DETERMINANTS OF ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING SYSTEM UTILIZATION: AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF ORGANIZATIONS IN SRI LANKA

Cite this Article as : Kannangara, D. (2025). Determinants of Enterprise Resource Planning System Utilization: An Empirical Investigation of Organizations in Sri Lanka. International Journal of Business and Technology Studies and Research, v.7, n. 2, 23 pages, ISSN 2665-7716. DETERMINANTS OF ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING SYSTEM UTILIZATION: AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF ORGANIZATIONS IN SRI LANKA Dinuka Kannangara1 1Assistant Web Manager, University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka Abstract: Despite substantial investments in Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems, many organizations in developing countries struggle to achieve optimal utilization levels. This study investigates determinants of ERP system utilization among organizations in Sri Lanka, employing Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) theory and Technology-Organization-Environment (TOE) framework. A quantitative research design was adopted using stratified random sampling across multiple industries. Data were collected through structured questionnaires from 165 ERP users across 28 Sri Lankan organizations during September to October 2025. Multiple regression analysis examined relationships between six independent variables (compatibility, complexity, efficiency, best practices, training, and competitive pressure) and ERP utilization. Results revealed that competitive pressure (β = 0.316, p < 0.001) and compatibility (β = 0.221, p < 0.05) significantly and positively influence ERP utilization, collectively explaining 24.2% of variance (R² = 0.242, F = 8.408, p < 0.001). These findings highlight the primacy of external environmental pressures and system-organization fit. Key Words: Enterprise Resource Planning, ERP Utilization, Technology Adoption, Information Systems, Compatibility, Competitive Pressure International Journal of Business and Technology Studies and Research ISSN: 2665 - 7716 http:// www.ijbtsr.org Volume 7, Issue 2 - 2025 © International Journal of Business and Technology Studies and ResearchIJBTSR 2 1. INTRODUCTION Development of information technology and enterprise systems has become a fundamental aspect of modern business operations worldwide. Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems emerged as powerful tools that enable organizations to integrate their core business processes including finance, human resources, supply chain, manufacturing, and customer relationship management through unified databases and standardized workflows (Davenport, 1998; Klaus et al., 2000). The popularity of ERP systems has grown substantially, with the global market experiencing significant expansion driven by cloud-based deployment models and Industry 4.0 integration requirements (Panorama Consulting, 2019). At the same time, traditional enterprise systems have become essential infrastructure that many companies find necessary to maintain competitive advantage in this new digital business environment (Kumar & Van Hillegersberg, 2000). Moreover, the adoption of ERP systems has had a dramatic effect on how organizations manage their operations and resources. These advanced systems have enabled companies to streamline their business processes, improve decision-making through better data visibility, and enhance overall operational efficiency (Shang & Seddon, 2002). However, there has been a significant challenge in how organizations are utilizing these systems effectively, particularly in developing countries like Sri Lanka (Rajapakse & Seddon, 2005; Hawari & Heeks, 2010). Organizations nowadays recognize the importance of ERP systems, but many struggle to achieve optimal utilization levels despite substantial investments (Gattiker & Goodhue, 2005; Dezdar & Ainin, 2011). Today's business managers face the inevitable fact that if they cannot effectively implement and utilize ERP systems, they will ultimately fail to realize the expected benefits and competitive advantages these systems promise (Shang & Seddon, 2002; Nicolaou, 2004). 1.1 Background of the Study To achieve operational excellence and competitive advantage, most organizations intend to adopt ERP systems to integrate effectively their business processes. Enterprise Resource Planning is one of the most comprehensive information systems that organizations use to manage their operations efficiently (Laudon & Laudon, 2020). Sri Lankan business landscape has shown steady growth in technology adoption similar to global trends. Sri Lanka's enterprise system penetration has risen significantly over the past decade, and will continue to experience growth driven by digital transformation initiatives and competitive market pressures (Sri Lanka Export Development Board, 2019). According to industry reports, many Sri Lankan organizations across different sectors have invested in ERP systems (Panorama Consulting, 2020). To achieve this level of adoption, there must be strong factors influencing the utilization among organizations. Organizations invest in ERP systems by recognizing their potential benefits and showing commitment toward technology adoption, bringing firms higher operational efficiency, better resource management, and improved business performance (Hendricks et al., 2007; Hitt et al., 2002). The digital transformation of contemporary business operations has positioned ERP systems as fundamental infrastructure for organizational integration and efficiency (Davenport, 1998). With the increasing adoption of enterprise systems in Sri Lanka, the researcher hopes to find the important factors that influence ERP utilization among organizations. Identifying the main determinants of system utilization, the researcher hopes to investigate ERP adoption patterns and usage behaviors in the Sri Lankan context (Rajapakse & Seddon, 2005). 1.2 Problem statement As the researcher mentioned at the outset, the concept of ERP system utilization is important for organizations in Sri Lanka irrespective of their industry sector and organizational size, since it leads to improved business performance and competitive advantage (Nicolaou, 2004; Hunton et al., 2003). With the growing implementation of enterprise systems in Sri Lankan organizations, the researcher hopes to identify the key factors that influence ERP utilization among end users. Despite substantial investments in ERP system acquisition and implementation, many organizations fail to realize expected benefits due to suboptimal user adoption and utilization (Gattiker & Goodhue, 2005; Dezdar & Ainin, 2011). The technology adoption paradox where available technology remains underutilized despite organizational investment is particularly evident in developing countries like Sri Lanka (Avgerou, 2008). Research indicates that developing country contexts present unique challenges including limited IT infrastructure, constrained financial resources, cultural misalignment with Western-designed systems, insufficient technical expertise, and inadequate organizational change management capabilities (Shehab et al., 2004; Uwizeyemungu & Raymond, 2009). Identifying the main determinants of ERP utilization, the researcher hopes to investigate the factors affecting enterprise system adoption among Sri Lankan organizations. © International Journal of Business and Technology Studies and ResearchIJBTSR 3 1.3 Research Questions Research Question 01: Do technological factors including compatibility and complexity have a significant impact on ERP system utilization in Sri Lankan organizations? Research Question 02: Do organizational factors including training, best practices, and efficiency expectations have a significant impact on ERP system utilization in Sri Lankan organizations? Research Question 03: Do environmental factors including competitive pressure have a significant impact on ERP system utilization in Sri Lankan organizations? Research Question 04: What is the combined explanatory power of these determinants in predicting variance in ERP utilization among organizations? 