Article

Usability of Enterprise Resource Planning Information Development

2016, Vol. 32(4) 1027–1041
ª The Author(s) 2015
software systems: an evaluative analysis Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

of the use of SAP in the textile industry DOI: 10.1177/0266666915585364

idv.sagepub.com

in Bangladesh

Wai-Peng Wong
Universiti Sains Malaysia

Vito Veneziano
University of Hertfordshire

Imran Mahmud
Universiti Sains Malaysia

Abstract
Information technology (IT) is increasingly playing a crucial role in managing business processes across all
indus- tries and organizations but business managers and analysts seem to underestimate the impact of
usability of IT solutions on processes and people. This paper focuses on the usability of one of the most
popular business process management software systems, SAP, which comes as an integrated solution
that incorporates the key business functions and processes of an organization. The paper critically
analyzes related issues and implica- tions using the System Usability Scale (SUS) and semi-structured
interviews. Several considerations and sugges- tions are drawn in terms of rethinking and pursuing
usability in training when applied to Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) and other systems
supporting business process management.

Keywords
enterprise resource planning, SAP, human computer interaction, information system management,
system usability, user-centered design, interface usability, Bangladesh

Submitted: 5 September, 2014; Accepted: 14 April, 2015.

Lack of proper training and communicativeness of the SAP software continue to affect
its usability.

Introduction or expected to support business process management

The use of information technology (IT) in business (BPM) practices within organizations. An ERP is ‘‘a
management is growing rapidly. Sophisticated soft- highly unified, consolidated and reliable network of
ware systems are now available in greater numbers business systems, built on a single integrated plat-
for measuring, analyzing, improving and controlling form’’ (Vaman, 2007). ERP systems are claimed to
business activities and overall performance. These integrate, improve, support and complete BPM solu-
are especially needed by organizations to process tions in business transactions. They also potentially
huge amounts of information within a complex and
usually distributed working environment, and among
an enor- mous variety of tasks from gathering Corresponding author:
business intelli- gence to managing safety critical Wai-Peng Wong, PhD, Institution: School of Management,
Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Penang, Malaysia. Mobile:
systems. þ60124186627.
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software sys- Email: [email protected]
tems have become the archetypal technology needed
1028 Information Development 32(4)

incorporate all business functions, for example, pur-

chasing, sales, human resources, finance, accounting Problem identification
Literature
Usability method Selection

and operations of an enterprise.

Usability is commonly referred to as the analysis Quantitative Data analysis Qualitative Data analysis
of human computer interaction (HCI) issues
consisting of a number of different attributes or
qualities such as the five identified by Nielsen Data Analysis and Result
Convergent design
(2012a) which are learnability, efficiency,
memorability, errors toler- ance and satisfaction.
In business and operational process management Suggestion

