IDENTIFICATION OF USER ACCEPTANCE FACTORS OF THE SAP SYSTEM IN INDONESIA’S MINING INDUSTRY 1. 2. Sasmito Handoko1, Dana Indra Sensuse2 Program Studi Magister Teknologi Informasi, Fakultas Ilmu Komputer, Universitas Indonesia, Jl. Salemba Raya No.4, Jakarta Pusat, Indonesia Program Studi Magister Teknologi Informasi, Fakultas Ilmu Komputer, Universitas Indonesia, Jl. Salemba Raya No.4, Jakarta Pusat, Indonesia E-mail: 1. sasmito.handoko@gmail.com 2. dana@cs.ui.ac.id Abstract SAP is the most popular ERP based application system. The benefit of an ERP based systems are integrated, complete feature and adopted from the best practices. Company is required to invest a substantial amount to implement SAP system, but the implementation may improve efficiency, perform controlling function of company’s activity and useful to produce analytical report that will be used in decision making process. User acceptance is noted as an important factor for the implementation of a new system. Lack of user acceptance becomes one factor which contributing to the failure of an ERP implementation project. This research aim to identify factors that influence user acceptance of the SAP system. By knowing these factors, organizations can make interventions in an efforts to improve the use of the system and improve system implementation success. TAM (Technology Acceptance Model) is used as endogenous variable, combined with exogenous variable obtained from ASAP Methodology and organization condition. ASAP Methodology itself considered as the best practice used in the SAP implementation process. A total 92 survey data were collected from the SAP system users and analyzed using SEM-PLS method. The result of this research found the factors that influence user acceptance are: business process adoption, training, social influence, ERP support, shared belief in benefit, perceived ease of use, and perceived usefulness. It is proven empirically that business process adoption affects perceived usefulness, meanwhile training and social influence affects the shared believe in benefit. Furthermore, ERP support is affecting the perceived ease of use. Those factors should become the main attention in an effort to improve the user acceptance of the SAP system. Keyword: SAP, ERP, TAM, ASAP Methodology, PLS-SEM. 1. Introduction ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) systems are focused on the integration factor of the processes that run within an organization [1]. Through data integration and business functions, ERP-based systems can help companies reduce operating costs and improve business process management [2] [3]. However, the complexity of ERP system both in the implementation process and adoption in operation, often becomes a challenge for organizations to be able to obtain maximum benefits from the use of ERP-based system [4]. According to Panorama Consulting [5] 60% of ERP system users only get half the benefits of ERP systems [6]. While in 2005 found at least 50% of ERP implementations fail to meet the needs of the organization [7] [3]. One of the factors causing the failure of the ERP system in addressing the needs of the organization is the end-user resistance [2] [3]. According to Wang and Liu [8], the user acceptance of an information system and the intentions to use the system has a strong influence in the successful implementation of the system. Otherwise, lack of user acceptance becomes one factor contributing to the failure of an ERP implementation project [9] [10] [11]. The usage of ERP based system is not only mandatory, but also voluntary [9]. The mandatory use of ERP systems is for using basic features and functions needed to completing the daily activities, while the use of other features and functions that are not directly related in completing daily activities consider as voluntary. This conditions may resulted in the organization unable to gain optimum benefit from the use of the system, since the optimum benefit from the system requires both basic and additional features usage effectively [9]. Several studies on user acceptance of the ERP system focuses on the identification of factors of user acceptance to intervene and avoid the failure of the ERP system implementation and improve the effectiveness the use of the system, among others, the study of Amoako-Gyampah & Salam [9], Chen and Zeng [12], Nah, Tan, & Teh [13], Shih and Huang [10] and Sternad and Bobek [14]. From these studies found that one of the reasons for the failure of ERP implementation is the unwillingness of users to adopt and use the system [13] [14]. An understanding of the factors that influence user acceptance of ERP systems is required in pursuing the successful use of ERP systems [13] [15]. From those description one important message for organization to derive the optimum benefit from the implementation of the SAP system as well as the success of the implementation process is, that the utilization of all the functions and features effectively is an important factor. Further, Venkatesh [16] and Amoako-Gyampah & Salam [9] posits that use of the system can describe the user acceptance of the technology. Venkatesh [16] and Amoako-Gyampah & Salam [9] also stated that there is a relationship between the unwillingnes to use the features of a system with a lack of user acceptance. Therefore, this study was conducted to be able to identified and answer the question: "What are the factors that influence the user acceptance of the SAP system?" By knowing these factors, organizations can make interventions in an efforts to improve the use of the system both for the mandatory and voluntary aspect, and thus enhance the benefits of the system, and improve system implementation success. 