1.4 Study Hypothesis Hypothesis 1: There is a significant positive relationship between perceived compatibility and ERP system utilization in Sri Lankan organizations (Rogers, 2003; Bradford & Florin, 2003) Hypothesis 2: There is a significant negative relationship between perceived complexity and ERP system utilization in Sri Lankan organizations (Rogers, 2003; Lee et al., 2010) Hypothesis 3: There is a significant positive relationship between perceived efficiency and ERP system utilization in Sri Lankan organizations (Davis, 1989; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) Hypothesis 4: There is a significant positive relationship between best practices awareness and ERP system utilization in Sri Lankan organizations (Nah et al., 2001; Teo et al., 2003) Hypothesis 5: There is a significant positive relationship between training adequacy and ERP system utilization in Sri Lankan organizations (Amoako-Gyampah & Salam, 2004; Bradley, 2008) Hypothesis 6: There is a significant positive relationship between competitive pressure and ERP system utilization in Sri Lankan organizations (Porter, 1985; Iacovou et al., 1995) 1.5 Research objectives • To determine whether perceived compatibility is a factor affecting ERP system utilization in Sri Lankan organizations • To examine whether perceived system complexity influences ERP utilization patterns among end users • To assess whether efficiency expectations affect ERP adoption behaviors in organizational settings • To investigate whether best practices awareness promotes ERP system usage • To evaluate whether training adequacy impacts end-user ERP engagement levels • To analyze whether competitive pressure influences organizational ERP utilization • To develop an integrated model explaining variance in ERP system utilization 1.6 Research hypothesis and Conceptual Framework This research study employs Rogers' (2003) Diffusion of Innovation theory as its primary theoretical framework along with the Technology-Organization-Environment framework (Tornatzky & Fleischer, 1990) to understand ERP system utilization. The Diffusion of Innovation theory has demonstrated strong explanatory power across diverse technology adoption contexts, including information systems implementations (Frambach & Schillewaert, 2002; Murray, 2009). The theory suggests that innovation adoption decisions are influenced by several key attributes of the innovation itself, organizational characteristics, and environmental factors (Rogers, 2003). The conceptual model of this study integrates technological factors (compatibility and complexity), organizational factors (training, best practices, and efficiency expectations), and environmental factors (competitive pressure) as independent variables that influence ERP system utilization as the dependent variable. This integrated approach provides a comprehensive framework to examine the multiple determinants affecting ERP adoption and usage behaviors in Sri Lankan organizations (Oliveira & Martins, 2011). Fig – 1: Conceptual model of the study H2:Complexity H3:Efficiency H4:Best Practices ERP USE Dependent Variable Independent Variables H5:Training H6:Competitiv e Pressure H1:Compatibility © International Journal of Business and Technology Studies and ResearchIJBTSR 4 1.7 Research methodology In order to conduct this study, primary data will be used and collected through a structured questionnaire developed by the researcher. This questionnaire will be distributed among ERP system users in various organizations across Sri Lanka, and the sample size is 165 respondents from 28 organizations. Stratified random sampling was used for data collection to ensure representation across different industries and organizational sizes (Bryman & Bell, 2015). For the analysis purpose of data, multiple regression analysis method is used, and therefore SPSS software will be utilized for statistical computations (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). 1.7.1 Research Type In order to accomplish the research objective, the researcher intends to select a sample of ERP users currently working in organizations in Sri Lanka which represents the population of enterprise system users. Due to the focused nature of the study on current system utilization patterns, the researcher will conduct a crosssectional research design that captures data at a single point in time (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). 1.7.2 Population The population considered for the research will be the ERP users working in organizations across Sri Lanka. Organizations from manufacturing, service, retail, and other sectors that have implemented ERP systems are included in the population. A sample of 165 respondents will be selected from organizations representing different industries, organizational sizes, and functional areas from this population. 1.7.3 Sample The researcher intends to obtain responses from 165 selected individuals representing ERP users from 28 organizations across different industry sectors in Sri Lanka. The sample includes users from various functional areas including finance, operations, human resources, supply chain, and management levels. The sample size was determined to ensure adequate statistical power for multiple regression analysis while maintaining feasibility within time and resource constraints (Green, 1991; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). 1.7.4 Sample Method The researcher has identified that stratified random sampling is the ideal type of sampling for this study. Organizations were first stratified based on industry sector and size, and then random sampling was employed to select participants within each stratum. This approach ensures that each industry sector and organizational size category is adequately represented in the final sample, providing better generalizability of findings across different organizational contexts (Bryman & Bell, 2015). 1.7.5 Data collection Method The researcher has collected primary data for the study by distributing a structured, self-administered questionnaire among selected ERP users in participating organizations. The questionnaire was designed to measure the independent variables (compatibility, complexity, efficiency, best practices, training, and competitive pressure) and the dependent variable (ERP utilization) using five-point Likert scales (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Data collection was conducted during working hours with permission from organizational management. 1.7.6 Data Analysis Method By using the structured questionnaires, the data is arranged in a proper manner and analyzed through multiple linear regression analysis to test the validity, reliability, and to establish quantifiable relationships among the factors considered. Preliminary data screening procedures including normality tests, multicollinearity diagnostics, and reliability analysis will be conducted to ensure data quality before hypothesis testing (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). Multiple regression analysis will be employed to examine the simultaneous effects of all independent variables on ERP utilization. 1.8 Contribution of the study This research study contributes significantly to both theoretical knowledge and practical understanding of ERP system utilization in developing country contexts. From a theoretical perspective, the study applies and validates the Diffusion of Innovation theory (Rogers, 2003) and Technology-Organization-Environment framework (Tornatzky & Fleischer, 1990) in the Sri Lankan context, addressing the gap in ERP research focused on developing economies (Huang & Palvia, 2001). The integrated model developed in this study provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the multiple determinants of system utilization beyond simple adoption decisions (Oliveira & Martins, 2011). From a practical standpoint, the findings will help organizations implementing ERP systems in Sri Lanka and similar developing economies to better understand the factors that drive successful system utilization. Management can use these insights to prioritize interventions that enhance user adoption and maximize return on ERP investments (Shang & Seddon, 2002). The research also provides guidance for ERP vendors and consultants working in emerging markets on how to better align their implementation strategies with local organizational contexts (Soh et al., 2000). © International Journal of Business and Technology Studies and ResearchIJBTSR 5 Additionally, this study fills an important gap in the literature by providing quantitative empirical evidence on ERP utilization determinants in the Sri Lankan context, where previous research has been limited to exploratory case studies (Rajapakse & Seddon, 2005). The findings contribute to the broader discourse on technology adoption in developing countries and offer insights relevant to other South Asian economies facing similar challenges (Avgerou, 2008). 