systems, the definition of usability could also include

the quality and extent of the implementation methods
Figure 1.
of the system, the degree of satisfaction from the
most recent experience of the users and the
sustainable bal- ance among people, activities, data collection sources have been explored and
context, tasks and attainments. For example, a given research constraints identified. This study also pur-
system may be assessed as highly usable according sued several research methodologies such as surveys
to some objective evaluation criteria (for instance, and interviews. Usability metrics (navigation,
performance indices), and yet may still fail to be presen- tation, task support, customization,
adopted by an organization because of reported low learnability) for ERP have been suggested and
satisfaction rating from users. Many companies validated recently by Singh and Wesson (2009) and
invest in software systems that are eventually Brenda Scholtz et al. (2010). The process or outline
rejected or abandoned by their employees (Addy, of our research is described in Figure 1.
2007), wasting licensing costs and taxes of up to tens
of millions of dollars (Bowman, 2008). Operations management and ERP
SAP is currently the world market and technology The main goal of ERP systems is to grant users
leader in providing ERP systems (Liu, 2014). It access to any relevant item of knowledge or
claims to empower people and draw organizations information available within their organization in
together to work efficiently and provide business order to enhance the efficacy and success of decision
insights for com- panies to stay ahead of the making. This is only made possible by shifting the
competition. control of informa- tion from information generators
The case study considered in our research is pro- to information users. An ERP system is defined as ‘‘a
vided by a textile company located in Bangladesh, highly unified, con- solidated and reliable network of
which is the second largest economy globally in business systems, built on a single integrated
cloth- ing manufacturing, with worldwide exports platform’’ (Vaman, 2007), and it is usually the
(Imran, 2013). Since most textile manufacturing largest, most complex and very costly information
organizations are underutilizing SAP in their system in any organization (Magal and Word, 2011).
business processes, we argue this is attributed to the ERP integration is one of several strategies to sustain
lack of enhancements and the yet-to-be fully tested a company’s long-term success and improve
usability of the ERP system by its software company performance (Hwang and Grant, 2014).
developers and suppliers before release. Therefore, The term ‘‘enterprise system’’ is also used to
there is scope, need and urgency to examine the way describe those systems that integrate the entire
we look at ERP usability, particularly in the textile enterprise (e.g., all its departments and project teams)
sector. In asking users to evaluate the usability of to a single information system (Turban et al., 2010).
SAP, the investigation aimed at not only assessing These systems also help managers in making better
the capabilities of the system, but also those features decision in organizations (Hsieh and Hsu, 2013).
of the system that would encourage or discourage Both academia and industry have shown interest
users to engage the system, as well as identifying any in and have been concerned about integrating ERP
new usability features that could make the system and with other process management activities at the
its use more flexible, more effective and less strate- gic, tactical and operational levels.
damaging on time and motivation. Organizations, especially in the manufacturing
No research has been conducted hitherto on the sector, are moving
usability of ERP in Bangladesh. In our case, possible
towards the adoption of ERP as a vital asset to 2008). These user interface drawbacks deprive
reduce the costs of human resources, inventory and several users of ERP of its benefits (Singh and
operations management (Jack and Kholeif, 2008; Wesson, 2009; Ceaparu et al., 2004) and demotivate
Shaojun et al., 2008). Several reports have cited the them so as to prevent their effective learning in the
growing domi- nance of ERP systems in the business use of ERP (Davis and Comeau, 2004; Shtub, 2001).
community (Mohamed and McLaren, 2009; These draw- backs thwart the objectives of deploying
Winkelmann and Leyh, 2009) including small- to an ERP sys- tem and have prompted research on
medium-sized organi- zations (Koh et al., 2009; visual interfaces (Parush et al., 2007), usability
Pang, 2008). Practically all types of organizations are methods (Hornbæk, 2010; Vermeeren et al., 2010),
using or are moving towards their own ERP systems, and typical usability problems encountered in ERP
including non-profit entities like universities and (Lambeck, 2014).
hospitals (McGaughey and Guna- sekaran, 2007; This research studies those variables not encoun-
Olson, 2003), and organizations in developing tered in previous studies of ERP usability and user
countries are following a similar trend satisfaction. We use the critical incidents method to
(Kanthawongs, 2011; Sheu et al., 2004). report the usability problems faced by participants
In Bangladesh, ERP systems have been when performing a number of simple tasks using an
implemen- ted only very recently. Almost 50 local SAP ERP system in a controlled environment. We
and foreign companies in Bangladesh are now using adopted a survey questionnaire to explore the usabil-
SAP (Imran, 2013). However, slow Internet speed ity issues which emerged during system runtime. The
and lack of proper ERP training are not supportive of tasks were specified by us to provide all participants
ERP imple- mentation (Mukaddes et al., 2010). with the necessary consistent context when analyzing
Consequently, IT workers in these organizations, be critical incidents.
they users or administrators, have to assume the We expect the results will be of specific interest to
critical responsi- bility of self-teaching the proper the manufacturing sector in Bangladesh and
use of ERP. countries with similar economies where the market
for ERP systems is growing rapidly. These results
will also enable IT managers to provide advice and
End users’ difficulties in using ERP
support when deploying ERP systems in large
Notwithstanding the growing economic importance industrial orga- nizations. We are optimistic this
of the ERP market, several studies and investigations paper will provide beneficial insights to improve
have highlighted the poor usability of ERP systems, overall ERP usability.
causing failures or inefficiencies in process manage-
ment and frustration for their users (Singh and Wes-
son, 2009; Yeh, 2006). ERP systems have always Usability measuring criteria for ERP
been criticized for their complexity. This complexity The methods used to assess the usability of ERP sys-
arises from the integration of different business tems are usually surveys (Amoako-Gyampah and
