can be tragic and may lead to malfunction of the ERP system (Mustacello and Chen, 2008).

(Business requirement and change management) It is common that all ERP adopters require ERP to follow and fit their business operations and procedures. Companies will feel ERP as a cross-functional system should meet their requirement of which ease, smoothen and add value to their daily transaction. Moreover, huge amount of money has been spent from the selection of ERP vendors, pay external consultants, and motivate employees in accepting and learning new ERP system to maintaining the system after go-live phase.

Unfortunately, ERP cannot meet 100 percent of the company’s needs. As conclude by Willis and Willis-Brown (2002) pp. 38, ERP is not an “end all? and “be all?. If ERP did not meet the company’s requirement, they should not spend excessive time and money, trying hard to fit the business to ERP. Another way round solution is the companies should be willing to change the business operations to fit with the ERP (Nah et al., 2001, Willis and Willis-Brown; 2002; Kim et al.; 2005; Hong Seng Woo, 2007). In ERP implementation project, it is unavoidable that business process is shaped to fit the new ERP system (Nah et al., 2001). This is also called BPR, where companies restructure business process by improving critical operations, eliminating inefficient and non-value added processes (Mustacello and Chen, 2008; Finney and Corbett, 2007). The major concern from companies point of view is aligning the business process to the software implementation is critical (Nah et al., 2001; Finney and Corbett, 2007), that any defective or disparity may lead to malfunction of ERP. Willis and Willis-Brown (2002) suggest ERP must be extended beyond the traditional boundaries to grab the true value of what exactly the system can provide. While significant result has been found between the BPR and the likelihood of ERP success (Mustacello and Chen, 2008), companies who are able to adapt to the new ERP system (i.e. involving BPR), may make performance gains (Kim et al.; 2005).

(Get feedback and carry out monitoring and evaluating performance) Any project is considered incomplete without allowance for feedback and post evaluation (Nah et al., 2001; Finney and Corbett, 2007). Again, top management support is needed during this activity. The assessment should have a cross check with goals set up earlier. Performance measures are very much needed to aid the evaluating process (Finney and Corbett, 2007).

The need of ERP training

Basically, all the integration and diverse ERP functionality does not matter if users cannot figure out how to use the system and extract the information in a meaningful format (Willis and Willis-Brown, 2002, Atul Gupta, 2000, Pijpers and Montfort (2006). The system is installed and ready to use, but no one in the organization knows how to use it as the staffs experienced scarcity in training (Bradley and Lee, 2007).

Training plays a major role in ERP implementation and go-live stage, especially if a company encountered great BPR (Bradley and Lee, 2007). Responses to open ended questions at the end of the survey of Bradley and Lee (2007) supported the significant of training. The question asked opinion on how to smoothen the implementation process. Among the answers are:

  • Training and updating employees to the status of (implementation) process
  • More training in all departments
  • More training, more info to end users earlier in the process
  • More training and more testing before putting this system on line
  • Training would be nice
  • Don’t implement a system unless you fell (sic) you will be able to ease the workload of those who are actual end users
  • Training… Instruction Manual… Something to help me learn this would be nice
  • More testing, training and time before implementation

(Bradley and Lee, 2007 pp. 44).

These truthful comments confirm the crucial need of training among employees whom involved in the ERP implementation process.

Mustacello and Chen (2008) argue that to overcome training deficiencies, many means can be done. For instance, replacement of staff, hiring new staff who posses’ high skill and knowledge in ERP or train key users which in turn will train staffs beneath them. In their study, questionnaires mailed to business executives who experienced the implementation of ERP systems. They found training is highly demanded. External consulting expertise is needed for formal training on both ERP basic knowledge and specific job duties. Respondents also supported on-going education programs to refresh user’s skills which have not always been the case for some firms.

Ferrando (2001) found that when organizations adapt to new technology, they must prepare staffs with adequate training. Rather than provide training on the full range of ERP functionalities, the classes focused only on modules the staffs would use. Employees reported that the training classes helped them feel more comfortable in using the system and reduce mistakes. Educational programs should capable to provide skills and confidence for creative change within the computer environment (Ray, Sormunen and Harris, 1999).

Inadequate training has slammed many ERP systems to failure (Crowley; 1998, Spathis and Constantinides; 2003). Thus, Gupta (2000) suggests custom training to avoid this mistake. In-house training labs consultants can be hired to conduct the training, as well as the use of intranet-based or CD-ROM training applications. The goal of ERP training should not limited only to key-in or processing data, but also to help them understand the business processes behind ERP applications (Crowley, 1998).