2. Literature Review User acceptance can be defined as willingness of users or groups of users, to use information technology that has been designed to help users in completing their tasks [17]. Several previous studies has resulted in models which can be used to determine the factors that influence user acceptance, among others: Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) [18], the Technology Acceptance Model 2 (TAM 2) [15], the Technology Acceptance Model 3 (TAM 3 ) [19] and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of the Technology (UTAUT) [20]. Of the four models, TAM is the most widely used in the study of user acceptance. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) was first introduced by Davis [18] with the aim to improve understanding the processes of the user acceptance for a new technology. TAM was developed from Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) [21]. According Legris, Ingham and Collerette [22], the use of TAM will bring more significant benefit when used to test the implementation of applications in line with business process and carried out in a business environment. TAM specifically created to provide modeling user acceptance of information systems at the focal point of clarification on the behavioral intention to use the system [9]. According to Davis, Bagozzi and Warshaw [21] the actual system use is affected by five factors: behavioral intention to use, attitude toward using, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness and external variables. These five factors described in the TAM model in Figure 1. although empirically TAM can only explain 40% variance of user acceptance [21], but TAM provides a basis for tracing the impact of external factors on the user acceptance [14]. Figure 1 Technology Acceptance Model Source: Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw [21] ASAP Methodology ASAP or Accelerated SAP is a collection of methods and processes contained in the roadmap for implementing the SAP system. ASAP methodology provides the content, tools and expertise gained from the successful implementation process conducted by SAP and its partners. ASAP methodology consists of five phases of SAP implementation. The five phase of the methodology are: a. b. c. d. e. Project Preparation Business Blueprint Realization Final Preparation Go-Live and Support Figure 2 ASAP Methodology Source: SAP [23] In addition to ASAP Methodology, in SAP implementation also known SAP Conventional Methodology [24]. Hypothesis Development Hypothesis development is done by identifying the factors found in ASAP Methodology which is used in the process of implementing SAP systems in the case study location. At business blueprint phase, project team will perform current bussiness process assesement. Later, project team will identified business requirements, and then continued by developing new (to-be) business processes with SAP system take place. ERP implementation almost always requires business process reengireering, with the aim to match the organization's business processes with the capabilities of the system [9]. The results of the business blueprint phase were to determined whether the required business process users can be accommodated in the system or not. Business process adoption can be interpreted that the ERP system used can adapt to existing business processes [13, 12]. Furthermore, Chen and Zeng [12] states the adoption of business process is the extent to which the system can accommodate the needs of users, both individually and as an organization, and adopting business process to system working flow. If users feel that the system is used in accordance with existing business processes, then the user will feel that the system is useful, therefore, expressed the following hypothesis: H1: Business Process Adoption (BPA) will influence the Perceived Usefulness (PU) According Nah, Tan, & Teh [13] perceived fit and compatibility affecting the attitude toward system use. Their opinion was understanable as more users feel that the system is suitable with their required business processes, then more they will feel comfortable using the system and eventually the usage of the system will increase. From these explanations drawn up the following hypothesis: H2: Business Process Adoption (BPA) will influece the Attitude Toward System Use (ATU) In the SAP implementation using ASAP Methodology, training was held on final preparation phase. The purpose of training is to prepare users who will be using the SAP system [23]. Training is a critical factor in user acceptance [9, 3]. During training, users can begin to adapt to the changes that will occur after the implementation of ERP systems. Training also gives users the opportunity to try to use the system and explore the features of the system [9]. More study found that training as part of project may affect the shared belief of the ERP system [9]. After training users will have an assumption that the system is useful and easy to use, this assumption will be shared to fellow users, and finally will become a common assumption that the system is userful and has a positive impact for the company. In accordance, the hypothesis are: H3: Training (TR) will influence Shared Belief in Benefit (SB) Communication is an important aspect of a project, lack of communication often cited as the cause of a project failure [9]. Effective communication can build trust and improve the information exchange, these process will help users to adapt and finally affect the acceptance of a technology [9]. Communication appears in every phase of ASAP Methodology with different objectives, but there is one common objective were to communicating the benefit of using SAP System [25]. Project communication has the objective to communicating the benefits of the system and getting feedback from users in terms of how the system should be used, and what is user expectation in the system, through a series of information exchange. If this goal is achieved, then the user will have the assumption that the system has benefits for the organization. So it can be expressed in the hypothesis, that: H4: Project Communication (PC) will influence Shared Belief in Benefit (SB) Social Influence is the extent to which a