appli- cations and the need to process huge amounts Salam, 2004; Amoako-Gyampah, 2007; Calisir and
of data. Richer or multifaceted systems can be less Calisir, 2004), user interviews (Topi et al , 2005),
effective functionally if they have enormous and expert evaluations (Akash Singh, 2009). Oja and
usability problems (Ceaparu et al., 2004). The Lucas (2010) commented that ‘‘while such studies
limited effectiveness of such corporate systems have pro- vided valuable data and interesting insights
coupled with their complexity would create into ERP systems usability in general, findings are
confusion, frustration and failure lead- ing to typically confined to the abstract level, depriving
mistakes while working with such applications their practi- cal application to improve usability’’.
(Ceaparu et al, 2004; Hohmann, 2003). The required Interface knowledge is defined as knowledge of
integration and processing of large amounts of data the role and significance of ERP in interfacing with
mean that ERP systems’ processing user interfaces other applications, for example, Supply Chain
(UIs) suffer from poor usability (Singh and Wesson, Management (SCM) systems or Customer
2009). It is unsurprising that ERP systems are often Relationship Manage- ment (CRM) systems
frustrating to use (Topi et al., 2005; Matthews, (Seethamraju, 2006). It is this knowledge that enables
2008) due to the unfriendly nature of the user inter- users to decide which form to submit or record to
face (Yeh, 2006); this could have an impact on the update a process. This knowledge- derived ability to
effectiveness and efficiency of task completion use ERP systems would eventually deliver faster and
(Chew et al., 2003; Herbert et al., 2006; Matthews, more reliable processing of complex
 identify and access appropriate information, menus,
reports, options and elements accurately and effec-
tively. The design of an ERP system interface should
enable easy navigation among different modules
(Calisir and Calisir, 2004). However, navigation
prob- lems have been identified as one of the main
barriers that prevent ERP systems from delivering
Figure 2. Usability Criteria for ERP Systems.
their poten- tial benefits to organisations (Matthews,
2008). A study by Maurizio and Rosemann (2005) of
data such as fulfilling customer orders. Other authors the hands-on use of SAP in education reported
(Gupta et al., 2004; Matolcsy et al., 2005) agree that several problems with navigation in the user
an ERP system with an effective user interface would interface.
provide greater customer satisfaction by reducing The second criterion proposed by Singh and Wes-
deliv- ery time of products or services. son (2009) is presentation and its related heuristic is
Several methods have been applied by researchers Presentation of Screen and Output, which aims to
to measure interface usability, such as the System determine the appropriateness of the layout of
Usability Scale (SUS), Software Usability Measure- menus, dialog boxes, controls and information on the
ment Inventory (SUMI), Questionnaire for User screen for data entry and output generation. Issues
Inter- action Satisfaction (QUIS), and Computer identi- fied in usability studies of ERP systems
System Usability Questionnaire (CSUQ). The relating to presentation include problems in the
System Usabil- ity Scale (SUS) was first developed complexity of the screen display and understanding
by John Brooke in 1986 at Digital Equipment and inter- preting output from the ERP system.
Corporation in the UK as a tool used in engineering Studies in- volving the evaluation of the
the usability of computer- based office systems presentation of ERP systems include Singh and
(Brooke, 1996). It was recog- nized as a ‘quick and Wesson (2009) and Costa (2010) in industry, and
dirty’ survey using a Likert scale that allowed the Scholtz et al (2010a) in education.
usability researcher to quickly and easily assess the Appropriateness of Task Support aims to
usability of a given product or ser- vice in order to establish if there is an accurate alignment between
provide a global view of users’ atti- tudes and the system and the real world, in order to ensure
subjective assessments (Bangor et al., 2008). John effective task support and efficient task completion
Brooke described the results of 2,324 SUS surveys (Singh and Wesson, 2009).
from 206 usability tests collected over a 10-year Learnability is the criterion used to determine the
period, and found
¼ that the SUS was highly reliable degree of effort required to learn how to use the sys-
(alpha 0.91) and useful over a wide range of tem efficiently and effectively (Rogers et al., 2011;
interface types. Singh and Wesson, 2009). Learnability is one of the
A study by Akash Singh (2009) found a number most important criteria of usability and refers to the
of usability issues in a medium-sized ERP system, capability of the system to enable the user to learn
SAP Business One, by means of a heuristic to use the application (Nielsen, 1993b). Learnability
evaluation based on the five criteria of navigation, is also defined as the ease with which new users can
presentation,
task support, learnability and customization (see begin effective interaction and achieve maximum
Figure 2). The study is one of the few attempts at per- formance (Dix et al., 2003).
proposing and validating usability criteria specifi- Customization relates to the customizable ability
cally tailored for medium-sized ERP systems, with of the system according to the specific needs of an
each of the five criteria also supported by several organization (Singh and Wesson, 2009). Customiz-
other studies. ability is a measure of the extent to which the system
The first ERP usability criterion proposed by can be adapted, either by the user or by an upper
Singh and Wesson (2009), is navigation. Navigation level system.
has been reported as a design issue in several studies We adopted the above criteria as a starting point to
(Calisir and Calisir 2004; Topi et al. 2005; Singh and investigate and compare several qualitative and quan-
Wesson 2009). The related heuristic, Navigation titative techniques in evaluating ERP user interfaces
and Access to Information, proposed by Singh and and to report on how they could be used and the
Wes- son (2009) aims to determine the system’s guide- lines that should be taken into account when
ability to adopting
Table 1. Usability criteria for ERP.
Usability
Heuristics Description Source
Navigation Navigation, access to information (Calisir and Calisir, 2004; Heikki Topi, Wendy
Lucas,
2005; Matthews, 2008; Oja and Lucas,
2010) Presentation Output display, interpreting output, Visual layout (Akash Singh, 2009; Costa, 2010;
Heikki Topi,
Wendy Lucas, 2005; Wang et al.,
2009; Winkelmann and Leyh, 2009)
Task support Appropriate task support (Akash Singh, 2009; Scholtz et al., 2010)
Learnability Learnability is the criteria used to determine the (Akash Singh, 2009; Nielsen, 1993; Shaojun et al.,
degree of effort required to learn how to 2008)
use the system efficiently.
Customization The ability to be customized according to the (Akash Singh, 2009)
specific needs.

