OJRE Home

2020 - Volume 3 - Number 1

ERP Adoption Using Technology Acceptance Model: Case of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Ensar Mekić * ensar.mekic@ibu.edu.ba * ORCID: 0000-0002-1419-8308
International Burch University, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, Sarajevo, BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Belmin Hadžimusić
International Burch University, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, Sarajevo, BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Open Journal for Research in Economics, 2020, 3(1), 33-42 * https://doi.org/10.32591/coas.ojre.0301.04033m
Received: 18 April 2020 ▪ Accepted: 4 June 2020 ▪ Published Online: 5 June 2020

LICENCE: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

ARTICLE (Full Text - PDF)

ABSTRACT:
Even though the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) technologies have been significantly addressed in managerial literature, few studies investigated the topic in context of Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H). This study explores the ERP technologies adoption using a Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Accordingly, effects of Perceived Ease of Use and Perceived Usefulness on Behavioral Intention and Actual Use of ERP technologies in B&H will be investigated. Valid and reliable structured survey has been prepared and delivered to companies in B&H which are using ERP technologies. Based on the recent literature, first order structural equation model has been proposed and tested. In total, 82 questionnaire responses have been collected from companies in B&H which are using ERP technologies. Factory data analysis has been performed to purify scales through items’ loadings and Cronbach’s Alpha values. The scales were also tested for Convergent validity through partial least-square path modelling using Smart PLS 3 software. Results indicated that effects of Perceived Ease of Use on Behavioral Intention and Perceived Usefulness are significant and positive. Business Innovativeness has significant effects on Actual ERP System Use while Perceived Usefulness does not appear to be predictor of Behavioral Intention.

KEY WORDS: Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H).

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:
Ensar Mekić, International Burch University, Francuske Revolucije bb, 71210 Ilidža, Sarajevo, BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA. E-mail: ensar.mekic@ibu.edu.ba.

REFERENCES:

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall.

Amornkitpinyo, T., & Piriyasurawong, P. (2017). Causal relationship model of the information and communication technology skill affect the technology acceptance process in the 21st century for undergraduate students. iJET, 10(1), 70.

Becker, J.-M., & Wetzels, M. (2012). Hierarchical latent variable models in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for using reflective-formative type models. Long Range Planning, 45, 359-394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2012.10.001

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the structure of tests. Psychometric, 297-334.

Cronbach, L., & Richard, J. (2004). My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(3), 391-418.

Davenport, T. (1998). Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system—if youre not careful the dream of information integration can turn into a nightmare. Harvard Business, 121-131.

Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. OAI.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 319-340.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable Variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 39-50.

Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle River.

Hair, J., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C., & Gudergan, S. (2017). A primer on Partial LeastSquares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D., & Calantone, R. (2014). Common beliefs and reality about PLS: Comments on Ronkko and Evermann (2013). Organizational Research Methods, 17(2), 182-209.

Mac Callum, K., Jeffrey, L., & Kinshuk. (2014). Factors impacting teachers’ adoption of mobile learning. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 13, 141-162. Retrieved from http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol13/JITEv13ResearchP141-162MacCallum0455.pdf.

Nakayima, J. K. (2011). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, behavioural intention to use and actual system usage in Centenary Bank. Makerere University: Institutional Repository.

Raymond, O. (2019). Analysis of actual system use from Bukareksa Mutual Fund Feature Using Technology Acceptance Model. In International Conference on Information Management and Technology (ICIMTech) (pp. 1-7). Bali.

Ross, J., & Vitale, M. R. (2000). The ERP revolution: Surviving vs thriving. Information Systems Frontiers, 233-240.

Sanchez, G. (2013). PLS path modeling with R. Berkeley: Trowchez editions. Retrieved from http://www.gastonsanchez.com/PLS Path Modeling with R.pdf.

Schmiedel, T., Brocke, J., & Recker, J. (2014). Development and validation of an instrument to measure organizational cultures’ support of Business Process Management. Information & Management, 43-56.

Skopak, A. (2016). Analysis of ERP for medium sized enterprises in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Lambert Academic Publishing.

Warshaw, P. R., & Davis, F. D. (1985). Disentangling behavioral intention and behavioral expectation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 213-228.

Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & Oppen, C. (2009). Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS Quarterly, 33(1), 177-195.