Department of Computer and Information Science
Final Thesis
Developing a method for an ERP
system user interface beta test
program
byIsak Eriksson
Andreas Johansson
LIU-IDA/LITH-EX-A--08/052--SE
2008-11-21
Linköpings universitet SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
Linköpings universitet 581 83 Linköping
Final Thesis
Developing a method for an ERP
system user interface beta test
program
Isak Eriksson
Andreas Johansson
LIU-IDA/LITH-EX-A--08/052--SE
Supervisor and examiner:
Stefan Holmlid
Supervisor at IFS:
Kristina Sthengel-Lund
2008-11-21
Abstract
With this thesis we have been interested in how to utilise an user interface beta test period. Which activities are appropriate to be performed, with focus on how activities contribute to user interface validation, further user interface improvements, and improvements of the user interface roll‐out. Additionally we have tried to couple this to end‐user satisfaction and acceptance of this new user interface, since the usage of the system is mandatory for the end users. We have approached this by developing a method that is based on four different perspectives. Three perspectives are studied theoretically, and one perspective is based on empiric research. These perspectives are separate from each other; to combine them we have used a common denominator of increased system usage. This denominator is derived from a viewpoint upon end‐users and how user satisfaction, user acceptance, and behaviour incentives for usage affect the perspectives and consequently our result.
This broad research has resulted in a self‐sustaining method that we describe both in an overview and in greater detail explain the beta period and the associated roles, the different activities and how they should be executed in relevance to time. For every activity a table of considerations, i.e. when, who, how, and why are presented together with an explanation how the activity can influence end‐users to use the system.
We conclude that the result of this thesis will aid and guide vendor companies through the beta testing program of a new user interface. The resulting method determines which activities that can be of interest to carry out and how these will contribute to future development and/or improve roll‐out. By utilising this method as a framework we see the possibility to incorporate it in an existing user‐ centred development process, but it can also be used as a simple, straightforward, and self‐sustaining method.
Sammanfattning
Med detta examensarbete har vårt intresse varit att ta reda på hur man kan nyttja ett betatestprogram för ett användargränssnitt. Med ett fokus på vilka aktiviteter som är lämpliga att genomföra och hur kan dessa aktiviteter möjligen kan bidra till gränssnittsvalidering, bidra till förbättringar av gränssnittet och bidra till att förbättra utrullningen av gränssnittet. Ytterligare har vi varit intresserade av att koppla dessa aktiviteter mot slutanvändares nöjdhet och acceptans av ett nytt användargränssnitt.
Vi har adresserat detta genom att utveckla en metod som är baserad på fyra skiljda perspektiv, det vill säga fyra utgångspunkter att arbeta utifrån. Tre av dessa perspektiv har vi studerat litterärt och det fjärde har vi studerat genom insamling av empirisk data. Dessa perspektiv är skilda från varandra, och för att kunna sammanbinda dem har vi använt oss av en gemensam nämnare av ökat systemanvändande. Denna gemensamma nämnare kommer från en syn på slutanvändare och hur nöjdhet, acceptans och incitament för användande påverkar perspektiven och slutligen resultatet.
Denna breda studie har givit resultat genom en fristående metod som beskriver betatestprogrammet både översiktligt och mer utförligt. Detta görs med hänsyn till de olika aktiviteterna, de roller som krävs för dessa samt att detta tillsammans är kopplat mot tiden. För varje aktivitet beskrivs när, hur, vem och varför i en samlad tabell tillsammans med en beskrivande och förklarande text. Dessutom beskrivs det i samband med detta hur aktiviteten kan influera slutanvändarna positivt eller negativt, kopplat till ett ökat systemanvändande.
Vi drar slutsatsen att detta kommer underlätta och hjälpa företag att planera och genomföra betatestprogram för nya användargränssnitt. Den resulterande metoden underlättar valet av vilka aktiviteter som kan vara intressanta att genomföra samt hur dessa bidrar till framtida utveckling och/eller förbättrar utrullning. Genom att använda denna modell som ett ramverk, ser vi en möjlighet att den kan integreras mot en existerande användarcentrerad utvecklingsprocess. Men vi ser även att den kan användas som en enkel och fristående metod.
Acknowledgement
Our work with this thesis begun in the beginning of June 2008, now approximately five months later the work is coming to an end. This thesis is executed on commission by IFS. The thesis has required a lot of effort and commitment and we wouldn’t have been able to get the job done without the help of others. We want to thank the following persons for their support and feedback:
Kristina Sthengel‐Lund, our supervisor at IFS, who guided us throughout our work, gave valuable feedback, made us feel welcome at IFS, and inspired us with her positive attitude.