1.9 Scope and Limitations of the Study This research focuses specifically on ERP system utilization among organizations that have already implemented enterprise systems in Sri Lanka. The study examines post-implementation usage patterns rather than initial adoption decisions (Markus & Tanis, 2000). The scope is limited to six key determinants identified through theoretical frameworks and prior literature, recognizing that other factors may also influence utilization. Several limitations should be noted. The cross-sectional design captures data at a single point in time, limiting the ability to establish causal relationships definitively (Bryman & Bell, 2015). The sample, while representative of major industry sectors, may not capture all nuances across the diverse Sri Lankan business landscape. Selfreported measures of utilization may be subject to social desirability bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Additionally, organizational and cultural factors specific to Sri Lanka may limit the generalizability of findings to other developing country contexts. 1.10 Organization of the Thesis This research study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One provides the introduction, background, problem statement, research questions, objectives, hypotheses, and methodology. Chapter Two presents a comprehensive literature review covering ERP systems, theoretical frameworks, and prior research on adoption determinants. Chapter Three details the research methodology including research design, sampling procedures, data collection methods, and analytical techniques. Chapter Four presents the data analysis and findings including descriptive statistics, reliability and validity assessments, and hypothesis testing results. Chapter Five concludes the study with discussion of findings, theoretical and practical implications, recommendations for practice, and suggestions for future research. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter presents a comprehensive review of the literature related to Enterprise Resource Planning systems, technology adoption theories, and factors influencing ERP utilization. The researcher begins by examining the conceptual foundations of ERP systems, followed by an exploration of relevant theoretical frameworks, and concludes with a detailed analysis of specific factors that may influence system utilization in organizational contexts. 2.1 Enterprise Resource Planning Systems 2.1.1 Understanding ERP Systems Enterprise Resource Planning systems represent integrated software packages that organizations use to manage their core business processes through unified databases and standardized workflows (Kumar & Van Hillegersberg, 2000; Laudon & Laudon, 2020). These systems have become essential tools for modern businesses seeking to improve operational efficiency and competitive advantage. Many researchers have defined ERP systems in various ways, but the common understanding is that these systems consolidate organizational information flows and enable real-time data sharing across different functional departments. Davenport (1998, p. 122) defines ERP as "an integrated software package composed of several modules, such as human resources, sales, finance, and production, which provide a seamless integration of all the information flowing through the company." The key characteristics that distinguish ERP systems from traditional information systems include integration of business processes through elimination of data redundancy, standardization of workflows based on industry best practices, real-time information processing that enables immediate updating across all modules, modular implementation options that provide flexibility based on organizational requirements, and scalability to accommodate organizational growth and increasing transaction volumes (Klaus et al., 2000). Major vendors in the global ERP market include SAP with flagship products SAP S/4HANA and SAP Business One, Oracle with Oracle E-Business Suite and Oracle NetSuite, Microsoft with Dynamics 365, Infor, and Epicor (Columbus, 2019; Gartner, 2020). 2.1.2 Evolution and Development of ERP The development of ERP systems can be traced back several decades starting from basic inventory management systems. In the early stages during the 1960s and 1970s, organizations used Material Requirements Planning (MRP) systems focused primarily on manufacturing resource optimization and production scheduling (Kumar & Van Hillegersberg, 2000). During the 1980s, Manufacturing Resource Planning (MRP II) systems expanded scope to include financial management, capacity planning, and shop floor control © International Journal of Business and Technology Studies and ResearchIJBTSR 6 alongside traditional inventory management (Monk & Wagner, 2013). The 1990s witnessed the emergence of comprehensive Enterprise Resource Planning systems that integrated all organizational functions including finance, human resources, sales, and manufacturing through unified platforms (Davenport, 1998). Major vendors including SAP and Oracle achieved market dominance during this period. The 2000s brought ERP II evolution which extended capabilities to include customer relationship management (CRM), supply chain management (SCM), business intelligence (BI), and e-commerce capabilities (Møller, 2005). The 2010s and beyond have seen transition to Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) deployment models, incorporation of artificial intelligence and machine learning capabilities, mobile accessibility, and Internet of Things (IoT) integration (Panorama Consulting, 2020). Current trends indicate continued evolution toward intelligent ERP systems incorporating predictive analytics, natural language processing, and blockchain technologies (Gartner, 2021). 2.1.3 ERP Utilization versus Implementation Success Academic literature distinguishes between ERP implementation success and post-implementation utilization (Gattiker & Goodhue, 2005; Nicolaou & Bhattacharya, 2008). Implementation success refers to completing the technical installation, configuration, and go-live processes within budget and timeline constraints (Markus & Tanis, 2000). Utilization, conversely, concerns the extent and effectiveness of actual system usage by end-users in conducting daily business activities (DeLone & McLean, 2003; Burton-Jones & Grange, 2013). Research demonstrates that successful implementation does not automatically translate to effective utilization (Devaraj & Kohli, 2003; Zhu & Kraemer, 2005). Organizations may successfully deploy ERP systems technically while experiencing poor user adoption, resulting in unrealized benefits and suboptimal return on investment (Shang & Seddon, 2002; Ifinedo et al., 2010). Studies emphasize that ERP value creation occurs primarily through sustained utilization rather than mere technical implementation (Venkatesh et al., 2012; Shahin & Ainin, 2011). Greater ERP utilization extent enables organizations to develop capabilities that are rare, inimitable, valuable, and sustainable, thereby contributing to competitive advantage (Devaraj & Kohli, 2003; Zhu & Kraemer, 2005). 2.1.4 ERP in Developing Country Contexts ERP adoption patterns in developing countries differ substantially from developed economy contexts due to several contextual factors (Huang & Palvia, 2001; Walsham, 2001). Limited financial resources constrain investment capacity and restrict implementation budgets (Shehab et al., 2004). Inadequate IT infrastructure including unreliable power supply and limited internet connectivity present technical challenges (Avgerou, 2008). Insufficient technical expertise and limited enduser computer literacy impede effective adoption (Uwizeyemungu & Raymond, 2009). Cultural misalignment between Western-designed systems and local organizational cultures creates adoption barriers (Soh et al., 2000; Davison, 2002). Limited locally available technical support and customization capabilities further complicate implementations (Rajapakse & Seddon, 2005). Research specifically examining Sri Lankan ERP adoption is limited. Rajapakse and Seddon (2005) conducted exploratory case studies identifying four primary barriers: high costs, cultural incompatibility, integration difficulties, and knowledge deficits. Their findings suggested that standard ERP packages designed for developed country contexts may be unsuitable for many Sri Lankan organizations without substantial customization. Hawari and Heeks (2010) investigated ERP failures in developing countries, identifying significant gaps between ERP system design assumptions and actual organizational realities. These design-actuality gaps, when left unaddressed during implementation, precipitate project failures and poor utilization outcomes. 