user feels that people around him expect him to use the system [27]. Attitudes and behaviors in the work environment can affect a person in the use of technology [3, 28]. The use of new technologies such as SAP system will create uncertainty among users about the value and benefits of new technologies for their work, in this conditions social influence factors will emerge [3, 29]. In the process of understanding the value and benefits of system users most likely will be influenced by their social environment, other than their knowledge regarding the benefits of the technology [3, 20]. Their presumption regarding the benefits of the system can be influenced by the opinions of their coworkers around them. If the people arounds have the notion that the system brings benefits for the company and should be used, then the user himself will agreed to this opinion, and finally, form the assumption that the use of a system beneficial to the organization. In accordance with the description the following hypothesis drawn up: H5: Social Influence (SI) will influece Shared Belief in Benefit (SB), H6: Social Influence (SI) will influence Attitude Toward System Use (ATU) ERP Support is part of the organizational support and provided to improve the performance of the organization and in the implementation of a new system, as stated by Lee, Lee, Olson, & Chung [30] and Lee S.M, et al [31]. ERP Support can be defined as the degree of availability of support for the ERP system provided by the company through the IT Department [12] [30]. In the organizations environment which using ERP systems, when the organization provide adequate support to the system users, it can help to improve performance and make users more convenient to use the system [14] [30]. In ASAP Methodology support is exist in the final phase called Go-Live and Support. Support for the SAP system users provide by help desk that will help users who have difficulty doing the process in the SAP system[32]. S.M Lee et al [31] suggested a link between support to the perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness. With the support then the user will find the use of the system becomes easier, because when they encounter any difficulties or problems encountered there are those who are ready to help them. Therefore, the hypothesis for ERP Support is as follows: H7: ERP Support (ES) will influence Perceived Ease of Use (PEU) Shared belief can be defined as the assumption that the use of the system will have a positive impact on an organization or enterprise [33, 3]. According to Amoako-Gyampah & Salam [9] all people should have the same presumption that the ERP system will bring benefits to the organization, so that it can be accepted by them. The assumption (belief) of user can be influenced by training and the opinions of senior staff as an opinion leader [9]. During the SAP implementation the role of opinion leader is given to key user. Key user will convince other users about the added value and the potential of the system and establish assumption that the system is useful for organization [34]. Opinion formation that system beneficial is one effort embodiment of the formation of shared belief. Amoako-Gyampah & Salam [9] found that the shared belief have an influence on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. If the user has the assumption that the ERP system brings the benefits, then they will find that the system will help them become more productive (usefulness) [33]. Therefore, it can be drawn the following hypothesis: system will be able to improve its performance, and perceived ease of use as the perception of the users that the ERP system is easy to use and effort free. Govindaraju & Indriany [35] and Hwang [36] stated attitude toward system use is the tendency of user behavior to like or does not like the system. TAM Model stated that the perceived ease of use affects perceived usefulness and both affects attitude toward system use [21]. According to Davis & Davis [37] when the system is easy to use, the user will find that the system is useful and can improve productivity. Users who feel that the SAP system is easy to use will have the assumption that the system is useful in its work, therefore, can be prepared following hypothesis: H10: Perceived Ease of Use (PEU) will influence Perceived Usefulness (PU) Davis & Davis [2] also stated that if users feel that the system is useful, then the user will have a tendency to favor the use of the system, so it can be arranged hypothesis: H8: Shared Belief in Benefit (SB) will influence Perceived Usefulness (PU) Key user is also expected to change the resistance of the system into enthusiasm to make the job easier and more enjoyable, thus forming the assumption that the system is easy to use (ease of use) [34]. So the hypothesis was also drawn as follows: H11: Perceived Usefulness (PU) will influence Attitude Toward System Use (ATU) Furthermore, users who feel that the system is easy to use will also have a tendency to favor the use of the system, so it can be made the following hypothesis: H9: Shared Belief in Benefit (SB) will influence Perceived Ease of Use (PEU) H12: Perceived Ease of Use (PEU) will influence Attitude Toward System Use (ATU) This research conducted on users who are already using the SAP system, so the factor of behavioral intention and actual system use becomes irrelevant [14]. To measure the acceptance of users the construct attitude toward system use being use [14]. Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw [21] states perceived usefulness as the perception of users that by using the From those 12 hypotheses, the research model can be drawn as Figure 3. Business Process Adoption H2 Perceived Usefullness Shared Belief in Benefit H10 Training Project Communicat ion Perceive Ease of Use Social Influence ERP Support H6 H7 Figure 3 Research Model Attitude Toward System Use 3. Research Methodology This study is a survey research using a questionnaire as a tool to collect primary data from respondents. Data from questionnaire will be analyzed quantitatively using partial least square structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) method to test hypotheses regarding the factors that influence user acceptance of the SAP system. Quantitative data processing is used because it is considered appropriate to test the model and to test the hypothesis [38]. Conclusion drawn using deductive methode from the results of hypothesis testing. Questionnaire Preparation Questionnaire will be developed based from the research model. Questionnaire will contain statements as indicators of each construct in the research model. A Study to review the questionnaires that have been used in previous research were conducted during development of questionnaire. A literature review also conducted to ensure that the questions used in the questionnaire are appropriate and represent the indicators as well in accordance with the constructs in the research model. Once the questionnaire is completed, next activity is to perform readability test to some respondents with characteristics similar to user who will fill out the questionnaire. This test is necessary to determine whether the statements in the questionnaire can be understood by respondents and ensure the statement has no ambiguity. Critics and suggestions from respondents during readability test will be adopted to improve the questionnaire. After readability test, the next step is to perform expert review. After all process is performed, then the questionnaire is ready for use. Collecting Data The data collection is done by survey method. Respondents of the survey were SAP system users from several areas, namely: Jakarta, Sesayap, Batukajang, Bontang and Balikpapan. To facilitate the distribution of the questionnaire, two methods online and offline used. Offline method is by printing the questionnaire and give the print out to the respondent to fill the questionnaire, this method were used in Jakarta. Online method is by creating an online questionnaire using web base questionnaire tools, named Typeform (www.typeform.com) and ask respondents to accessed the site to fill the questionnaire. Data Analysis Data analysis was conducted to prove the hypotheses using statistical methods. Data obtained from the questionnaire will then be analyzed by PLS-SEM using application SmartPLS version 3.0. According to Hair et al., [41] for small sample size, PLS-SEM can be used to analyze the data. In this research the respondents are limited, therefore PLSSEM will be used to analyze the data. Afthanorhan [42] stated that PLS-SEM used to perform confirmatory analysis will obtain more reliable and valid result. From his research PLS-SEM generate value loading and AVE better than CB-SEM. Statement from Afthanorhan amplify the reasons for the use of PLS-SEM. Using PLS-SEM method, first of all reliability test will be performed by looking its composite reliability value. Then, validity test perform by looking its loading and AVE (Average Variance Extract) value as well as cross loading parameter. To perform hypothesis testing, bootstrapping technique were used and value of its t-statistics will be analyzed. 4. Results and Analysis Data analysis was performed using smartPLS application. A total of 92 data obtained from respondents through online and offline media. The amount of data is sufficient to use PLS-SEM method, which requires a minimum amount of sample is 10x the number of arrows that lead to latent variables in the model [41]. So for the model used in this study minimum of 40 data is required. Respondent Demographics Data Of the 92 respondents in this study, 80% of respondents, or 74 persons were male. While the remaining 20% or 18 were women. The majority of respondents were high school education or its equivalent and has bachelor degree or its equivalent, with respectively 39% or 36 people. Furthermore, 17% or 15 with diploma degree or its equivalent. Then, 3% of respondents education hold master degree and 2 % were in junior high school. The age range majority of respondents was 25 to 35 years, with 43 respondents. Then followed by the age range of 35 to 45 years, under 25 years old, between 45 to 50 years, and respondents older than 50 years old with only one. The highest number of respondents with work experience between 1 to 5 years with a composition of 41%, or 38 people. Next the respondents with work experience 5 to 10 years as much as 37% or 34 people. Respondents with experience in using SAP system most were with over 3 years experience, numbering 34 respondents or 37%. Followed by 6 months to 1 year experience with 25 respondents. Reliability Test Reliability test done by reviewing the composite reliability variable. The reference value used to determine whether a construct pass the test is 0.7 [41]. If the composite value reliability above 0.7 according to Hair et al., [41], a construct declared acceptable. Composite reliability value can be seen in Table 1. Table 1 Composite Reliability Construct ATU BPA ERP PEOU PU PC SBB SI TRN Composite Reliability 0,907 0,866 0,879 0,850 0,872 0,784 0,876 0,942 0,927 Result ( CR > 0,7) Passed Passed Passed Passed Passed Passed Passed Passed Passed Validity Test Convergent validity is a parameter that specifies whether the indicators within a construct correlated [41]. The parameter identified by reviewing outer loading variable. Loading value eligible is 0.708 or higher [41]. Further parameters are visible for the convergent validity is Average Variance Extract (AVE) with the reference values above 0.5 (AVE> 0.5). By reviewing both variables, three indicators are removed from the model since it does not fulfilled the loading value threshold. After these three indicators were omitted AVE value increased as can be seen in Table 2. Table 2 Average Variance Extract (AVE) Construct ATU BPA ERP PEOU PU PC SBB SI TRN AVE before AVE after 0,766 0,683 0,784 0,593 0,643 0,546 0,702 0,890 0,759 0,766 0,683 