these techniques to improve business processes and Survey participants and sample size
operations. Table 1 provides a brief description of
each of these five criteria and some sources from The survey was conducted in a renowned garment
which the criterion is derived. manufacturing company in Bangladesh (henceforth
this company is identified as VG).
VG is one of the leading multi-dimensional busi-
ness conglomerates of Bangladesh, with spinning,
Research design, strategy and settings knitting, dyeing, accessories and printing facilities.
Goal and research questions It emerged as an established group in 2002. VG is
The primary research question of this paper is, ‘How now focused on further developing their product
usable is the SAP ERP software from the end user’s range by diversifying their business into different
perspective?’ sectors. The company expects the present turnover to
However, a number of other objectives will also double in 3 years’ time riding on a 30% yearly
be addressed. They are: growth. VG could be considered a thriving enterprise
because it started as a fashion and garment
1. to identify whether there are still usability manufacturer and now has gained a foothold in the
problems in ERP logistics, agriculture, power and energy sectors.
2. to measure end users’ points of view on the The target population for our survey comprised
SAP interface 140 VG employees who use different modules of
SAP ERP on a daily basis and therefore have accrued
3. to identify and explain the gaps between ERP
significant experiences of the system. A System
frameworks suggested by Singh and Wesson
Usability Scale questionnaire was distributed to 127
(2009) and the System Usability Scale on
(83% male, 17% female) users from 140 who had
ERP.
been using the ERP software for at least 6 months
and 24 participants were randomly chosen from these
We first investigated and carefully compared sev- 127 users for interview. By also considering the
eral appropriate qualitative and quantitative tech- outcomes and attributes of user modeling activities
niques for a mixed approach before adopting them and procedures, represented by a specimen result in
to evaluate ERP user interfaces and report on the Table 2, we obtained a predictive evaluation of real-
usability of SAP ERP in a manufacturing enterprise. world tasks aimed at capturing some aspects of
We explored possible data collection sources and users’ understanding, knowledge and inten- tions,
con- sidered research constraints when pursuing and their actual ability to process information using
several research strategies which comprise surveys their ERP modules.
and inter- views. Surveys, in particular, were Following Kules (2004), we derived from the ERP
deployed to dis- cover usability issues perceived by system interface and specifications a user model con-
ERP consulting organizations and ERP specialists. taining ‘‘all information that the system knows about
 Table 2. List of attributes derived for user These research methodologies are mostly
modeling purposes (A specimen). grounded on cognitive psychology and ergonomics,
User class: SAP user Attribute and have been developed on the assumption that
cognition is a distributed process, occurring not just
Age Range 25-35 within the human mind, but also between the human
English literacy Average mind and any repre- sentational instance of
Computer knowledge Average information provided in the world. We implemented
Training Completed
convergent mixed method suggested by Creswell and
Education Diploma and bachelor
degree holders Clark (2007), as two differ- ent approaches could
Other system used MS Office Package, result in a new paradigm of usability. The mixed
Web Goal Operate SAP modules method approach to usability test- ing is also applied
in several researches of Scholtz et al., (2010a,
2013b) and Thavapragasam (2004).
the user’’. This model, usually initialized either with
default values or by querying the user, is maintained Semi structured interview and qualitative content
by and within the system, and users are allowed to analysis. Semi-structured interviews were adopted to
review and amend it by editing their user profile in under- stand the users’ expectations, goals and
the demographic information (see Table 2). problems. Before selection, participants who were
VG invests heavily in SAP and they are pleased to willing to take part were asked to complete a short
recognize that with the implementation of SAP, the questionnaire about their name, job title, years of
company has reached a significant milestone. Specif- experience in using the SAP ERP system and three
ically, VG is using eight different modules of SAP: frequently used functions of the software to ensure
SD (Sales and Distribution), PP (Production Plan- we had a represen- tative end user base.
ning), QM (Quality Management), PM (Plant Qualitative data analysis of the responses from the
Mainte- nance), HR (Human Resources), FI open ended usability questionnaires was performed
(Financial Accounting), CO (Controlling) and MM using content analysis, whereby the text is
(Material Management). Based on VG’s categorized or coded into themes or categories
achievement, we assume that software users at VG (Kolbe and Bur- nett, 1991). Noting Singh and
have played a cru- cial role in the company’s Wesson’s (2009) use of qualitative analysis and their
expansion and consolida- tion plans. suggestion that no validated questionnaire was
From our investigation, we assumed that SAP needed for quantitative analysis, we followed their
HCI experts had developed user interfaces for their approach. The text responses were analyzed and
ERP system and considered similar criteria (age, coded thematically according to the five usability
computer literacy, English literacy, familiarity with criteria of navigation, presentation, task support,
other IT systems)when profiling users. learnability, and customi- zation suggested by Singh
and Wesson (2009) and Scholtz et al. (2009a,
2013b). Within these themes, the content was
Set up and protocol
analyzed in greater detail and further coded into sub-
As stated above, the two main instruments for collect- themes (see Table 3.)
ing data in our study were a round of interviews using
an open ended questionnaire and a survey question- System Usability Scale (SUS). The SUS has several
naire for end users. We applied a convergent mixed attri- butes which make it a popular choice for general
method to identify any new dimensions of usability. usability practitioners. According to Bangor et al.,
The first instrument was a semi-structured interview, (2008), SUS assessment has a reliability value of
mainly developed by referring implicitly to the ‘usabil- 0.85, which is relatively high.
ity criteria’ adopted in Singh and Wesson (2009). Brooke’s (1996) starting point was usability,
Following Perlman (1997), ‘‘Questionnaires have defined by ISO 9241-11 as a combination of
long been used to evaluate user interfaces’’, our effective- ness, efficiency and satisfaction.
ques- tionnaire instrument then uses the System Unfortunately, since these ‘‘classes of metric can
Usability Scale (Brooke, 1996) which has its vary widely’’ (Brooke, 1996), he employed a new
reliability already established. and simpler scale which does not evaluate the system
on individual dimensions of effectiveness, efficiency
and satisfaction, but rather scores the overall
subjective experience of the user
Table 3. Code and sub-themes. Data analysis and findings
Items Sub items Qualitative data analysis
Navigation Ease of use As mentioned before, we applied content analysis to
Helpful navigation the interview outcomes of SAP users.
Shortcut key
Search option Navigation. The lessons learned about navigation
Like/Dislike from the interviews are the positive comments and
Presentation Font style
sugges- tions for improvements. The answer from
Language
Lay out
one of our participants summarizes what participants
Like/Dislike thought of navigation in SAP:
Task support Documentation
Productivity ‘‘It is very swift to work with and it takes only a few
Time to get sec- onds if there is a need to retrieve huge data. It is
support easy to access any function from the initial screen by
Learnability Understandability using T- codes. Overall navigation is excellent and
Time to learn easily understandable.’’
Customization Customize
layout Flexibility However another participant suggested that