2.1.5 ERP Utilization and Organizational Performance Substantial research establishes positive relationships between ERP utilization and organizational performance outcomes. Hendricks et al. (2007) found that ERP adopters experienced significant improvements in financial performance compared to non-adopters. Hitt et al. (2002) demonstrated that ERP investments generated positive returns through productivity improvements and business value creation. Nicolaou (2004) showed that firms with higher ERP utilization exhibited superior financial performance. These studies collectively suggest that realizing ERP benefits requires moving beyond mere implementation to achieving substantial system utilization across organizational processes. 2.2 Theoretical Foundations 2.2.1 Diffusion of Innovation Theory The Diffusion of Innovation theory developed by Rogers (1995, 2003) provides a valuable framework for understanding how organizations and individuals adopt new technologies. This theory suggests that innovation adoption is influenced by several key attributes of the innovation itself including relative advantage, © International Journal of Business and Technology Studies and ResearchIJBTSR 7 compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability. The researcher selected this theory as the primary theoretical foundation for this study because it has demonstrated strong explanatory power across various technology adoption contexts (Frambach & Schillewaert, 2002; Murray, 2009). According to the Diffusion of Innovation theory, individuals and organizations are more likely to adopt innovations that offer clear advantages over existing practices, align well with current values and needs, are simple to understand and use, can be tried before full commitment, and have visible results that others can observe (Rogers, 2003). These principles apply well to ERP system adoption where organizations must evaluate whether the substantial investment required will deliver expected benefits. The theory has been successfully applied in library and information science contexts (Majanja & Kiplangat, 2005) and various organizational innovation adoption scenarios. 2.2.2 Technology-Organization-Environment Framework The Technology-Organization-Environment framework developed by Tornatzky and Fleischer (1990) suggests that technology adoption decisions are influenced by three broad categories of factors. Technological factors relate to the characteristics of the innovation itself including its features, capabilities, and technical requirements. Organizational factors concern the internal organizational context including resources, structure, and managerial support. Environmental factors involve external pressures and opportunities facing the organization including competitive intensity, regulatory requirements, and market conditions (Iacovou et al., 1995; Zhu & Kraemer, 2005). The researcher combined the Diffusion of Innovation theory with the TOE framework to develop a comprehensive model that examines multiple determinants of ERP utilization. This integrated approach recognizes that technology adoption is influenced by both innovation characteristics and broader organizational and environmental contexts (Oliveira & Martins, 2011). The integration of these theoretical perspectives provides a more complete understanding of the complex factors affecting ERP adoption in organizational settings. 2.2.3 Technology Acceptance Model The Technology Acceptance Model developed by Davis (1989) represents another influential framework in technology adoption research. TAM suggests that perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use are primary determinants of technology acceptance and usage behaviors. Venkatesh and Davis (2000) extended TAM to incorporate additional factors including subjective norms and cognitive instrumental processes. Venkatesh et al. (2003) further developed the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) integrating multiple theoretical perspectives. While TAM has demonstrated strong predictive power across diverse contexts, some researchers have noted limitations in organizational mandatory-use contexts where volitional choice is constrained (Venkatesh et al., 2012). The researcher acknowledges TAM's contributions while recognizing that ERP adoption in organizational contexts may be influenced by broader institutional and environmental factors beyond individual perceptions captured in TAM constructs. 2.3 Factors Influencing ERP Utilization 2.3.1 Compatibility Compatibility represents the degree to which ERP systems align with organizational values, work practices, technical infrastructure, and business processes (Bradford & Florin, 2003). Research consistently demonstrates positive relationships between perceived compatibility and technology adoption (Ramdani et al., 2009; Oliveira & Martins, 2011). In ERP contexts, compatibility concerns multiple dimensions: technical compatibility with existing IT infrastructure, process compatibility with established workflows, and cultural compatibility with organizational values (Soh et al., 2000). Organizations experiencing higher compatibility between ERP capabilities and organizational requirements demonstrate greater adoption success and utilization levels (Nah et al., 2001; Nah et al., 2003). Bradford and Florin (2003) found that fit between ERP systems and organizational processes significantly influenced implementation success. Organizations achieving better alignment through customization or process reengineering experienced superior adoption outcomes. Conversely, poor fit between ERP logic and organizational realities has been identified as a primary cause of implementation failures (Hong & Kim, 2002). Cultural compatibility is particularly salient in developing country contexts where Western-designed ERP systems may conflict with local business practices and organizational cultures (Soh et al., 2000; Davison, 2002). Research in Asian contexts indicates that cultural misalignment creates substantial adoption barriers requiring careful management (Huang & Palvia, 2001). The researcher therefore expects that perceived compatibility will positively influence ERP utilization among Sri Lankan organizations. © International Journal of Business and Technology Studies and ResearchIJBTSR 8 Based on this evidence: H1: Perceived compatibility has a significant positive effect on ERP system use (Rogers, 2003; Bradford & Florin, 2003; Ramdani et al., 2009) 2.3.2 Complexity Complexity refers to the degree to which ERP systems are perceived as difficult to understand, learn, and use (Rogers, 2003). Information technology complexity has been identified as a consistent barrier to technology adoption across diverse contexts (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; Lee et al., 2010). ERP systems are inherently complex due to their integrated architecture, extensive functionality, and process standardization requirements (Klaus et al., 2000). This complexity manifests in multiple forms: technical complexity related to system configuration, functional complexity concerning business logic understanding, and cognitive complexity involving learning effort requirements (Keil et al., 2000). Research demonstrates that perceived complexity negatively influences technology adoption intentions and behaviors (Agarwal & Prasad, 1998; Venkatesh et al., 2003). Users perceiving systems as excessively complex experience higher cognitive burden, reduced self-efficacy, and lower adoption likelihood (Compeau & Higgins, 1995). However, some studies suggest complexity effects may be moderated by training adequacy and system usability improvements (Morris & Venkatesh, 2010). Modern ERP interfaces incorporating user experience design principles may have reduced traditional complexity barriers (Monk & Wagner, 2013). Nevertheless, the researcher expects that perceived complexity will negatively influence ERP utilization. Based on this evidence: H2: Perceived complexity has a significant negative effect on ERP system use (Rogers, 2003; Lee et al., 2010; Venkatesh et al., 2003) 2.3.3 Efficiency Expectations Efficiency perceptions relate to beliefs that ERP systems enhance job performance, reduce effort requirements, and improve operational effectiveness (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). Perceived efficiency aligns closely with the "usefulness" construct in Technology Acceptance Model research (Davis, 1989). Substantial evidence demonstrates that perceived usefulness/efficiency is among the strongest predictors of technology adoption across contexts (Venkatesh et al., 2003; AmoakoGyampah & Salam, 2004). Users who believe systems enhance performance and reduce effort are significantly more likely to adopt and utilize technology. In ERP contexts, efficiency benefits may include: faster transaction processing, reduced data entry duplication, improved information access, enhanced decision-making support, and automated workflow management (Shang & Seddon, 2002). Organizations achieving these efficiency gains demonstrate higher user satisfaction and sustained utilization (Ifinedo et al., 2010). The researcher therefore expects that perceived efficiency will positively influence ERP system usage. Based on this evidence: H3: Perceived efficiency has a significant positive effect on ERP system use (Davis, 1989; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; Amoako-Gyampah & Salam, 2004) 2.3.4 Best Practices Awareness Best practices awareness refers to knowledge of successful ERP implementation approaches, industry benchmarks, and proven adoption strategies (Teo et al., 2003). This factor relates to observability in DOI theory and mimetic isomorphism in institutional theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Organizations are more likely to adopt innovations when they observe successful implementation examples among peer organizations (Rogers, 2003). In ERP contexts, awareness of best practices and successful implementation cases reduces perceived uncertainty and increases adoption confidence (Nah et al., 2001). Organizations that follow recognized best practices achieve better implementation outcomes (Bradford & Florin, 2003). Loonam and McDonagh (2005) emphasized the importance of learning from successful implementations. The researcher expects that best practices awareness will positively influence ERP utilization. Based on this evidence: H4: Best practices awareness has a significant positive effect on ERP system use (Nah et al., 2001; Teo et al., 2003; Rogers, 2003) 2.3.5 Training Adequacy Training adequacy encompasses the comprehensiveness, quality, and accessibility of educational programs preparing users for ERP system engagement (Nah et al., 2004). Extensive research identifies training as a critical success factor for ERP implementation and sustained utilization (Amoako-Gyampah & Salam, 2004; Bradley, 2008). Training serves multiple functions in technology adoption: developing technical competence, enhancing self-efficacy, reducing anxiety, clarifying system benefits, and demonstrating organizational commitment (Compeau & Higgins, 1995; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). Comprehensive training programs positively influence both adoption intentions and actual usage behaviors (Morris & Venkatesh, 2010). Boudreau (2003) © International Journal of Business and Technology Studies and ResearchIJBTSR 9 demonstrated that learning to use ERP technology requires systematic training interventions. Organizations investing adequately in training achieve better user adoption and satisfaction (Bradley, 2008). The researcher therefore expects that training adequacy will positively influence ERP system utilization. Based on this evidence: H5: Training adequacy has a significant positive effect on ERP system use (AmoakoGyampah & Salam, 2004; Bradley, 2008; Nah et al., 2004) 2.3.6 Competitive Pressure Competitive pressure represents external environmental forces compelling organizations to adopt innovations to maintain competitive parity and strategic advantage (Porter, 1985; Iacovou et al., 1995). This factor aligns with coercive and mimetic isomorphism in institutional theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Organizations operating in highly competitive environments face stronger pressures to adopt innovations that provide operational efficiency, cost reduction, or market responsiveness advantages (Zhu & Kraemer, 2005). When competitors adopt ERP systems, non-adopters risk strategic disadvantages through inferior operational capabilities (Barney, 1991). Research demonstrates that competitive pressure significantly influences organizational technology adoption decisions (Iacovou et al., 1995; Teo et al., 2003; Zhu & Kraemer, 2005). Organizations adopt innovations not solely based on rational efficiency calculations but also due to institutional pressures and legitimacy concerns (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). The researcher expects that competitive pressure will positively influence ERP utilization. Based on this evidence: H6: Competitive pressure has a significant positive effect on ERP system use (Porter, 1985; Iacovou et al., 1995; Zhu & Kraemer, 2005) 2.4 Summary This chapter has reviewed the literature on Enterprise Resource Planning systems, theoretical frameworks for technology adoption, and specific factors that may influence ERP utilization. The Diffusion of Innovation theory (Rogers, 2003) and Technology-OrganizationEnvironment framework (Tornatzky & Fleischer, 1990) provide strong theoretical foundations for examining ERP adoption. The researcher identified six key factors (compatibility, complexity, efficiency, best practices, training, and competitive pressure) that may influence ERP utilization based on prior research evidence. The next chapter will describe the research methodology employed to investigate these relationships empirically. 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This chapter describes the research methodology employed by the researcher to investigate the determinants of ERP system utilization among organizations in Sri Lanka. The researcher explains the research design, population and sampling procedures, data collection methods, measurement instruments, and data analysis techniques used in this study. 3.1 Research Design The researcher adopted a quantitative research approach to examine the relationships between independent variables (compatibility, complexity, efficiency, best practices, training, and competitive pressure) and the dependent variable (ERP utilization). The researcher selected a cross-sectional research design that collects data at a single point in time from multiple organizations and users (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The cross-sectional approach is appropriate for this study because it allows the researcher to examine relationships across diverse organizational contexts while remaining feasible within time and resource constraints (Bryman & Bell, 2015). While longitudinal designs would enable stronger causal inferences by tracking changes over time, the cross-sectional design is sufficient for the researcher's objective of identifying significant relationships between variables. 3.2 Population The population for this research consists of ERP users working in organizations across Sri Lanka. The researcher focused on end-users who actively interact with ERP systems as part of their daily job responsibilities. Organizations included in the population are those that have completed ERP implementation and are currently in operational use phases, meaning the systems have been live for at least six months post go-live (Markus & Tanis, 2000). The population includes both private and public sector organizations across multiple industry sectors including manufacturing, financial services, retail distribution, professional services, and government entities. The researcher ensured diversity in organizational size categories ranging from small organizations with fewer than 50 employees to large organizations with more than 250 employees. 3.3 Sampling Method and Sample Size 3.3.1 Sampling Method The researcher employed stratified random sampling to select participants for this study. Organizations were first stratified based on industry sector and organizational size © International Journal of Business and Technology Studies and ResearchIJBTSR 16 significant a barrier to utilization as traditionally assumed, at least in contemporary ERP implementations where training and support are adequately provided. 5.1.4 Unexpected Results for Efficiency Perceptions The non-significant relationship between perceived efficiency and ERP use (β = 0.051, p = 0.581) represents the most counterintuitive finding in this research. Previous research has consistently identified perceived usefulness as one of the strongest predictors of technology adoption (Davis, 1989; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; Venkatesh et al., 2003). The researcher expected similar results for ERP utilization but the data showed otherwise. The researcher offers several possible explanations for this unexpected finding. First, the relationship between efficiency perceptions and usage may be reciprocal rather than unidirectional (Venkatesh et al., 2012). Users may develop efficiency perceptions after extended usage rather than efficiency perceptions driving initial usage. Second, in organizational contexts where ERP use is mandatory, efficiency beliefs may play a smaller role because users must engage with systems regardless of perceived benefits (Morris & Venkatesh, 2010). Third, users may recognize long-term strategic and competitive benefits of ERP systems without necessarily perceiving immediate efficiency gains in their daily work activities (Shang & Seddon, 2002). The benefits may accrue at organizational levels rather than individual task levels (Nicolaou, 2004; Hendricks et al., 2007). Fourth, measurement timing may influence results since efficiency perceptions may develop gradually over extended usage periods (Ifinedo et al., 2010). 