0,784 0,716 0,803 0,730 0,702 0,890 0,759 Coefficient Determination 0.75). These results indicate that the model used in this study can be categorized as very good. Variants of the construct of perceived ease of use, can be explained by the construct of shared belief in the benefits and support ERP by 23%. Later, variants of perceived usefulness can be explained by the construct business process adoption, shared belief in the benefits and perceived ease of use amounted to 65.7%. While variants of a shared belief in the benefits that can be explained by the construct training, project communication and social influence of 31.2%. Table 3 Coefficien Determination Construct Attitude Toward System Use Perc. Ease of Use R-Square (R2) 0,772 Predictive Ability High 0,230 Low Perc. Usefulness 0,657 Medium Shared Belief in Benefit 0,312 Low Path Coefficient Path coefficient describes the relationship between the hypothetical constructs. Value path coefficient ranges between -1 to + 1, with values closer to -1 or +1 considered as a strong relationship. Path coefficient values from bootstrapping method shows whether a construct has a strong relationship with other constructs or not. Meanwhile, the value of tstatistic shows hypotheses relationship. Hypothesis testing done by comparing the value of t-statistic and critical values. If the value of t-statistic greater than the critical value, it can be concluded that the coefficients is significant on the probability of certain errors. According to Hair et al., [41] for a two-tailed test with a significance level of 5%, then the critical value used is 1.96 (greater than 1.96 was considered significant). Table 4 shows the result from hyphotheses test. Table 4 Hyphotheses Test Result Coefficient of Determination is a measure for the predictive ability of a model [41]. Coefficient of Determination value represented by the value of R2. With a reference value R2 > 0.75 is considered that model has high predictive ability, while 0.50 < R2 < 0.75 considered as medium, and 0.25 < R2 < 0.50 considered as low. Hyphotheses From data in Table 3 can be stated that 77.2% variant of attitude toward system use can be explained by the adoption of business process constructs, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness and social influence. This values considered high (above t-Stats BPA -> ATU 0,714 Path Coeff. 0,067 Result BPA -> PU 3,691 0,484 Significant ERP -> PEU 2,597 0,272 Significant PEU -> ATU 4,279 0,322 Significant PEU -> PU 4,205 0,314 Significant PU -> ATU 3,182 0,473 Significant PC -> SBB 0,735 -0,092 SBB -> PEU 3,440 0,287 Not Significant Not Significant Significant Hyphotheses t-Stats SBB -> PU 1,541 Path Coeff. 0,166 Result SI -> ATU 1,707 0,162 Not Significant SI -> SBB 4,191 0,436 Significant TRN -> SBB 2,209 0,267 Significant Not Significant 5. Discussion This research attempts to identify the factors that influence user acceptance of the SAP system. From the test results we obtain the factors that influence user acceptance of the SAP system were: business process adoption, training, social influence, ERP support, shared belief in the benefits, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use. Final research model of this study given in Figure 4 below. Correlation between Business Process Adoption, Perceived Usefulness and Attitude Toward System Use Business process adoption positively affect the perceived usefulness with path coefficient value of 0,484. However, there was no correlation between business process adoption and attitude toward system use (the hypothesis is rejected). Results for the relationship between business process adoption and perceived usefulness similar with the results obtained by Chen and Zeng [12]. The result confirms the importance of the adoption of business processes within the SAP system implementation. More users feel the system suits to their requirement, in accordance with their business processes and able to accommodate their needs then the user will feel that the system is useful and can increase its productivity. For the relationship between perceived usefulness and attitude toward system use, results obtain confirm that the perceived usefulness have an influence on attitude toward system use. If the user has the perception that the system is useful and can improve the productivity of its work, the use of the system will increase. These results are consistent with several studies F. D. Davis [18]; Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, [21]; Amoako-Gyampah & Regards, [9]; and Widiatmika & Sensuse [41]. Correlation between Training and Shared Belief in Benefit The results shows that training has a positive influence on shared belief in the benefits, with the path coefficient value 0,267. These results are similar with the research from Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, and Davis [27] as cited by Chen and Zeng [12]. They found that training helpful to increase user acceptance. Amoako-Gyampah & Salam [9] also found that training has a positive influence on a shared belief in the benefits. Training may form the assumption that the system is helpful. By allowing users to try and learn about the features of SAP system will improve the assumption that the system is useful and can help in their work. This research itself although perform in post implementation phase found that training still considered a factor that may influenced user acceptance. The company itself perform training for SAP user periodically, and this may contribute to the result. Correlation between Project Communication and Shared Belief in Benefit The research found that the project communication does not affect the shared belief in the benefits. Project communication is a construct related to communication and user involvement in systems implementation projects. The rejection of this hypothesis can be understood that, although user did get involved during the implementation project, but truly the involvement is limited to