Due to intensive market competition and the advancement of
Information Technology (IT), Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) has been
implemented by organizations in developed countries such as the United
States and Western Europe (Chung et al., 2008; Ifinedo, 2009) since late
1990. Today, many organizations in emerging countries such as China,
Thailand, Egypt, and Jordan have accelerated the implementation of ERP
systems (Kanthawongs & Kini, 2003; Ngai et al., 2008; Sawah et al.,
2008; WorldBankReport, 2010). ERP is a complex software or concept based
on business processes integrating to automate the flows among different
functions such as finance, accounting, and materials management within
an organization using a shared database (Wei, 2008). Then, the economic
growth of emerging countries in Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe
has made these regions become attractive targets of ERP software vendors
(Sawah et al., 2008; BusinessNewsAmericasReport, 2010;
ReportLinkerReport, 2010). Nevertheless, the implementation of ERP
systems in developed and emerging countries are unlikely to follow the
same implemented pattern since infrastructure, research and development
capacity, labor cost, skill base, and government of the two groups are
significantly different. For example, the internet infrastructure of
Thailand (as an emerging country) is far different from that of the USA
(which is a developed country) because 24.4% of Thai population in 2008
is Internet users (NectecReport, 2010), while 74.1% of the US population
is Internet users (InternetWorldStatsReport, 2010a, 2010b). However, the
industrial production growth rate of Thailand is much higher than that
of the USA. The industrial production growth rate of Thailand is 5.4%,
while that of the USA is 0.5% (InternetWorldStatsReport, 2010b). Then,
this paper is proposed a conceptual model of different cultural
dimensions influencing user satisfaction for ERP users in Thailand.
2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT
Many researchers have pointed out that the popular ERP packages
developed by Western countries, though based on good business models,
may not fit the requirements of other organizations. For example, Soh et
al. (2000) emphasized that the "misfit" examples should be
recognized in the unique Asian context when adopting ERP systems,
especially when the business models originated from Western practices
(Soh et al., 2000). Specifically, they suggested that the specific data,
functional, and output issues were the basic categorization of misfits
in the Asian context. In cultural context incorporating organizational
practices different than those faced in North America or Western Europe,
there could be substantial barriers associated with the reengineering of
local practices and processes, as was the case with the Chinese
communities of Southeast Asia (Davison, 2002b). Sheu et al. (2004)
recommended that national differences such as national cultures,
languages, management styles, politics, regulations, customs, etc. could
affect the way of doing businesses in each country. The ERP
implementation in China has not fully perceived as positively by Chinese
managers and end-users as it is by their business counterparts in the
USA (Ngai et al., 2008). Unique Asian context concerning cultures may
not fit the existing business process models of the Western practices
(Al-Mashari, et al., 2003; Zhang, et al., 2005). Based on
Hofstede's (2001) definition of well-known national cultural
dimension (power distance, collectivism vs. individualism, femininity
vs. masculinity and uncertainty avoidance), one can apply to make
comparisons in Table 1.
Employees are trusted to use information responsibly in the
"open" system. Therefore, ERP is designed to be transparent
systems, with all authorized users to access most, if not all, parts of
a system. Nevertheless, in some cultures, a much stricter control of
access to information is inevitable, often on a need-to-know basis
(Martinsons, 1991). The reengineering of organization processes and the
subsequent implementation of ERP software relates to changes in job
descriptions and required skills. Accounting clerks in emerging country
like China often are trained with skills for task workers instead of
knowledge workers (Davison, 2002a). Then, employees of emerging
countries should be empowered with the responsibility to make decisions
in using the systems. It is important that "they understand the
system thoroughly, since any mistakes made would be perpetuated
downstream with consequent chaos for processes (and people)
elsewhere" in using the system (Davison, 2002a). This is not an
easy task for employees in emerging countries such as China, Thailand,
or Brazil to understand, accept, and take responsibilities for such
empowerment. When "culture plays a substantial mediation role,
people in a low power distance culture (Hofstede, 2001), for instance,
those typical of the Anglo-American societies, are likely to more
willing to take on new responsibilities, to accept authority and
decision-making powers (Davison, 2002a). Responsibility and
accountability are related to status, which cannot simply be given to a
person, particularly in a hierarchically structured context. The broadly
held belief in Chinese society was that all men were born unequal
clearly on the contrary to beliefs of those found in U.S. and could not
simply be ignored (Bond, 1986; Davison, 2002a). Results from Van
Everdingen and Warrts (2003) showed that countries with relatively high
scores on individualism index and low scores on power distance index
tend to have relatively higher ERP adoption rate (VanEverdingen &
Waarts, 2003). Chansa-ngavej et al. (2004) pointed out that the Thai had
high scores in masculinity instead of femininity. Moreover, they also
found that Thai firms tended to be slow in ERP adoption observing by the
findings that the participating companies had low individualism, but
high scores in power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity
(Chansa-Ngavej et al., 2004).