5.1.5 Limited Role of Best Practices and Training The non-significant relationship between best practices awareness and ERP use (β = 0.025, p = 0.747) suggests that simply being aware of successful implementation examples does not strongly influence individual user adoption behaviors. This may indicate that best practices knowledge operates more at organizational decisionmaking levels rather than individual user levels (Nah et al., 2001). While Rogers (2003) emphasizes observability as important for adoption, the researcher's findings suggest this may apply more to organizational-level adoption decisions than individual user utilization behaviors. Training showed a marginally positive relationship (β = 0.152, p = 0.130) that approached but did not achieve statistical significance. While the researcher expected a stronger effect based on prior research (AmoakoGyampah & Salam, 2004; Bradley, 2008), the positive direction suggests that training remains important for supporting utilization even if not statistically significant in this particular sample. Organizations should continue investing in comprehensive training programs as part of their implementation strategies (Nah et al., 2004; Boudreau, 2003). 5.2 Theoretical Contributions This research makes several important contributions to academic knowledge. First, the study extends Diffusion of Innovation theory (Rogers, 2003) application to ERP systems in developing country contexts, specifically South Asian environments that have been understudied in previous research (Huang & Palvia, 2001; Rajapakse & Seddon, 2005). Second, the integration of Diffusion of Innovation and Technology-Organization-Environment frameworks (Tornatzky & Fleischer, 1990) demonstrates the value of multi-theoretical approaches to understanding technology adoption (Oliveira & Martins, 2011). Third, the finding that environmental factors play a more significant role than technological and organizational factors challenges some conventional assumptions in technology acceptance research (Davis, 1989; Venkatesh et al., 2003). This aligns more closely with institutional theory perspectives (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) than rational choice models. Fourth, the study highlights important differences between implementation success and post-implementation utilization (Markus & Tanis, 2000; Gattiker & Goodhue, 2005), suggesting that factors influencing these two phases may differ substantially. 5.3 Practical Implications 5.3.1 For Organizations Implementing ERP Systems Based on the research findings, the researcher recommends that organizations should prioritize systemorganization compatibility assessment during ERP vendor selection phases (Hong & Kim, 2002; Bradford & Florin, 2003). Organizations should invest substantial effort evaluating how well prospective systems align with existing business processes before making purchase decisions. Organizations should monitor competitors' ERP capabilities and recognize that competitive positioning considerations justify ERP investments even when immediate efficiency benefits are not apparent (Porter, 1985; Zhu & Kraemer, 2005). Organizations should develop comprehensive change management strategies that emphasize both competitive necessity and strategic alignment rather than focusing solely on efficiency benefits (Shang & Seddon, 2002). © International Journal of Business and Technology Studies and ResearchIJBTSR 17 Organizations should continue investing in comprehensive training programs even though the statistical effect was only marginal in this study (AmoakoGyampah & Salam, 2004; Bradley, 2008). Training remains valuable for building user competence and confidence during implementation and ongoing operations (Compeau & Higgins, 1995). 5.3.2 For ERP Vendors and Consultants ERP vendors and consultants working in developing country markets like Sri Lanka should invest in localization efforts that go beyond simple language translation (Soh et al., 2000; Davison, 2002). Systems should be adapted to align with local business practices, regulatory requirements, and cultural preferences to improve compatibility (Huang & Palvia, 2001; Rajapakse & Seddon, 2005). Vendors should continue simplifying user interfaces and improving system usability to reduce complexity concerns (Monk & Wagner, 2013). Marketing and implementation strategies should emphasize competitive necessity arguments alongside efficiency benefits when communicating value propositions to prospective clients (Iacovou et al., 1995). Vendors should develop industry-specific versions that address unique requirements of different sectors rather than relying solely on generic enterprise packages (Shehab et al., 2004). 5.4 Limitations of the Study While the sample size of 165 respondents is adequate for the multiple regression analysis employed in this study, future research using more complex analytical techniques such as Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) would require larger sample sizes (typically 300+) to ensure stable parameter estimation for measurement and structural models. The researcher acknowledges several limitations of this research. First, the cross-sectional research design limits the ability to establish definitive causal relationships (Bryman & Bell, 2015). Longitudinal research designs tracking users over extended periods would provide stronger evidence about how determinants influence adoption over time. Second, all variables were measured through selfreported perceptual scales rather than objective behavioral metrics (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Future research incorporating actual system usage data from server logs would strengthen findings and reduce common method bias concerns. Third, the research focused exclusively on Sri Lankan organizations, limiting generalizability to other developing country contexts or developed economies (Walsham, 2001). Cultural and contextual factors specific to Sri Lanka may influence results (Avgerou, 2008). Fourth, the regression model explained only 24.2% of variance in ERP utilization, indicating that 75.8% is attributable to factors not examined in this study. Other potentially important factors include organizational culture, top management support (Loonam & McDonagh, 2005), user characteristics such as computer self-efficacy (Compeau & Higgins, 1995), and system quality (DeLone & McLean, 2003). 5.5 Recommendations for Future Research Based on the findings and limitations of this study, the researcher proposes several directions for future research. First, longitudinal studies that track ERP users from pre-implementation through extended postimplementation periods would provide better understanding of how determinants influence adoption over time and whether relationships change across implementation phases (Markus & Tanis, 2000). Second, future research should incorporate additional variables including organizational factors such as top management support (Loonam & McDonagh, 2005) and organizational culture (Davison, 2002), user characteristics such as computer self-efficacy (Compeau & Higgins, 1995) and resistance to change, and system characteristics such as quality and usability (DeLone & McLean, 2003). Third, research examining mediating and moderating mechanisms would enhance understanding (Venkatesh et al., 2012). For example, how does training influence the relationship between complexity and usage? Does the importance of compatibility differ across organizational types or industry sectors? These questions merit investigation. Fourth, incorporating objective usage measures from system logs showing actual usage frequency, duration, and feature utilization would complement perceptual measures and provide more robust evidence (BurtonJones & Grange, 2013). This would address common method bias concerns (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Fifth, cross-cultural comparative research conducting parallel studies across multiple developing countries would improve understanding of how cultural and contextual factors influence ERP adoption patterns (Huang & Palvia, 2001; Walsham, 2001). Sixth, qualitative research methods including interviews and case studies would help explore the unexpected findings regarding efficiency and complexity in greater depth (Rajapakse & Seddon, 2005; Hawari & Heeks, © International Journal of Business and Technology Studies and ResearchIJBTSR 18 2010). Understanding why these factors did not demonstrate expected effects would provide valuable insights. 