user who holds certain position, for example: foreman and supervisor, while respondents for this research are all SAP users of all levels and positions. Compare to those, the number of users who involved in the project is relatively small, except for the training almost no direct intensive involvement from other users during the project. This research was done long after the project implementation is done, the communication process during the project already forgotten by the users this may also contribute to the result. Other than that, several respondents may join the company after the implementation is finish. This condition also may contribute to the result. An important message of this finding is that there is a possibility that information was not delivered to the user and the communication plan failed to achieve its objective. This information was important to communicate the benefit of using the SAP system, in order to build an assumption that the system is implemented would be beneficial for them. Without this factor information of the benefit from using the SAP system may came from training and social influence. Correlation between Social Influence, Shared Belief in Benefit dan Attitude Toward System Use This research also found that social influence has a positive influnce to shared belief in the benefits. While not found a relation between social influence and attitude toward system use. Influence from coworker, peers and superiors was not strong enough to influence user to use the SAP system. On the other hand, the influence enough to make users believe that the SAP system brings benefits to the company. These results differ from the results of Seymour, Makanya, and Berrange [3], which in their research they did not find any association between social influence with other constructs in the research model. The working relationship in areas remote locations, such as on job sites may have an influence Business Process Adoption H2 Perceived Usefullness Shared Belief in Benefit H10 Training Project Communicat ion Attitude Toward System Use Perceive Ease of Use Social Influence H6 ERP Support Hyphothesis Accepted Hyphothesis Rejected H7 Figure 4 Final Research Model on these findings, but it still needs to be further investigated understand the system more the users feels that the system is easy to use. Correlation between ERP Support and Perceived Ease of Use Using the same approach the rejection of the hipothesis between shared belief in the benefits with perceived usefulness, can be caused by lack of influence from project communication, which is previously found that according to the respondents this construct have no effect in user acceptance. In the absence of project communication means that information about the benefits of the system are not delivered. Therefore, the belief that the system is useful were not formed and shared belief failed to influence perceived usefulness. However, this opinion still to be verified. The ease of getting help with problems in the ERP system and the availability of assistance from the IT department, which is represented in the ERP Support shown to affect the perceived ease of use. Availability of technical support shown to affect user perceptions related to the ease of use of the system. In the actual conditions, if users encounter any difficulties to use the system, they can easily and immediately asked for help so the problem can be resolved immediately. Adequate technical support need to be considered by the management in an effort to improve the user acceptance. Easier the users feel to get support more they will perceived that the system is easy to use. Correlation between Shared Belief in Benefit, Perceived Ease of Use and Perceived Usefulness Shared belief in the benefit already known to be influenced by training and social influences, but not affected by project communication. Further from the result, found that shared belief in the benefits affect perceived ease of use. Instead, this research also found that shared belief in the benefits does not affect the perceived usefulness. These results differ from the results from Amoako-Gyampah & Salam [9] which found that shared belief in the benefits affect both perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. This results shows that belief only having an impact to the perception that the system is easy to use. This could be caused by the exercise of training, considering one of the training objective were to understand the SAP system. More the users Correlation between Perceived Ease of Use, Perceived Usefulness and Attitude Toward System Use This research also found that perceive ease of use affects perceived usefulness, perceive usefulnes affects attitude toward system use and perceived ease of use affects attitude toward system use. This results are consistent with studies of F. D. Davis, [18], Nah, Tan, & Teh, [13], Widiatmika & Sensuse [41], and research from Sternad & Bobek [14]. Use of the system will be determined by the extent to which users feel that the system is useful (useful) and the system is easy to use (ease of use). In addition, it can be presume that user will find the system helpful if the system is easy to use. 6. Conclusion The results indicates the factors that affect the acceptance of SAP system users in Group XYZ were: business process adoption, training, social influence, ERP support, shared belief in the benefits, perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness. The model used may explain the variant of attitude toward system use by 77%, while the other 23% laid outside the model. Business process adoption found to have an affect on perceive usefulness, more the users feels that the system delivered their requirement and adopted their business process more they feel that the system useful and may increasing their productivity, therefore they will accept the system. Project communication has no affect on user acceptance since they does not have influence in shared