In an emerging country, Chinese people were more tolerant to
unclear information, trusting more on personal experience, maintaining
more information among themselves than their Western counterparts.
However, the ERP system deployment requires clear and precise data and
information and emphasizes on business processes and linked-unit
cooperation. This might not be compatible with Chinese organizational
culture. Then, it might be necessary for Chinese enterprises to take
their organizational culture into account and attempt to change their
culture to the modern requirements in terms of the three dimensions
particularly parochial vs. professional, open vs. closed system, and
loose vs. tight control (Zhang et al., 2005). If managers in China could
enthusiastically communicate with their subordinates the benefits and
capabilities in implementing ERP systems (high collectivism), the
organizations should successfully adopt the systems (Bendoly et al.,
2006). Egyptian culture hindered the ERP implementation success such as
"centralized decision making, hierarchical structure, loose lateral
links, and ill-defined documentation cycle" (Sawah et al., 2008).
Moreover, Jordanian employees were threatened because they had a lot of
uncertainty and anxiety (high uncertainty avoidance) toward the ERP
projects. They resisted the project since they viewed that the projects
would change their jobs. Also, Jordanians also accepted high power
distance since the ERP project mangers stated that managers were unhappy
with the idea of sharing information among the subordinates, the
managers requested for restricted access to information for themselves
(Hawari & Heeks, 2010). Therefore, the beliefs and attitudes of
individualism, collectivism, power distance, masculinity, femininity,
and uncertainty avoidance may be related to the implementation of ERP
While the Western countries seem to have somewhat high uncertainty
avoidance of 55, Thai people tend to have extremely high uncertainty
avoidance of 64. While the Western countries seem to have quite low
power distance of 38, Thai people tend to have high power distance of
64. "Individualism refers to caring of oneself and one's
immediate family" (Rajapakse & Seddon, 2005). In contrast,
Collectivism defines caring for both oneself and other groups (Rajapakse
& Seddon, 2005). The Western countries have extremely high
individualism of 79, but the Thai are quite low individualism of 25.
Masculinity and femininity refer to the duality of genders is a
fundamental fact with which different societies cope in different
situations (Rajapakse & Seddon, 2005). Western countries are
somewhat low masculinity of 47; however, the Thai are quite low
masculinity of 34. Then, all four cultural dimensions are likely to
affect user satisfaction of ERP system implementation.
User satisfaction with technology has been widely used indicators
of success of information systems research (Al-Mashari et al., 2003;
Delone & Mclean, 2003; Petter et al., 2008; Sawah et al., 2008). If
persons have positive attitudes about a technological application, they
are likely to behave in ways that enable them to get benefit from it.
Recognizing the importance of people in ERP implementation, human
measure is user satisfaction (Saatcioglu, 2009). Satisfaction with
technology is viewed by the respondents' belief that the ERP system
is able to provide integrated, accurate, timely, and reliable
information to the respondents and whether they believe that the new
system is better than the one it is replacing (Lin & Rohm, 2004).
User Satisfaction is also concerned with the interaction between the
information produced by the system and the recipients (Hawari &
Heeks, 2010). Therefore, the purpose of this article is to propose a
conceptual framework of cultural factors relating to user satisfaction
of ERP system implementation framework in a developing country such as
Thailand. The proposed model is as follows:
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
This exploratory and preliminary study will be conducted using
interviews. The purpose is to provide deeper understanding of the
problem domain. Discovering/ identifying possible factors as well as
validating the proposed factors would further develop conceptual
framework. In-depth interviews of at least 10 users from 10
organizations which have used ERP for their business processes. The same
interviewer will conduct these interviews in order to reduce variance of
the study. These interviews are largely guided by the interview protocol
derived from the study's theoretical constructs.
4. CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND FUTURE WORK
User satisfaction of ERP system implementation tends to vary from
country to country depending on a variety of factors, starting from
external-level or internal-level ones. It is of interest for researcher
in human behavior and computer to explore the factors underlying this
phenomenon. Moreover, many studies provided evidence that national
cultural issues are significantly related to ERP system satisfaction.
Based on Hofstede's theory (2001), Western countries tend to have
quite low power distance, a little high uncertainty avoidance, extremely
high individualism, and somewhat low masculinity. However, on average,
emerging countries tend to have extremely high power distance, somewhat
low uncertainty avoidance, extremely low individualism, and somewhat
high masculinity. For Thai, they tend to have high power distance and
uncertainty avoidance, extremely low individualism, and quite low
masculinity. Then, all four cultural dimensions are likely to affect
user satisfaction of ERP system implementation. Nevertheless, empowered
employees may be developed through requisite skills and more knowledge
base for efficient and effective decision making and accountabilities.
Therefore, the purpose of this article is to propose a conceptual
framework of organizational factors relating to user satisfaction of ERP
system implementation framework in a developing country such as
Thailand. Qualitative and quantitative approaches are recommended to
test the model.
(1.) Al-Mashari, M., Al-Mudimigh, A., & Zairi, M. (2003).
Enterprise resource planning: A taxonomy of critical factors. European
Journal of Operational Research, 146(2), 352-364.
(2.) Bendoly, E., Bachrach, D. G., Wang, H., & Zhang, S.
(2006). ERP in the Minds of Supervisors Joint Roles of Task
Interdependence and Cultural Norms. International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, 26(5), 558-578.
(3.) Bond, M. H. (1986). The Psychology of the Chinese People. Hong
Kong: Oxford University Press.
(4.) BusinessNewsAmericasReport. (2010). ERP Market Moves US$620mn
in 1H09--Brazil, February 20, from
(5.) Chansa-Ngavej, C., Puajindanetr, S., & Pontue, N. (2004,
3-6 November). Cultural Factors in ERP Adoption: A Thailand-Europe
Comparison. Paper presented at the 15th DAAAM International Symposium:
Intelligent Manufacturing & Automation:
Globalisation--Technology--Men--Nature, Vienna, Austria.
(6.) Chung, B. Y., Skibniewski, M. a. J., Lucas, H. C., & Kwak,
Y. H. (2008). Analyzing Enterprise Resource Planning System
Implementation Success Factors in the Engineering-Construction Industry.
Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 22(6), 373-382.
(7.) Davison, R. (2002a). Cultural complications of ERP. Commun.
ACM, 45(7), 109-111. doi: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/514236.514267
(8.) Davison, R. (2002b). Cultural Complications of ERP.
Communications of the ACM, 45(7), 109-111.
(9.) Delone, W. H., & Mclean, E. R. (2003). The Delone and
Mclean Model of Information System Success: A Ten-Year Update. Journal
of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9-30.
(10.) Hawari, A., & Heeks, R. (2010). Explaining ERP Failure in
a Developing Country: a Jordanian Case Study. Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, 23(2), 35-160.
(11.) Hofstede, G. (1983). Dimensions of National Culture in Fifty
Countries and Three Regions. Cross-Cultural Psychology, 333-355.
(12.) Hofstede, G. (1984). The Cultural Relativity of the Quality
of Life Concept. Academy of Management Review, 9(3), 389-398.
(13.) Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations. London:
(14.) Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's Consequence: Comparing
Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizational Across Nations.
(15.) InternetWorldStatsReport. (2010a). Internet Usage and
Population in Asia Retrieved February 20, 2010, from
(16.) InternetWorldStatsReport. (2010b). Internet Usage and
Population in North America Retrieved February 20, 2010, from
(17.) Kanthawongs, P., & Kini, R. B. (2003). A Study of Factors
Influencing ERP Adoption Framework and Evaluation in a Developing
Country: Case Studies from Thailand. Paper presented at the The 10th
European Conference on Information Technology Evaluation, Madrid, Spain.