The study Duplaga and Astani (2003) conducted interviews at 30 manufacturing firms. They found the most rated implementation problem is “lack of ERP training and education for affected employees?.

Interviews with personnel in Amoako-Gyampah (2004) study, reported a common comment “with SAP, every employee becomes a new employee? (Amoako-Gyampah, 2004 pp.177) bring means that replacing legacy systems with SAP means that employees have to relearn new skills where their reluctance to do so might create tendency to perceive the system as being difficult to use. Thus, training takes place to familiarize an individual with the system.

The completeness, length, detail, timing and even who to train is a crucial concern for companies adopting an ERP system (Amoako-Gyampah, 2004). Training employees for a longer period might be cost overruns and create fatigue among employees. Training employees too early might lead to forgetfulness. Other unpreventable implementation activities might be a barrier for organization’s ability to wait till just before implementation to train their personnel. In fact, the number of users that might undergo training programs makes this extremely difficult. Despite all the hassles, training during technology implementation is salient since training has great potential to influence user attitudes, performance and acceptance of the technology (Galletta et al., 1995 cited in Amoako-Gyampah, 2004).

Related literature

Related literature describes the use of Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) in this study. It also debates on user’s satisfaction on ERP training and the impact of job position and business division on perceive ness of SAP training adequacy.

Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)

In studying user acceptance and use of technology, the TAM, developed by Davis is one of the most cited models (Nida Mazhar, 2009). The model is based on Fishbein and Ajzen’s Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA). The TAM model suggests that when users are presented with a new technology, a number of factors influence their decision on their usage. The determinants of use are attributed by two variables, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use.

The perceived usefulness is based on the observation that people tend to use or not use a system which they believe will help them perform their job better (Nida Mazhar, 2009; Bradley and Lee, 2007; Venkatesh and Morris, 2000). The perceived ease of use is referred to people belief that it would be hassle-free when using a system (Nida Mazhar, 2009; Bradley and Lee, 2007; Venkatesh and Morris, 2000).

The proposed model

The proposed model is shown in Figure 1. The job position and business division are hypothesized to have impact on users’ satisfaction with SAP training. Different job type and different business division of finance staffs in FELDA will give different relation on satisfaction with training on SAP. Then, satisfaction of training on SAP system may influence perceptions of ease of use and perception of usefulness (i.e. effectiveness and efficiency) among the employees. The perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of SAP will result in the user’s action, in term of reaction and intention toward using the software system. The end result is the actual use of the system. Consequently, the actual use give effect on the accounting processes at FELDA.

Job position and business division

Okpara (2004) found that the personal characteristics including gender, age, education income and experience predict job satisfaction among Nigerian information technology (IT) managers. Bradley and Lee (2007) hypothesized that personal and job characteristics including job classification may influence training satisfaction. This study is interested in determining if such characteristics influence training satisfaction on SAP. Contrary, the characteristics used in this study include job position and business division.

(Job position) There is a gap in the literature, as not much research has been done on the relation between job position and SAP training. Differences have been known to augment in the perceptions and attitudes of different hierarchical organizational members toward innovations and technology (Amoako-Gyampah, 2004). Comparing the managerial (i.e. project team leaders, sponsors, field representatives, champions, master trainers and super users) and end-user (i.e. customer service representatives, finance and accounting staffs, operations staffs and other functional area personnel) perspective in the study, Amoako-Gyampah (2004) found superior level personnel in an organization have a deeper understanding of why a specific technology is being implemented. They have greater confidence in the effectiveness and adequacy of training and communication because of their closeness to the implementation activities and their role in decision making process.

Bradley and Lee (2007) study 143 employees from various hierarchical levels involved in the ERP implementation in a mid-sized university. All job types (i.e. technical support staff, clerical, middle manager and top management) reported the need for more training. Management level employees revealed higher training satisfaction levels both before and after the implementation and higher levels of understanding of the features, functions and abilities of the ERP system. Managers may not heavily use the system as clerical employees do for data entry and file maintenance purposes. Technical support staffs also showed slightly higher level of satisfaction than clerical personnel.

Managers perceived that technology would be easier to use compared to end users (Amoako-Gyampah, 2004). They felt more confident in getting the ERP system perform what they want. Consequently, learning to use the system would be much easier compared to end-users. As hypothesized in the study, the differences between both groups reported highly significant result.