belief, lack of user involvement and lack of information delivered to users seems have contributed in this finding. Differs from those conditions social influence found to have influence in shared belief in benefit. Remote area working environment may have contributed to this finding, since the user often have their role model to follow. If he/she thinks that people have to use the system then users will agreed and use the system. Shared belief have a positive effect on perceived ease of use but does not have effect on perceived usefulness. This situation may contributed by the lack of information delivered to users, so the belief that system is beneficial failed to emerge. After finds out that the adoption of business process has an effect on the user acceptance, company needs to appoint BPO (Business Process Owner) to review, monitor and approve changes in business process. BPO is expected to improve the conformity of business processes with the SAP system. Furthermore, the company also needs to have a functional role as a liaison between business, people (user) and system. Training found to have influence to user acceptance, both in implementation phase and in post implementation phase. To increase user acceptance through training, company must conduct regular training based on given curriculum and have clear objectives. Companies can also increase the user acceptance to ensure SAP system users receive technical support when using the system, by forming a team or department in charge of providing assistance to the SAP system. Users will use the system if they find the system easy to use, and therefore must be considered in system development that new application must be ease to use. Before launching a new feature, testing must perform to ensure users understand how to use the new features and what the process impacted by this feature. Model used in this research able to explain the variance of user acceptance up to 77%, but there is still 23% variance outside the model, therefore to be able to improve the predictive ability of the model, more external factors may add to the models. Several factors that often appears in similar research was management support, computer literacy and also the organizational culture itself. In addition, the need of further study to explain the effect of training on perceived ease of use, which is not found in this research, but appears in others studies [9]. The model in this study can also be used to conduct another research in an environment similar to object in this case study ie example, in other mining companies in Indonesia. References [1] S. Uwizeyemungu dan L. Raymond, “Essential Characteristics of An ERP System : Conceptualization and Operationalization,” Journal of Information and Organizational Sciences, Vol. %1 dari %2Volume 29, Number 2, 2005. [2] A. M. Aladwani, “Change Management Strategies for Succesful ERP Implementation,” Business Process Management Journal, Vol. %1 dari %2Volume 7, No 3, pp. 266-275, 2001. [3] L. Seymour, W. Makanya dan S. Berrange, “End-User' Acceptance of Enterprise Resource Planning Systems : An Investigations of Antecedents,” dalam 6th Annual ISOnEworld Conference, Las Vegas, NV, 2007. [4] C. Leyh, “Which Factors Influence ERP Implementation Projects in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises?,” Twentieth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Savannah,, 2014. [5] Panorama Consulting Solutions, “2015 ERP Report : A Panorama Consulting Solutions Research Report,” Panorama Consulting Solutions, Colorado, 2015. [6] M. Krigsman, “ZDNet,” 22 February 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.zdnet.com/article/2013-erpresearch-compelling-advice-for-the-cfo/. [7] J. S. Jasperson, P. E. Carter dan R. W. Zmud, “A Comprehensive Conceptialization of PostAdoptive Behaviors Associated with Information Technology Enabled Work System,” MIS Quarterly, pp. 525-557, 2005. [8] W.-T. Wang dan C.-Y. Liu, “The Application of the Technology Acceptance Model: A New Way to Evaluate Information System Success,” dalam The 23rd International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Boston, USA, 2005. [9] K. Amoako-Gyampah dan A. F. Salam, “An extension of the technology acceptance model in an ERP implementation environment,” Information & Management, pp. 731-745, 2004. Management Science, vol. Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 982-1003, August 1989. [10] Y.-Y. Shih dan S.-S. Huang, “The Actual Usage of ERP Systems: An Extended Technology Acceptance Perspective,” Journal of Research and Practice in Information Technology, 2009. [22] P. Legris, J. Ingham dan P. Collerette, “Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model,” Information & Management, Vol. %1 dari %2Volume 40, Issue 3, pp. 191-204, January 2003. [11] E. Erasmus, S. Rothmann dan C. v. Eeden, “A Structural Model of Technology Acceptance,” SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 2015. [12] B. Chen dan Z. Zeng, “ERP Usage in Practice : Understanding End-Users ‘Acceptance of ERP Systems in Chinese large companies by applying UTAUT model,” Jonkoping International Business School, 2012. [13] F. F.-H. Nah, X. Tan dan S. H. Teh, “An Empirical Investigation on End-Users’ Acceptance of Enterprise Systems,” Information Resources Management Journal, 2004. [14] S. Sternad dan S. Bobek, “TAM-based external factors related to ERP solutions acceptance in organizations,” International Journal of Information System and Project Management, vol. Vol 1 no 4 2013, pp. 25-38, 2013. [15] V. Venkatesh dan F. D. Davis, “A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies,” Management Science, vol. 46(2), pp. 186-204, 2000. [16] V. Venkatesh, “Creation of Favorable User Perception: Exploring the Role of Intrinsic Motivation,” MIS Quarterly, pp. 239-260, 1999. [17] A. Dillon, “User Acceptance of Information Technology,” Encyclopedia of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 2001. [18] F. D. Davis, A Technology Acceptance Model For Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1985. [19] V. Venkatesh dan H. Bala, “Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions,” Decision Sciences, 2008. [20] V. Venkatesh, M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis dan F. Davis, “User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward Unified View,” MIS Quarterly 27 (3), pp. 425-478, 2003. [21] F. Davis, R. Bagozzi dan P. Warshaw, “User Acceptance of Computer Technology A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models,” [23] SAP, “SAP Support Portal,” 2016. [Online]. Available: https://websmp202.sapag.de/~form/sapnet?