‘‘Navigation be redesigned to better accommodate the

ERP modules. This would be more helpful. Also the T-
using the combination of the three attributes. We also
codes in the navigation path can be quite difficult to go
took into consideration the statement by Kallankari through, especially at the very beginning.’’
(2013) that ‘‘even though SUS produces numeric,
quan- titative data, it is still subjective and dependent
on the respondents’ attitude towards the Likert scale.
Presentation. From the interviews we discovered
Some people might, for example, be extremities
that participants were also satisfied with the quality
averse and avoid the 1 and 5 point answers’’.
of pre- sentation of the user interface. One participant
The SUS is composed of 10 statements with each
responded that
having a 5-point scale that ranges from ‘Strongly
Dis- agree’ (1) to ‘Strongly Agree’ (5). The SUS (see ‘‘The layouts are very well designed. I could immedi-
Appendix 1) was administered soon after the respon- ately find the screen I want to use, or pointing to the
dent had had an opportunity to use the system but link would clearly show how to proceed. Also, by
before any debriefing or discussion could take place. moving the cursor to a particular icon, this will shortly
Respondents were instructed to immediately record show a description about what it stands for plus I can
their response for each item, rather than delay by work with the system alongside several other users
pro- tracted consideration about the items. Since all should the need arises.’’
ques- tionnaire items should be checked, respondents
were told to mark the centre point of the scale if they Task support. We found mixed responses from
felt they could not respond to a particular item. The partici- pants about the supportability of the system.
SUS questionnaire was administered as an online As the survey participants were not provided with
survey (http://imstriker.com/survey1/sus.php). any train- ing, they searched the Internet for solutions
To calculate the SUS score, we first summed the when a problem occurred. According to the
score contributions from each item. Each item’s interviews, they felt that the help functions and
score contribution ranges from 0 to 4. For items proper documentation should be better organized.
1,3,5,7 and 9 the score contribution is the scale Two interview quotes encapsulate this common
position minus 1. For items 2,4,6,8 and 10, the feeling:
contribution is 5 minus the scale position. We
multiplied the sum of the scores by 2.5 to obtain the ‘‘My productivity has increased, but I am unsure
overall value of System Usability (SU). SUS scores whether the overall impact on the company is signifi-
have a range of 0 to 100. The recom- mended ranges cant. More extensive and consistent usage of the soft-
for SUS are: 0-64 not acceptable; 65-84 acceptable; ware system should be encouraged and pursued across
85-100 excellent (McLellan, 2012). the company to achieve significant benefits.’’
Table 4. Partial Results.

User Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Score Status

1 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 40 ***
2 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 85 *
3 4.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 4.00 .00 3.00 1.00 57.5 ***
4 4.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 70 **
Not Acceptable***, Acceptable**, Excellent* (McLellan, 2012).
(Score ¼ Sum (Q1:Q10) * 2.5).

‘‘Less unnecessary data and more proper training as ‘most usable’. A partial result is reproduced in
could improve my skills.’’ Table 4.
We take note that the SUS scores are not for indi-
Learnability. Responses from the interviews on vidual items, which are less meaningful on their own.
under- standability and intuitiveness to use are within Instead, the SUS scores are a composite measure of
an acceptable range. Two participants emphasized overall usability.
how previous knowledge of computers, IT skills and The reliability score (Cronbach’s Alpha) of 0.819
train- ing have helped new users gain confidence is greater than the recommended 0.70 (Nunnally and
with the system: Bernstein, 1994), indicating that all items possess
good reliability. The mean score of 58.97, relatively
‘‘For me getting confident with the system took about lower than the acceptable score of 65.0, is also statis-
one week, and it is that easy because of the course I
tically significant (t 5.014,
¼ p <.001).
attended during which I obtained my ORACLE
certification.’’ A t-test was used—to measure the significance of
‘‘If you have basic computer knowledge it should the usability responses of the SUS instrument, similar
not take longer than two weeks.’’ to Bangor (2008). The t-test value of -5.014 shows
sig- nificant evidence of poor usability (see Table 5).
Customization. When the participants were asked The results also show that ‘unacceptable’ usability
about flexibility and ease of customization of user ratings were recorded by 59.8% of total participants
interface, most gave favourable responses. One (see Table 6).
respondent clarified that The highest variations were identified in Q4 (SD ¼
0.98) and Q10 (SD ¼ 0.94), which reflect the assis-
‘‘Yes, I often customize the screen according to my tance of technical personnel (Q4) and learning (Q10),
needs. Yes, the system is very flexible to interact with and we noted that these results were similarly identi-
because it allows the updating, duplication and high- fied in the interviews. Some issues from the mixed
lighting of required fields or the deletion of data when response results will be rationalized with evidence
necessary.’’ from other researchers in the following section.
These interview results guided us in our
questionnaire survey of all end users to get a broader Discussion
picture of ERP usability for a mixed response The software quality model, FCM (Factor Criteria
approach in evaluating learnability and Metrics), proposed by McCall et al. (1977), focuses
supportability. Therefore, we sur- veyed all VG SAP on three criteria which are applied only to the
ERP users using the System Usability Scale usability factor found in software quality character-
instrument. istics. The three criteria are: operability, training
and communicativeness.
Operability is associated with the user’s effort for
Quantitative Data Analysis operations and operations control (for example
In using the SUS questionnaire, we are able to derive mouse support and macro-commands) (Stefani and
more rigorous results from quantitative data analysis. Xenos, 2001), which is applicable in our SAP usabil-
The 5-point Likert scale, upon which the tool was ity testing. Training is associated with the effort
designed and built, allowed us to eventually compute required to teach the use of software to the user,
a final score ranging between 0 as ‘least usable’ to
100
Table 5. Overall System Usability Scale (SUS) score chart.