5.6 Conclusion This research study was conducted to investigate the determinants of ERP system utilization among organizations in Sri Lanka. The researcher collected data from 165 ERP users across 28 organizations representing diverse industry sectors and organizational sizes. Multiple regression analysis revealed that competitive pressure (β = 0.316, p < 0.001) and compatibility (β = 0.221, p = 0.027) significantly influence ERP utilization, collectively explaining 24.2% of variance. The findings highlight the importance of external environmental pressures and system-organization fit as primary drivers of ERP adoption in the Sri Lankan context (Porter, 1985; Iacovou et al., 1995; Rogers, 2003). Traditional factors emphasized in technology acceptance literature including perceived efficiency, complexity, and best practices played surprisingly limited roles in influencing utilization patterns, challenging conventional assumptions from Davis (1989) and Venkatesh et al. (2003). For practitioners, this research provides evidence-based guidance emphasizing the importance of compatibility assessment during ERP selection (Bradford & Florin, 2003), recognition of competitive pressures as legitimate drivers of adoption (Zhu & Kraemer, 2005), and continued investment in comprehensive training programs (Amoako-Gyampah & Salam, 2004). For ERP vendors, the findings suggest that localization and customization for developing country markets remains essential (Soh et al., 2000; Huang & Palvia, 2001). The researcher hopes that this study contributes to both academic understanding and practical implementation of ERP systems in developing country contexts. As Sri Lanka and similar emerging economies continue their digital transformation journeys, empirical evidence regarding technology adoption patterns becomes increasingly valuable for informing both organizational decisions and public policy initiatives (Avgerou, 2008; Sri Lanka Export Development Board, 2019). 5.7 Summary This final chapter has discussed the research findings and their implications. The researcher interpreted the significant effects of competitive pressure (Porter, 1985; Iacovou et al., 1995) and compatibility (Rogers, 2003; Bradford & Florin, 2003) while exploring possible explanations for unexpected findings regarding complexity (Rogers, 2003) and efficiency (Davis, 1989). Theoretical contributions, practical implications, limitations, and recommendations for future research were presented. The research demonstrates that environmental pressures and system-organization alignment are primary drivers of ERP utilization in Sri Lankan contexts, providing valuable insights for both academic researchers and practicing managers implementing enterprise systems. References Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology. Information Systems Research, 9(2), 204-215. Amoako-Gyampah, K., & Salam, A. F. (2004). An extension of the technology acceptance model in an ERP implementation environment. Information & Management, 41(6), 731-745. Avgerou, C. (2008). Information systems in developing countries: A critical research review. Journal of Information Technology, 23(3), 133-146. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. Boudreau, M. C. (2003). Learning to use ERP technology: A causal model. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE. Bradford, M., & Florin, J. (2003). Examining the role of innovation diffusion factors on the implementation success of enterprise resource planning systems. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 4(3), 205-225. Bradley, J. (2008). Management based critical success factors in the implementation of enterprise resource planning systems. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 9(3), 175-200. Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2015). Business research methods (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. Burton-Jones, A., & Grange, C. (2013). From use to effective use: A representation theory perspective. Information Systems Research, 24(3), 632-658. Columbus, L. (2019). 2019 Gartner magic quadrant for ERP. Forbes Technology Council. Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer selfefficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189-211. © International Journal of Business and Technology Studies and ResearchIJBTSR 19 Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. Davenport, T. H. (1998). Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system. Harvard Business Review, 76(4), 121131. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. Davison, R. M. (2002). Cultural complications of ERP. Communications of the ACM, 45(7), 109-111. DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9-30. Devaraj, S., & Kohli, R. (2003). Performance impacts of information technology: Is actual usage the missing link? Management Science, 49(3), 273-289. Dezdar, S., & Ainin, S. (2011). The influence of organizational factors on successful ERP implementation. Management Decision, 49(6), 911-926. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160. Esteves, J., & Pastor, J. (2001). Enterprise resource planning systems research: An annotated bibliography. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 7(8), 1-52. Frambach, R. T., & Schillewaert, N. (2002). Organizational innovation adoption: A multi-level framework of determinants and opportunities for future research. Journal of Business Research, 55(2), 163-176. Gartner. (2020). Magic quadrant for cloud ERP for product-centric enterprises. Gartner Research. Gartner. (2021). Top strategic technology trends for 2021. Gartner Research. Gattiker, T. F., & Goodhue, D. L. (2005). What happens after ERP implementation: Understanding the impact of interdependence and differentiation on plant-level outcomes. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 559-585. Green, S. B. (1991). How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis? Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26(3), 499-510. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson. Hawari, A., & Heeks, R. (2010). Explaining ERP failure in developing countries: A Jordanian case study. Development Informatics Working Paper Series, 45, 1-36. Hendricks, K. B., Singhal, V. R., & Stratman, J. K. (2007). The impact of enterprise systems on corporate performance: A study of ERP, SCM, and CRM system implementations. Journal of Operations Management, 25(1), 65-82. Hitt, L. M., Wu, D. J., & Zhou, X. (2002). Investment in enterprise resource planning: Business impact and productivity measures. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(1), 71-98. Hong, K. K., & Kim, Y. G. (2002). The critical success factors for ERP implementation: An organizational fit perspective. Information & Management, 40(1), 25-40. Huang, Z., & Palvia, P. (2001). ERP implementation issues in advanced and developing countries. Business Process Management Journal, 7(3), 276-284. Hunton, J. E., Lippincott, B., & Reck, J. L. (2003). Enterprise resource planning systems: Comparing firm performance of adopters and nonadopters. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 4(3), 165-184. Iacovou, C. L., Benbasat, I., & Dexter, A. S. (1995). Electronic data interchange and small organizations: Adoption and impact of technology. MIS Quarterly, 19(4), 465-485. Ifinedo, P., Rapp, B., Ifinedo, A., & Sundberg, K. (2010). Relationships among ERP post-implementation success constructs: An analysis at the organizational level. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 1136-1148. Keil, M., Beranek, P. M., & Konsynski, B. R. (2000). Usefulness and ease of use: Field study evidence regarding task considerations. Decision Support Systems, 13(1), 75-91. Klaus, H., Rosemann, M., & Gable, G. G. (2000). What is ERP? Information Systems Frontiers, 2(2), 141-162. Kumar, K., & Van Hillegersberg, J. (2000). ERP experiences and evolution. Communications of the ACM, 43(4), 22-26. Laudon, K. C., & Laudon, J. P. (2020). Management information systems: Managing the digital firm (16th ed.). Pearson. Lee, D. Y., Kwon, B. R., & Moon, J. W. (2010). Effects of individual characteristics and system complexity on intention to adopt ERP systems. International Journal of Digital Content Technology and Its Applications, 4(9), 108-117. Loonam, J., & McDonagh, J. (2005). Exploring top management support for the introduction of enterprise © International Journal of Business and Technology Studies and ResearchIJBTSR 20 information systems: A literature review. Irish Journal of Management, 26(1), 163-177. Majanja, M. K., & Kiplangat, J. (2005). Diffusion of innovations theory as a theoretical framework in library and information science research. South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science, 71(2), 211-224. Markus, M. L., & Tanis, C. (2000). The enterprise systems experience---From adoption to success. In R. W. Zmud (Ed.), Framing the domains of IT research: Glimpsing the future through the past (pp. 173-207). Pinnaflex Educational Resources. Møller, C. (2005). ERP II: A conceptual framework for next-generation enterprise systems? Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 18(4), 483-497. Monk, E. F., & Wagner, B. J. (2013). Concepts in enterprise resource planning (4th ed.). Course Technology Press. Morris, M. G., & Venkatesh, V. (2010). Job characteristics and job satisfaction: Understanding the role of enterprise resource planning system implementation. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 143-161. Murray, C. E. (2009). Diffusion of innovation theory: A bridge for the research-practice gap in counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 87(1), 108-116. Nah, F. F. H., Lau, J. L. S., & Kuang, J. (2001). Critical factors for successful implementation of enterprise systems. Business Process Management Journal, 7(3), 285-296. Nah, F. F. H., Zuckweiler, K. M., & Lau, J. L. S. (2003). ERP implementation: Chief information officers' perceptions of critical success factors. International Journal of HumanComputer Interaction, 16(1), 5-22. Nah, F. F. H., Tan, X., & Teh, S. H. (2004). An empirical investigation on end-users' acceptance of enterprise systems. Information Resources Management Journal, 17(3), 32-53. Nicolaou, A. I. (2004). Firm performance effects in relation to the implementation and use of enterprise resource planning systems. Journal of Information Systems, 18(2), 79-105. Nicolaou, A. I., & Bhattacharya, S. (2008). Sustainability of ERPs performance outcomes: The role of postimplementation review quality. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 9(1), 43-60. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill. Oliveira, T., & Martins, M. F. (2011). Literature review of information technology adoption models at firm level. Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation, 14(1), 110-121. Panorama Consulting. (2019). 2019 ERP report: Key insights on ERP systems and implementations. Panorama Consulting Solutions. Panorama Consulting. (2020). 2020 ERP report. Panorama Consulting Solutions. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. Free Press. Rajapakse, J., & Seddon, P. B. (2005). Why ERP may not be suitable for organizations in developing countries in Asia. In Proceedings of the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1382-1388). Ramdani, B., Kawalek, P., & Lorenzo, O. (2009). Predicting SMEs' adoption of enterprise systems. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 22(1/2), 10-24. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). Free Press. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press. Shang, S., & Seddon, P. B. (2002). Assessing and managing the benefits of enterprise systems: The business manager's perspective. Information Systems Journal, 12(4), 271-299. Shahin, A., & Ainin, S. (2011). The adoption of enterprise resource planning (ERP) within the Iranian construction small and medium enterprises. International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, 10(4), 495-507. Shehab, E. M., Sharp, M. W., Supramaniam, L., & Spedding, T. A. (2004). Enterprise resource planning: An integrative review. Business Process Management Journal, 10(4), 359-386. Soh, C., Kien, S. S., & Tay-Yap, J. (2000). Cultural fits and misfits: Is ERP a universal solution? Communications of the ACM, 43(4), 47-51. Sri Lanka Export Development Board. (2019). Annual report 2019. Colombo, Sri Lanka. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson. Teo, H. H., Wei, K. K., & Benbasat, I. (2003). Predicting intention to adopt interorganizational linkages: An institutional perspective. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 19-49. © International Journal of Business and Technology Studies and ResearchIJBTSR 21 Tornatzky, L. G., & Fleischer, M. (1990). The processes of technological innovation. Lexington Books. Uwizeyemungu, S., & Raymond, L. (2009). Exploring an alternative method of evaluating the effects of ERP: A multiple case study. Journal of Information Technology, 24(3), 251-268. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157-178. Walsham, G. (2001). Making a world of difference: IT in a global context. Wiley. Zhu, K., & Kraemer, K. L. (2005). Post-adoption variations in usage and value of e-business by organizations: Crosscountry evidence from the retail industry. Information Systems Research, 16(1), 61-84. Appendix Questioner Section 1Demographic Information Position/ Destination: Gender: (a) male (b) Female Age (years) Work experience on the employment (years) (Month): Duration of ERP Experience; (Year) • Less than 1 year • 1-5 Years • 5-10 Years • 10-15 years • More than 15 Years Division • Finance / Accounts • HRM • Auditing • IT • Marketing /Sales • Maintenance /Service • Distribution • Manufacturing • Any other: (Please specify) Level of Education • A/L • Certificate /Diploma • Degree • Post Graduate Section 2: Institutional details 1. Name of the organization : 2. Please identify the primary industry your organization is dealing with: • Aerospace & defiance • Pharmaceutical • Professional services • Chemical • Higher educational • Publishing & printing • Consumer goods • Leisure and hospitality • Retail Estate • Distribution • Manufacturing • Telecommunication • Engineering and cons. • Media and entertainment • Transport Services • Banking • Mining and metal • Utility • Insurance • Oil and gas • Whole sale • Financial Services • Other non-profit • Health care • Other please specify: 3. What is the software information systems that your organization is using presently? • 240Seven Office • Lawson Financials • ORION • AccPac • MFG/PRO • Peoplessoft • BAAN • Microsoft Dynamics • Ramco e. Applications • BPCS • MXP • Sage MAS 500 • PCOR Enterprise • NetERP • SAP/ R3 • kVASy4 • Oracle © International Journal of Business and Technology Studies and ResearchIJBTSR 22 • Syteline • Other (Please Specify): Section 3: Constructs of hypothetic research model and scale design for the questionnaire. 1 = Strongly Disagree (SD), 2 = Disagree (D), 3 = Neutral (N =Neither disagree nor agree), 4 = Agree (A), and 5 = Strongly Agree (SA). Compatibility – Please rate degree to which 1 2 3 4 5 A1 Your System is compatible with others software A2 Your System is compatible with others hardware A3 Your System is compatible with others networks Complexity – According to user’s interaction with ERP 1 2 3 4 5 B1 The existing ERP system easy, it is for you to learn the system B2 High intuitive (natural) is to you use the system B3 Very comfortable to you feel in using it Efficiency –according to your interaction with ERP 1 2 3 4 5 C1 High efficiency in executing (performing) repetitive tasks C2 Very high effectiveness of your interface (boundary) C3 High speed and reliability of the System Best Practices – According to ERP standard package (best practices) fitting firm’s processes 1 2 3 4 5 D1 The users set up the application. D2 I can map workflows based on local recruitments( Such as VAT , SEPA) D3 High system adaptability to business needs Training – Please rate the degree to which training Programme make sure use 1 2 3 4 5 E1 Are being trained on the system? E2 High understand about the content training material E3 The company was navigate through the topic formats applied to daily tasks Competitive pressure 1 2 3 4 5 F1 Your Firm has experienced competitive pleasure to use ERP F2 Your firm would have experienced competitive disadvantage if ERP had not be adopted F3 The ERP usage in your firm’s competitors effect your market Collaboration – according to users’ interaction with ERP 1 2 3 4 5 G1 High collaborate with colleagues G2 High collaborate with the system G3 Good communicate with suppliers , partners, and customers Analytics – according to ERP system, 1 2 3 4 5 H1 Very comprehensive reporting ( KPIs, Dashboards, etc.) H2 Real time access to information H3 Data visibility across departments © International Journal of Business and Technology Studies and ResearchIJBTSR 23 ERP Value (Firm performance ) 1 2 3 4 5 I1 User satisfaction I2 Individual productivity I3 Customer satisfaction I4 Management control ERP use - According to ERP usage how 1 2 3 4 5 J1 Many employees use the system daily J2 Much time per day to employees work with the system J3 Many reports are generated per day