(18.) Lin, F., & Rohm, C. E. T. (2004). Managers' and
end-users' concerns on innovation implementation: a Case of an ERP
implementation in China. Business Process Management Journal, 15(4),
(19.) Martinsons, M. G. (1991). Management Philosophy and IT
Application: The East-West Divide. J. Tech. Manag., 18(3), 207-218.
(20.) NectecReport. (2010). Internet User in Thailand, 2010, from
(21.) Ngai, E. W. T., Law, C. C. H., & Wat, F. K. T. (2008).
Examining the Critical Success Factors in The Adoption Of Enterprise
Resource Planning. Computers in Industry, 59, 548-564.
(22.) Petter, C., Delone, W. H., & Mclean, E. R. (2008).
Measuring Information Systems Success: Models, Dimensions, Measures, and
Interrelationships. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(3),
(23.) Rajapakse, J., & Seddon, P. (2005, 1-18). ERP Adoption in
Developing Countries in Asia : A Cultural Misfit. Information Systems
Journal Retrieved 15 February, 2009, from
(24.) ReportLinkerReport. (2010). Romania Information Technology
Report Q1 2010 Retrieved February 20, 2010, from
(25.) Saatcioglu, O. Y. (2009). What Determines User Satisfaction
in ERP Projects : Benefits, Barries or Risks? Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, 22(6), 690-708.
(26.) Sawah, S. E., Tharwat, A. A. E. F., & Rasmy, M. H.
(2008). A Quantitative Model to Predict the Egyptian ERP Implementation
Success Index. Business Process Management Journal, 14(3)
(27.) Sheu, C., Chae, B., & Yang, C. L. (2004). National
differences and ERP implementation: issues and challenges. Omega, 32(5),
(28.) Soh, C., Kien, S. S., & Tay-Yap, J. (2000). Cultural Fits
and Misfits; Is ERP A Universal Solution? Communications of the ACM,
(29.) VanEverdingen, Y., & Waarts, E. (2003). A Multi-Country
Study of the Adoption of ERP systems: The Effect of National Culture
Retrieved 1 February, 2008, from http://hdl.handle.net/1765/280
(30.) Wei, C.-C. (2008). Evaluating the performance of an ERP
system based on the knowledge of ERP implementation objectives.
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 39(1/2),
(31.) WorldBankReport. (2010). Country Groups Retrieved February
20, 2010, from http://go.worldbank.org/D7SN0B8YU0
(32.) Zhang, Z., Lee, M. K. O., Huang, P., Zhang, L., & Huang,
X. (2005). A framework of ERP systems implementation success in China:
An empirical study. International Journal of Production Economics,
Penjira Kanthawongs, Bangkok University, Bangkok, Thailand
Penjuree Kanthawongs, Kasem Bundit University, Bangkok, Thailand
Dr. Penjira Kanthawongs received her Ph.D. in Business
Administration jointly from Bangkok University (BU) and the University
of Nebraska-Lincoln, USA in 2007. Penjira is currently an Assistant Dean
for School of Business Administration at BU. She has published
extensively in diverse areas of Information Systems including ERP in
Education, ERP in industries, e-Government, and Technology Adoption.
Penjuree (Penny) Kanthawongs received her Master's Degree in
Business Administration from Southern Illinois University (SIU) at
Carbondale, USA in 1996. Penjuree or Penny is a lecturer of the Bachelor
of Business Administration (English program), Kasem Bundit University.
Her published articles are involved with ERP in industries and in
education. Her research interests are related to ERP, organizational
behaviors, music and marketing industry.
Table 1: International comparison data on cultural dimensions
Country Power Uncertainty Individualism [right arrow]
Distance Avoidance Collectivism
US 40 46 91
Germany 35 65 67
The 38 53 80
Average 38 55 79
China 80 30 20
Malaysia 104 36 26
Philippines 94 44 32
Indonesia 78 48 14
India 77 40 48
Thailand 64 64 20
Pakistan 55 70 14
Average 79 47 25
Country Masculinity [right arrow]