Question
No Detailed Question Mean Value Standard Deviation
Q1 I think that I would like to use this software frequently 2.74 0.90
Q2 I found the system unnecessarily complex 2.44 0.86
Q3 I thought the software was easy to use 2.22 0.87
Q4 I think that I would need the support of a technical 1.88 0.98
person
to be able to use this system.
Q5 I found the various functions in the system were well 2.70 0.83
integrated.
Q6 I thought there was too much inconsistency in this 2.42 0.82
system
Q7 I imagine that most people would learn to use this 2.18 0.89
system
very quickly
Q8 I found the system very awkward to use. 2.48 0.87
Q9 I felt very confident using the system. 2.48 0.78
Q10 I needed to learn a lot of things before I could get going 2.01 0.94
with this system.

Highest SUS score 87.5

Lowest SUS score 32.5
Mean SUS 58.97
score Mean —6.02
Difference t —5.014
value <0.001
p value
Reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha) 0.819
Comment on result Recommended Range
0-64 ¼ Not
acceptable
65-84 ¼ Acceptable
85-100¼ Excellent
(McLellan, 2012)
Overall it was rated poor usability from the user

Table 6. Frequency distribution System Usability The first theme is concerned with the development
Scale (SUS). and introduction of a usability-oriented method
Usability status Frequency Percentage related to how users participate in eliciting and speci-
fying requirements, with an explicit focus on how to
Not Acceptable 76 59.8 fully exploit the skills of technical communicators
Acceptable 45 35.4 and other stakeholders.
Excellent 6 4.7 The second theme is about usability improvement
Total 127 100
by means of user training. This is a reinterpretation
of the second theme originally suggested by Carl-
while communicativeness is associated with the shamre (2001),), who argued that usability considera-
effectiveness of the software to communicate to the tions should drive planning in software product
user the purpose for which it has been developed and development, indicating that planning of the
the method of using it. develop- ment methodology should be designed by
The remaining two factors of FCM, training and usability criteria of a specific information system.
communicativeness, have yet to be explored. User training should be prioritized when planning for
Our interview results and overall usability as mea- the educa- tional needs of individual users (Esfandi,
sured by the SUS questionnaires are somehow 2010). SAP does not go live as a complete software
contra- dictory. This provides scope to consider and package; it was implemented module wise in
apply two main investigation themes on SAP ERP different depart- ments . As a result, we suggested to
usability inspired by the work of Carlshamre (2001). create a more structured training plan for the
organization.
User participation during development agree with Badamgarav (2010), who stated that ‘‘user
We adopt user participation in the first theme from involvement during system development is thought
Har- ris and Weistroffer (2008). User participation is to lead to greater user commitment, user acceptance,
referred to as observable behaviors and activities that behavioral intention, usage, and satisfaction with the
the target users or their representatives perform in system’’ (Amoako-Gyampah and White, 1993; Hart-
the system development process (Barki and wick and Barki, 1994).
Hartwick, 1989; Hwang and Thorn, 1999; Lin and Hartwick and Barki (1994) explicitly referred to
Shao, 2000), as opposed to the psychological three dimensions of user participation for successful
constructs of user involve- ment and user attitudes software development, which are identified and
(Lin and Shao, 2000), which are vague, not visible, designed from the developers’ viewpoint and for
and empirically challenging. their benefit. They are:
It is clear that none of our users have participated
1. Responsibility (i.e., the performance of activi-
in the development of SAP ERP, nor have they had
ties and assignments reflecting overall leader-
any a posteriori exposure to the development
ship or accountability for the project).
process.
2. User-IS relationship (i.e., the performance of
Several authors (Hartwick and Barki, 1994; Kap-
development activities reflecting users’ formal
pelman, 1995) agree that participation and involve-
review, evaluation, and approval of work done
ment are important for the success of information
by the information system (IS) staff, and
systems implementation (for example, in terms of
3. Hands-On-Activity (i.e., the performance of
users’ satisfaction). SAP is a proprietary software
specific physical design and implementation
and it operates in Bangladesh as a commercial off-
tasks).
the- shelf product; as a result, it is clear that users in
VG were not involved – not even in ‘simulation’ – in
the elicitation and specification process of the ERP
mechanism and the overall structure. Training structure
ERP vendors do not collect requirements from Our interpretation of the second theme originally
individual customers. While it is safe to assume that sug- gested by Carlshamre (2001), is about
the SAP developers have properly and legitimately improving usability of an ERP project through user
interviewed customers to define their requirements training. This is considered as a dual process
so as to provide clarity and understanding in the occurring to and from the user during the
development of the software, customers who use the implementation process of the sys- tem. Therefore,
SAP ERP system worldwide might not have bene- the user is not seen as a merely pas- sive recipient of
fitted from this process. In the best scenario, custom- the training.
ers appear to work on requirements on a largely In spite of the fact that the SAP ERP was
‘review only’ mode. In the worst and most common developed with consideration of usability features
scenarios, system requirements might not have (navigation, presentation, learnability, supportability
crossed the minds of the customers. and customi- zation) as proposed by Singh and
ERP practitioner Kimberling (2012) stated that it Wesson (2009), the feedback from our investigation
took nearly 20 years or more for large companies to frequently showed that the lack of proper training
adopt ERP systems because of complexity and risk. and communicative- ness of the software continue to
Medium organizations are still learning about ERP affect its usability.
implementation phase. Research reports have shown how learnability
This could explain why, although the SAP is the (i.e., how easy it is for users to learn and master
best selling ERP software worldwide, it still receives system functions and are able to transfer this learning
a severe judgment in terms of poor usability and low to real situations) (Kushniruk et al., 2009) and
satisfaction by our operators at VG. additional general usability (i.e., a measure of how
Engaging users during system design activities not easy it is to use a system) have a close relationship.
only means obtaining valuable first-hand knowledge Some authors (Dix et al., 2003; Linja-aho, 2006;
about the actual use of a system for the benefit of Rogers et al., 2011) even consider learnability as one
developers (Kujala, 2003); it also means that these of the key compo- nents of overall system usability.
same users should be credited with the success of the Again, we argue that issues and problems in
software system they have helped to develop. We learnability are mostly due to the limited help and
support found in the ERP itself and would cause the
industry to expend enormously
for training after the system has been implemented. 4. Ensure that training includes the HCI of the
Researchers have identified that training for ERP system and the overall business processes and
costs ranged up to 30% of total project costs (Beatty procedures which are affected directly by the
and Williams, 2006). Failure of well-organized train- introduction of the new system. Users have
ing will lead to project failure (Brunjolfsson and Hitt, to map the system command language against
2000). the business process key words in order to
In considering the requirements for effective train- cre- ate a common dictionary for all members
ing, our recommendations would be: of the organization.
5. Ensure that users are committed to and
1. Plan training first and ensure initial training is
engaged in training. Employees must be made
provided alongside and not after the actual
to feel the relevance of the training needs to
implementation of the system. Ensure training
their jobs and their personal and professional
involvement is not limited to the final users,
satisfaction. They should also be able to
but extended to the developers too, in order
identify the objec- tives and benefits of the
for them to gain further insights on how the
training to facilitate their contribution to the
system is to be used and how it should be
ERP training process.
developed.
6. Customize the delivery of training on users’
2. Consider training as a communication process
skills and competencies. Training must be
with an open channel from the users to the
delivered to develop individual competencies.
developers, and ensure that users are made
In an organization, ERP training could be
fully aware of this, with the hope that users
delivered to several groups comprising man-
will start to feel themselves to be responsible
agerial personnel, key-users, end-users and
actors and not mere passive recipients of deci-
the trainers. Developers and other stakeholders
sions made by someone else. User-centered
who might benefit should also be trained even
design should be pursued by implementing
though they do not have hands-on interaction
an open communication channel.
with the new system.
3. Allocate a proper budget for training. The
7. Schedule training in parallel with
costs should be incorporated with total budget
implementa- tion. It is important to
for the software implementation especially if
synchronize appropriate and critical usability
it is a large organization intending to deploy
training during imple- mentation. This would
ERP. The awareness and training programmes
require a proper docu- mentation outline
should be extended to top management and
listing the training procedures and explaining
therefore additional costs must be imputed.
the interactive fea- tures that would support
(Esteves et al., 2002, Esteves and Boho
changes.
´rquez, 2007).