_SHORTKEY=0110003 5870000725253&_SCENARIO=011000358 70000000202. [24] R. Sharma, “ERP – THE CHANGES TRENDS OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY,” International Journal of Management, IT and Engineering, vol. 2 , no. 9, September 2012. [25] SAP AG, “SAP Developer Network,” 2007. [Online]. Available: http://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/scn/go/portal/prtr oot/docs/library/uuid/f06a38c2-4f44-2a1010a1f077d45e1757?QuickLink=index&overridela yout=true&17639430706971. [26] F. Carter, T. Jambulingham, V. Gupta dan N. Melone, “Technological innovations: a framework for communicating diffusion effects,” Information & Management, vol. 38, pp. 277-287, 2001. [27] V. Venkatesh, M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis dan F. Davis, “User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward Unified View,” MIS Quarterly 27 (3), pp. 425-478, 2003. [28] J. Fulk, J. Schmitz dan C. Steinfield, Organizations and Communication Technology, Newburry Park: Sage Publications, 1990. [29] K. E. Weick, Technology and Organizations, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1990. [30] D. Lee, S. Lee, D. Olson dan S. Chung, “The effect of organizational support on ERP implementation,” Industrial Management & Data Systems, pp. 269-283, 2010. [31] I. K. S. R. S. T. Lee S.M, “The role of exogenous factors in technology acceptance:The case of object-oriented technology,” Information & Management, vol. 43, pp. 469-480, 2006. [32] V. Hong, “ERP Portal,” 2008. [Online]. Available: http://classes.ischool.syr.edu/ist600erp/best/d oc/best_asap.pdf. [Diakses 28 Agustus 2016]. [33] Amoako-Gyampah, “ERP Implementation Factors a Comparison of Managerial and EndUser Perspective,” Business Process Management Journal, pp. 171-181, 2004. [34] A. Bouwmeester, “Dysel Business Software,” 2016. [Online]. Available: http://www.dysel.com/blog/key-users-andtheir-influence-on-the-success-of-theimplementation-of-erp-software/. [Diakses 29 08 2016]. [35] R. Govindaraju dan N. Indriany, “A STUDY ON ERP SYSTEM ACCEPTANCE BASED ON TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL,” dalam 2nd International Conference on Operations and Supply Chain Management , Bangkok,Thailand, 2007. [36] Y. Hwang, “Investigating Enterprise System Adoption : Uncertainty Avoidance, Intrinsic Motivation and the Technology Acceptance Model,” European Journal of Information System, pp. 150-161, 2005. [37] F. D. Davis dan F. Davis, “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology,” MIS Quarterly, pp. 319-340, 1989. [38] M. Saunders, P. Lewis dan A. Thornhill, Research Methods for Business Students, Essex: Pearson Education Limited, 2009. [39] V. Venkatesh, “Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use:Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation,and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model,” Information Systems Research, pp. 342-365, 2000. [40] I. M. A. A. Widiatmika dan D. I. Sensuse, “Pengembangan Model Penerimaan Teknologi Internet Oleh Pelajar dengan Menggunakan Konsep Technology Acceptance Model (TAM),” Jurnal Sistem Informasi MTI-UI, pp. 81-92, 2008. [41] J. F. Hair, G. T. M. Hulk, C. M. Ringle dan M. Sarstedt, A Primer On Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM), California: SAGE Publications, 2014. [42] W. M. A. B. W. Afthanorhan, “A Comparison Of Partial Least Square Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) and Covariance Based Structural Equation Modeling (CB-SEM) for Confirmatory Factor Analysis,” International Journal of Engineering Science and Innovative Technology (IJESIT), 2013. Appendix 1 Indicator in Questionnaire Kode BPA1 Indikator System meets users and organizations needs BPA2 System in accordance with business processes BPA3 System in accordance with users need TRN1 Users have the opportunity to learn the system TRN2 Training method used was appropriate TRN3 Users understands the features that exist in the system TRN4 Improving understanding of how to use the system PCN1 User get information related to implementation process PCN2 PCN3 Users get information regarding changes that will occur as a result of the implementation of the system Users provide feedback regarding the use of the system PCN4 Implementation of the new system involving users ERP1 Users always get help when having problems ERP2 Users can easily ask for help when having problems SIE1 assumption from colleagues that the user must use the system SIE2 Presumption from superiors that the user must use the system SBB1 Users believe that the new system brings benefits to the organization SBB2 Coworkers believe that the new system brings benefits to the organization SBB3 PU1 Senior management believe that the new system brings benefits to the organization The use of the system can improve my performance PU2 The use of the system can increase my productivity PU3 The use of the system can improve the effectiveness of work PU4 System is useful PEU1 Interaction with the system is easy and clear PEU2 Easy to learn how to use the system PEU3 Easy to get what we need from the system PEU4 System is easy to use ATT1 Users enjoy the use of the system ATT2 Users like to use the system ATT3 Users feels bored when use the system Ref. [12] [13] [12] [9] [12] [9] [3] [12] [14] [12] [3] [9] [3] [21] [39] [9] [21] [39] [9] [40] [13] [35] [40]