(Business division) As in this study, FELDA organization is segregated into four business divisions, (1) plantation, (2) downstream, (3) manufacturing and (4) services. The plantation, downstream and manufacturing may highly involved and utilized the SAP system compared to services as these divisions use many modules offered by SAP.

There were not many literatures arguing on business division. However, the closest is according to Daft (1998) cited in Ifinedo (2007), specialization is the extent to which tasks are subdivided into separate jobs in an organization. Ifinedo (2007) reported a positive relationship between organizational structures that facilitate ERP adoption. As a consequence, ERP will be less successful in companies where tasks are less specialized and organizational tasks are not properly segregated. In contrast, the existence of various departments in the organization did not show any difference in the perception of SAP training, differences in understanding the system and the need for more training (Bradley and Lee, 2007).

It can be concluded that job position (Bradley and Lee, 2007) and business division are stronger predictor in training satisfaction. Accordingly, this study seeks to explore whether the quality of training of SAP is perceived equally by all positions and business divisions.

ERP systems’ impact on accounting practices

This section highlights some theories relevant to the ERP impact on accounting practices and processes.

Although ERP offer distinct advantages, their impact on accounting information and processes has not yet been adequately explored (Spathis and Constantinides, 2006). It can be inferred from the literature that executives and managers believe that ERP systems help their company achieve greater business benefits (Mustacello and Chen, 2008, pp 65). Besides, ERP provide huge benefits to accounting processes in company (Spathis and Constantinides, 2004). The accounting part is the heart of an ERP system, incorporating various applications or modules such as general ledger, accounts receivable and payable, fixed assets, cash management, cost control, budgeting, sales and distributions and human resource (Spathis and Constantinides, 2004). In addition to that, ERP systems provide companies the ability to improve business processes by integrating both financial and non-financial data among all functional areas within an organization. Overall, the benefits achieved by adopters strongly influence accounting information and practices and business planning of an organization at a strategic level.

The study of Spathis and Constantinides (2004) on 26 Greece companies who adopted ERP systems, explore the changes in accounting processes brought in with the introduction of ERP systems. In coincidence, the result revealed the same with Spathis and Constantinides (2006). The most highly rated perceived benefits achieved via ERP systems associated with “increased flexibility in information generation?, “increased integration of accounts application? and “improved quality of reports-financial statements?. These findings reinforce the argument posed earlier regarding the benefits brought in by ERP in producing real-time information, integration of shared data and ease decision making. It brings means that ERP clearly affect business processes and accounting practices of ERP adopters Spathis and Constantinides, 2004, Spathis and Constantinides, 2006).

To a lesser extent, additional benefits achieved involve time reductions for accounts closure and preparation of financial statements. “Increased use of financial ratio analysis? and “improved internal audit function? have also been quoted. Nonetheless, ERP offer chances for companies to have BPR and refurbish their accounting and management practices (Spathis and Constantinides, 2003).

In contrary, Booth et al. (2000) found ERP showed more effective manner in transaction processing and less effective in producing report and decision making purpose. Surprisingly, Booth et al. (2000) study users’ perceptions on quality of accounting information systems in financial and management accounting. Astonishingly, respondents rate them as “adequate? in terms of reporting and decision support and “good? in terms of transaction reporting. The outcomes between Spathis and Constantinides (2004), Spathis and Constantinides, 2006 and Booth et al. (2000) are comparable signifying there are benefits accrued for ERP adopters.

Summary

Based on the above examination of literatures, this study extents the TAM model for ERP implementation incorporating satisfaction with training as a factor in perceived usefulness of SAP system and perceived ease of use of SAP system. Additionally, job position and business dividion may seen to influence SAP training satisfaction. Moreover, this study focused to determine the extent to which SAP system helped FELDA in their accounting practices.

Organizations implementing ERP systems experience huge benefits and face extensive challenges based on the cost and complexity of implementing the system. At this point, the training knowledge favorably may impact the intention to use the system. User attitude toward using the system may convince management to allocate more resources for training purpose. Consequently, this will enhance the probability of ERP implementation success such as smoothen the accounting processes.

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the research methodology of the study.

Theoretical framework

The proposed model is shown in Figure 1. The job position and business division are hypothesized to have impact on users’ satisfaction with SAP training. Different job type and different business division of finance staffs in FELDA will give different relation on satisfaction with training on SAP. Then, satisfaction of training on SAP system may influence perceptions of ease of use and perception of usefulness (i.e. effectiveness and efficiency) among the employees. The perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of SAP will result in the user’s action, in term of reaction and intention toward using the software system. The end result is the actual use of the system. Consequently, the actual use give effect on the accounting processes at FELDA.