Appendix 1

System Usability Scale

SUS1 I think that I would like to use this software frequently Brookes,
1996 SUS2 I found the
system unnecessarily complex
SUS3 I thought the software was easy to use
SUS4 I think that I would need the support of a technical person to be able to use this
system. SUS5 I found the various functions in the system were well integrated.
SUS6 I thought there was too much inconsistency in this system
SUS7 I imagine that most people would learn to use this system very
quickly SUS8 I found the system very awkward to use.
SUS9 I felt very confident using the system.
SUS10 I needed to learn a lot of things before I could get going with this system.
Appendix 2: Interviews included the Amoako-Gyampah K and Salam AF (2004) An extension
following list of questions, inspired and/or of the technology acceptance model in an ERP imple-
simply taken from reference (Liu, 2014) mentation environment. Information & Management
41(6): 731–745.
1. What do you do when any error occurs? Amoako-Gyampah K (2007) Perceived usefulness, user
2. How long does it take to finish a task? involvement and behavioral intention: an empirical
3. Could you always find what you were look- study of ERP implementation. Computers in Human
ing for? Behavior 23(3): 1232–1248.
4. Was it easy to get to the function from the Badamgarav M (2010) The Effect of End User
screen you started on? Involvement in ECT-IS continuance model. PhD thesis,
5. How intuitive and helpful is the navigation National Central University , Taiwan.
system? Bangor A, Kortum PT and Miller JT (2008) The System
6. Do you use the search function? Usability Scale (SUS): An empirical evaluation of the
7. Does it match your expectations? System Usability Scale. International Journal of
Human-Computer Interaction 24(6): 574–594.
8. Is information easy to read (both font size
Barki H and Hartwick J (1989) Rethinking the concept of
and style)? user involvement. MIS Quarterly 13(1):53–63.
9. Do you think the system talks ‘‘human Beatty W and Williams C (2006) ERP II: Best Practices
language’’? for Successfully Implementing an ERP Upgrade.
10. How do you think of the layout? Communi- cations of the ACM 49 (3): 105–109
11. When you find something is hard to accom- Bowman RH (2008) Business Continuity Planning for
plish, will you find/refer to the help Data Centers and Systems: A strategic implementation
document or just ask your colleagues? guide. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
12. (similar to 2) How long does it take to com- Brooke J (1996) SUS: A quick and dirty usability scale.
plete common or target tasks? In Usability evaluation in industry. Edited by: Jordan
13. Do you think your productivity has P.W., Thomas B.A. Weerdmeester and McClelland I.L.
London: Taylor & Francis. pp. 189–194.
improved after using this software?
Brynjolfsson E and Hitt L (2000) Beyond computation:
14. Do you think it is intuitive to use?
Information technology, organization transformation
15. Do you think your interaction with the and business performance. Journal of Economic Per-
system is clear and understandable? spectives 14: 23–48.
16. How long will it take to get skillful with a Businesswire (2011) Bangladesh business applications
new application? market shifting from indigenous to global brands.
17. Have you ever customized your system Avail- able at :
layout? http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/
18. Do you think the system is flexible to 20111122005105/en/Bangladesh-Business-Applications-
interact with? Market-Shifting-Indigenous-Global#.VE1HxP
19. What would encourage you to continue mUdfw (accessed 4 September 2014)
Calisir Fethi and Calisir Ferah (2004) The relation of
using the system?
inter- face usability characteristics, perceived
20. If the SAP system upgrades, would you like usefulness, and perceived ease of use to end-user
to learn something new? satisfaction with enter- prise resource planning (ERP)
systems. Computers in Human Behavior 20(4): 505–
Acknowledgement
515.
The first and third author would like to thank Universiti Carlshamre P (2001) A Usability Perspective on Require-
Sains Malaysia for its support under RU grant number ments Engineering: from methodology to product
1001/PMGT/816191. devel- opment. PhD thesis, Linko¨ping University,
Sweden.
References Ceaparu I, Lazar J and Bessiere K (2004) Determining
Addy R (2007) Software license management. Effective IT causes and severity of end-user frustration.
Service Management. Berlin–Heidelberg: Springer, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction
263–273. 17(3): 333–356.
Amoako-Gyampah K and White KB (1993) User involve- Chew J, Orlov LM and Herbert L (2003) App user inter-
ment and user satisfaction. Information & Management faces still need work. Forrester Research. Available at:
25(1) 1–10. http://www.forrester.com/ER/Research/Brief/Excerpt/
0,1317,16184,00.html. (Accessed on 3 September 2014)
Costa CJ (2010) Testing usability of ERP open source sys-
tems. Open Source and Design of Communication
 Workshop. Lisbon, Portugal, 8 November 2010, 25–30. perspectives. Information Development ahead of print
New York: ACM Publishing. 18 June 2014, doi: 10.1177/0266666914539525.
Creswell JW (2013) Research design: Qualitative, quanti- Imran R (2013) SAP implementation step by step. Avail-
tative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, able at:http://bgrajib.blogspot.com/2013/03/sap-bangla
California: Sage Publications. desh-most-prospect-sector.html. (accessed 4 September
Davis CH and Comeau J (2004) Enterprise integration in 2014).
business education: Design and outcomes of a capstone Ives B and Olson MH (1984) User involvement and MIS
ERP-based undergraduate e-business management success: A review of research. Management Science
course. Journal of Information Systems Education 30(5): 586–603.
15(3): 287–300. Jack L and Kholeif A (2008) Enterprise resource planning
Dix A, Finlay JE and Abowd GD (2003) Human- and a contest to limit the role of management accoun-
Computer Interaction (3rd ed.) Upper Saddle River, tants: A strong structuration perspective. Accounting
New Jersey : Prentice-Hall, Inc. Forum 32(1):30–45.
Esfandi A (2010) Challenges and problems in the ERP Kallankari J (2013) Usability testing throughout the applica-
implementation and its application. In 3rd IEEE Inter- tion lifecycle. Available at: https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi:443/
national Conference on Computer Science and handle/123456789/11863 (accessed 5 September 2014).
Informa- tion Technology (ICCSIT), Chengdu, China, Kanthawongs P (2011) A structural model of student satis-
2010 78–81. New York, IEEE. faction in web-based ERP-simulated learning environ-
Esteves J, Pastor J and Casanovas J (2002) A framework ments. International Journal of Education and
proposal for monitoring and evaluating training in ERP Information Technologies 5(2): 166–173.
implementation projects. Report, Universidad Polite Kappelman LA (1995) Measuring user involvement: A
´c- nica Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain. dif- fusion of innovation perspective. The Data Base
Esteves J and Boho´rquez VW (2007) An updated ERP for Advances in Information Systems 26(2-3): 65–86.
sys- tems annotated bibliography: 2001-2005. Report, Kimberling E. (2012) The Commoditization of ERP Sys-
Madrid, Instituto de Empresa Business School Working tems: Same Old Song and Dance? Available at : http://
Paper No. WP, 07–04. panorama-consulting.com/the-commoditization-of-erp-
Gupta O, Priyadarshini K and Massoud S (2004) systems-same-old-song-and-dance/ (Accessed at : 28th
Enterprise resource planning: a case of a blood bank. March, 2015)
Industrial Management & Data Systems 104(7): 589– Koh SCL, Gunasekaran A and Cooper JR (2009) The
603. demand for training and consultancy investment in
Harris M and Weistroffer H (2008) Does user participation SME-specific ERP systems implementation and opera-
lead to system success? Southern Association for Infor- tion. International Journal of Production Economics
mation Systems Conference, 2008. Richmond, Virginia, 122(1): 241–254.
USA, March 13–15 2008, Available at: Kolbe RH and Burnett MS (1991) Content-analysis
http://aisel.aisne t.org/sais2008/4 (Accessed on 4 research: An examination of applications with
September 2014) directives for improving research reliability and
Hartwick J and Barki H (1994) Explaining the role of user objectivity. Jour- nal of Consumer Research 18(2):
participation in information system use. Management 243–50.
Science 40(4):440–465. Kujala S (2003) User involvement: A review of the
Herbert L, Ragsdale J and Gaynor E (2006) Put Business benefits and challenges. Behaviour & Information
Applications to the Usability Test. Cambridge: Technology 22(1): 1–16.
Forrester Research Inc. Kules B (2004) User Modeling for Adaptive and
Hohmann L (2003) Usability: Happier users mean greater Adaptable Software Systems. Available at
profits. Information Systems Management 20(4): 66–76. http://www.otal.um d.edu/UUGuide/wmk/ (accessed 5
Hornbæk K (2010) Dogmas in the assessment of usability September 2014).
evaluation methods. Behaviour & Information Technol- Kushniruk AW, Myers K and Borycki EM (2009) Explor-
ogy 29(1): 97–111. ing the relationship between training and usability: A
Hsieh S-T and Hsu P-Y (2013) Mentoring effects in the study of the impact of usability testing on improving
successful adaptation of information systems. Informa- training and system deployment. Studies in Health
tion Development ahead of print 16 December 2013, Tech- nology and Informatics 143: 277–83.
DOI: 10.1177/0266666913511263. Lambeck C, Muller R, Fohrholz C and Leyh C (2014)
Hwang MI and Thorn RG (1999) The effect of user (Re-) evaluating user interface aspects in ERP systems-
engage- ment on system success: A meta-analytical An empirical user study. In 47th Hawaii International
integration of research findings. Information and Con- ference on System Sciences (HICSS), Waikoloa,
Management 35: 229–236. Hawaii, USA: 2014 ,pp. 396–405. IEEE Computer
Hwang Y and Grant D (2014) An empirical study of enter- Society.
prise resource planning integration: global and local Lin WT and Shao BBM (2000) The relationship between
user participation and system success: A simultaneous
 contingency approach. Information and Management, Pang A (2008) Worldwide ERP applications 2004-2008
37:283–295. forecast: First look at top 10 vendors. 1(31269): 1–14.
Linja-aho M (2006) Creating a framework for improving Massachusetts: IDC.
the learnability of a complex system. Human Technol- Perlman G (1997) Practical usability evaluation. CHI’97
ogy: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing
Environments 2(2): 202–224. Systems, New York, USA, 1997. pp. 407–408. New
Liu X (2014) Usability Analysis of Working with SAP York: ACM.
Applications in Volvo Group. PhD Thesis, Uppsala Parush A, Hod A and Shtub A (2007) Impact of visualiza-
Uni- versitet, Sweden. tion type and contextual factors on performance with
Magal SR and Word J (2011) Integrated Business Pro- enterprise resource planning systems. Computers &
cesses with ERP Systems. Hoboken, New Jersey : John Industrial Engineering 52(1): 133–142.
Wiley and Sons Publishing. Rogers Y, Sharp H and Preece J (2011) Interaction
Matthews D (2008) Usability as an ERP selection criteria. Design: Beyond Human - Computer Interaction. New
Available at: http://ifs.datahost.com/shop/images/wp- York: John Wiley & Sons.
usability.pdf. (accessed 5 September 2014). Scholtz B, Cilliers C and Calitz A (2010) Qualitative tech-
Matolcsy ZP, Booth P and Wieder B (2005) Economic niques for evaluating enterprise resource planning
bene- fits of enterprise resource planning systems: (ERP) user interfaces. In: Annual Research Conference
some empiri- cal evidence. Accounting and Finance of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists
45(3): 439–456. and Information Technologists, Bela Bela, South
Maurizio A and Rosemann M (2005) SAP-related Africa, October 11–13, 2010. 284–293. New York,
education-status-quo and experience. Journal of Infor- USA: ACM.
mation Systems Education 16(4): 437–453. Scholtz B, Calitz A and Cilliers C (2013) Usability
McCall JA, Richards PK and Walters GF (1977) Factors evalua- tion of a medium-sized ERP system in higher
in Software Quality. AD/A-049-014/015/055, National education. Electronic Journal of Information Systems
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia, Evaluation 16(2): 148–161.
1977. Seethamraju R (2007) Enterprise systems (ES) software in
McGaughey RE and Gunasekaran A (2007) Enterprise business school curriculum – evaluation of design and
resource planning (ERP). International Journal of delivery. Journal of Information Systems Education
Enterprise Information Systems 3(3): 23–35. 18(1): 69–83.
McLellan S, Muddimer A and Peres SC (2012) The effect Shaojun W, Gang W and Min L (2008) Enterprise
of experience on System Usability Scale ratings. Jour- resource planning implementation decision &
nal of Usability Studies 7(2): 56–67. optimization mod- els. Journal of Systems Engineering
Mohamed S and McLaren TS (2009) Probing the gaps and Electronics 19(3): 513–521.
between ERP education and ERP implementation success Sheu C, Chae B and Yang C-L (2004) National
factors. AIS Transactions on Enterprise Systems 1(1): 8–14. differences and ERP implementation: issues and
Mukaddes Abul MA, Chowdhury NFA and Uddin MM challenges. Omega 32(5): 361–371.
(2010) A model for automatic preventive maintenance Shtub A (2001) A framework for teaching and training in
scheduling and an application database software. 2010 the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) era. Interna-
International Conference on Industrial Engineering and tional Journal of Production Research 39(3): 567–576.
Operations Management, Dhaka, Bangladesh, January Singh A and Wesson J (2009) Evaluation criteria for asses-
9 – 10, 2010. sing the usability of ERP systems. Annual Research
Nielsen J (1993) Usability Engineering. San Diego, Cali- Conference of the South African Institute of Computer
fornia: Academic Press Scientists and Information Technologists SAICSIT ‘09,
Nielsen J (2012) Introduction to Usability. Nielsen 2009, Cape Town, South Africa, October 3-5, 2011,
Norman Group. Available at: 87–95. New York: ACM Press.
http://www.nngroup.com/articles/ usability-101- Stefani A and Xenos M (2011) Weight-modeling of B2C
introduction-to-usability/. accessed 2 Sep- tember system quality. Computer Standards & Interfaces
2014). 33(4): 411–421.
Nunnally JC and Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric The- Thavapragasam XT (2004) ERP systems and user percep-
ory. New York: McGraw-Hill. tions: An approach for implementation success. Issues
Oja M-K and Lucas W (2010) Evaluating the usability of in Informing Science and Information Technology 521–
ERP systems: What can critical incidents tell us. Pre- 531.
ICIS Workshop on ES Research. 2010. Saint Louis, Topi H, Lucas W and Babaian T (2005) Identifying
Mis- souri, 2010. pp: 1–6. usabil- ity issues with an ERP implementation.
Olson DL (2003) Managerial Issues of Enterprise International Conference on Enterprise Information
Resource Planning Systems. Boston: McGraw-Hill- Systems 2005, Miami, USA, 25-28 May. 128–133.
Irwin, Inc.
Turban E, Volonino L and McLean E (2010) Information chain / logistics. Her papers have appeared in numerous
Technology for Management: Transforming Organiza- ISI journals such as IEEE Transactions on Automatic
tions in the Digital Economy. 7th ed. New York: John
Control, Industrial Management and Data Systems and
Wiley and Sons.
Vaman JN (2007) ERP in Practice: ERP Strategies for Expert Sys- tems with Application. Contact: School of
Steering Organizational Competence and Competitive Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Penang,
Advantage. India: McGraw-Hill Education. Malaysia. Email: [email protected], Phone: (þ604) 653
Vermeeren AP, Law ELC, Roto V, Obrist M, Hoonhout J 2527
and Va¨a¨na¨nen-Vainio-Mattila K (2010) User
experience evaluation methods: Current state and Vito Veneziano is a senior lecturer in the School of Com-
development needs. 6th Nordic Conference on Human- puter Science at the University of Hertfordshire and an
Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries, Iceland, active consultant is software systems for business. His
October 16-20, 2010. 521–530. New York: ACM main interests are in requirements analysis and usability,
Press. system design and software development: in particular, he
Wang ETG, Shih S-P and Jiang JJ (2008) The consistency
focuses on how modelling and abstraction activities in
among facilitating factors and ERP implementation
suc- cess: A holistic view of fit. Journal of Systems and software engineering fit with agile methods. He teaches at
Soft- ware 81(9): 1609–1621. both undergraduate and postgraduate levels. Contact:
Winkelmann A and Leyh C (2010) Teaching ERP sys- University of Hertfordshire, Computer Science, Hatfield,
tems: A multi-perspective view on the ERP system Hertford- shire, United Kingdom. Email:
market. Journal of Information Systems Education [email protected]. Tel. þ44 (0)1707 284363.
21(2):233.
Yeh J (2006) Evaluating ERP performance from user per- Imran Mahmud is a senior lecturer at the Department of
spective. IEEE Asia-Pacific Conference on Services Software Engineering, Daffodil International University,
Computing (APSCC’06), Guangzhou, China, December Bangladesh. He obtained his masters degree in Software
12-15, 2006. 311–314. New York, IEEE. Engineering from the University of Hertfordshire, UK. At
the moment he is working as a graduate research assistant
About the authors at the School of Management in Universiti Sains
Wai-Peng Wong is a senior lecturer in operations at the Malaysia. His research interests are human-computer
School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia. She interaction, usability testing, software engineering
obtained her PhD in Industrial & Systems Engineering measurement / mod- els and management information
from the National University of Singapore. Her research systems. Contact: School of Management, Universiti Sains
interests include business process management and supply Malaysia, 11800 Penang, Malaysia. Email:
[email protected]. Phone:
(þ60)1126459539.