Propositions

The propositions used in this study are as below:

  • H01          The critical success factors do not have any impact on SAP implementation in FELDA.
  • H02          The quality of SAP training is perceived equally by the employees from all level of job position.
  • H03          The quality of SAP training is perceived equally by the employees of all business division.
  • H04          Training satisfaction is not related to perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use on SAP system.
  • H05          SAP implementation does not have any impact on accounting processes of Felda.
  • 3 Questionnaire

The instrument used in this study is attached in Appendix 1. It asks 36 questions including:

  • The first four questions are demographic, asking on gender, job position, business division and level of involvement in SAP. The questions are adapted from Bradley and Lee (2007).
  • Questions 5 to 20 are eight-point Likert scale asking on SAP implementation in Felda. The indication are 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=somewhat disagree, 4=neutral, 5=somewhat agree, 6=agree, 7=strongly agree, NA=not applicable. The questions are adapted from Bradley and Lee (2007), Gargeya and Brady (2007), Hong Seng Woo (2007), Nah et al. (2001), Finney and Corbett (2007) and Kim et al. (2005).
  • Questions 21-36 are seven-point Likert scale asking on impact of SAP on accounting processes in Felda. The indication are 1=not at all, 2=very low degree, 3=low degree, 4=average, 5=high degree, 6=very high degree, 7=perfect. The questions are adapted from Spathis and Constantinides (2003) and Spathis (2006).

The questions below are very much remarkable as it represents the hypotheses:

  • Questions 10, 12 and 17 pertaining to perceived SAP training satisfaction.
  • Question 13 represents perceived ease of use. The approach is adopted from Davis (1989) in Davis et al. (1989).
  • Question 18 and 19 concerning on perceived usefulness of SAP system. The approach is adopted from Davis (1989) in Davis et al. (1989).

Sample

The organization studied in this study is FELDA. The Felda Group of Companies (FGOC) had implement SAP system by phase, since 2002. The data collected is from 20 subsidiaries that formally using SAP and have formal SAP system in place. Only employees of finance department from headquarters are chosen as respondents. Of these, targeted respondents are from three different levels, manager, executive and clerk. In average, each company may have eight employees. However, the number of staff employed is according to company size and volume of transactions needed. It ranges from 3 to twenty employees per company.

170 questionnaires were distributed. Of these, only 150 (XX %) were returned completed. XX (XX %) indicated that they were not involved in the implementation, leaving XXX (XX %) usable questionnaires.

The profile of the final sample of XXX included XX male (XX %) and XX female (XX %). Of these, XX are managers (XX %), XX are executives (XX %) and XX are clerks (XX %). Most were engaged in plantation (XX %), followed by downstream (XX %), manufacturing (XX %) and services (XX %). The distribution of the sample regarding respondents is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Respondent profile

Research method

For H01 and H01, mean and standard deviation were run on the data provided. For H02, H03 and H04, the test examined the relationship of independent variables; job position (H02), business division (H03) and training satisfaction (H04) on two dependent variables, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, respectively. Standard multiple regression was conducted to determine the accuracy of training satisfaction on perceived ease of use and usefulness of SAP system. ANOVA was used on survey data to look for difference in perception of training satisfaction by job position and business divisions.

Dr, I will update Chapter 3 after I finished regressing the data.

References

Willis and Willis-Brown, 2002 ERP

Equey and Fragnière (2008), ERP

Soliman and Youssef (1998

Little and Best (2003 SAP

Martin and Cheung, 2000).

Gargeya and Brady, 2005 CSF

Atul Gupta, 2000 CSF, ERP

Bradley and Lee, 2007 Main article

Mustacello and Chen (2008) CSF

Ferrando (2001) Training

Crowley, 1998).

Nida Mazhar, 2009 TAM

Duplaga and Astani (2003 ERP

Okpara (2004) Personal charac

(Spathis and Constantinides, 2003) Acctg

Pijpers and Montfort (2006) Job position

Amoako-Gyampah, 2004 Job position

Spathis and Constantinides, 2004 Acctg

Nah, Lau and Kuang, 2001 CSF

Kim, Lee and Gosain, 2005 CSF

Finney and Corbett, 2007 CSF

Kim, Lee and Gosain, 2005 CSF

Hong Seng Woo, 2007 CSF

Booth et al. (2000) Acctg

(Spathis and Constantinides, 2006). Acctg