Stefan Holmlid, examiner and supervisor at Linköping University, for excellent guidance and comments. Rickard Bondesson, our opponent, for valuable feedback and comments. The employees at the Foundation1 department at IFS, for embracing us with a really friendly working environment and a lot of fun. Our interviewees, for gladly contributing with their input to the thesis. We also want to thank our family and friends for their continuous support! Linköping, 21 November 2008 Isak Eriksson Andreas Johansson
1. Introduction ... 1 1.1. Industrial and Financial Systems ... 1 1.1.1. Enterprise Resource Planning systems ... 2 1.2. Thesis background ... 2 1.3. Problem discussion ... 3 1.4. Thesis purpose ... 3 1.5. Problem formulation ... 3 1.6. Thesis perspectives ... 4 1.7. Thesis structure ... 6 1.8. Thesis contribution ... 8 1.8.1. Academic contribution ... 8 1.8.2. Contribution for IFS ... 8 1.9. Directives and delimitations ... 8 1.9.1. Directives ... 9 1.9.2. Delimitations ... 9 1.10. Target audience ... 9 2. Methodology ... 11 2.1. Research approach ... 11 2.1.1. Exploratory ... 11 2.1.2. Descriptive ... 11 2.1.3. Explanatory ... 11 2.1.4. Normative ... 12 2.1.5. Our view ... 12 2.2. Epistemology ... 12 2.2.1. Positivism ... 12 2.2.2. Hermeneutic ... 12 2.2.3. Our view ... 13 2.3. Credibility ... 13 2.3.1. Validity ... 13 2.3.2. Reliability ... 13
2.4.1. Our view ... 15 2.5. Values and assumptions ... 15 2.5.1. Our view ... 15 2.6. Relation between theory and reality ... 16 2.6.1. Inductive ... 16 2.6.2. Deductive ... 16 2.6.3. Our view ... 16 2.7. Qualitative and quantitative ... 16 2.7.1. Our approach ... 17 2.8. Data collecting ... 18 2.8.1. Interviews ... 18 2.8.2. Literature study ... 20 PART II ... 23 3. The IFS perspective ... 25 3.1. IFS Enterprise Explorer ... 25 3.1.1. Top five time waster ... 25 3.2. News in IFS Enterprise Explorer ... 26 3.3. IFS Enterprise Explorer Alpha Test ... 28 3.4. IFS Plans for the Early Adopter Program ... 28 3.4.1. Program purpose ... 29 3.4.2. Time schedule ... 29 3.4.3. IFS feedback process ... 30 3.5. openIFS and openIFS Wiki ... 31 3.6. IFS Applications 7.5 beta testing in Poland ... 32 3.7. Result from interviews with IFS consultants ... 33 4. Increased system usage ... 35 4.1. Antecedents to usage ... 36 4.2. Mandatory use environment ... 39 4.3. Combining user satisfaction and technology acceptance ... 40 4.4. Common denominator ... 42 5. Enterprise Resource Planning system perspective ... 43 5.1. Implementation and roll‐out issues ... 43
5.2. ERP system upgrade ... 51 5.2.1. Reasons for upgrading ... 51 5.2.2. Less problematic and more controllable ... 51 6. Customer product testing perspective ... 53 6.1. Software testing ... 53 6.1.1. System testing ... 54 6.1.2. Alpha test ... 54 6.1.3. Beta test ... 54 6.2. Existing beta test methods ... 56 7. Interface and usability perspective ... 59 7.1. User feedback and usability ... 59 7.1.1. Feedback methods ... 63 7.1.2. Usability testing and evaluation... 68 7.1.3. Combining Feedback methods ... 72 7.1.4. Feedback focus ... 72 7.1.5. Remote usability evaluation and feedback ... 73 7.1.6. User initiated feedback ... 74 7.1.7. How to choose participants ... 76 7.2. Quantitative usability goals ... 78 7.3. Qualitative usability goals ... 80 7.4. Follow‐up studies ... 80 PART III ... 83 8. Method description for beta testing period ... 85 8.1. Method description ... 85 8.2. Pre‐beta... 91 8.2.1. Planning of beta testing program ... 91 8.2.2. Introduction of the system ... 93 8.2.3. Training and education ... 95 8.3. Feedback methods ... 97 8.3.1. Questionnaires ... 99 8.3.2. Observations ... 99 8.3.3. Combining feedback methods ... 101
8.4.2. User satisfaction evaluation ... 103 8.4.3. IT‐agility evaluation ... 105 8.4.4. Usability testing ... 106 8.4.5. Usability evaluation... 108 8.5. Combined feedback methods and activities ... 113 8.5.1. User community ... 113 8.5.2. User initiated feedback ... 116 8.6. Other activities and considerations ... 119 8.6.1. User groups ... 119 8.6.2. Factors for considerations ... 121 8.7. Post‐beta ... 122 8.7.1. Project summary ... 122 8.7.2. Input for new design ... 123 9. Conclusion ... 125 10. Discussion ... 127 10.1. Feasibility and practicability... 127 10.1.1. Time, role, and activity ... 128 10.1.2. The result of our method at IFS ... 129 10.1.3. Bootstrap ... 130 10.2. Generalisation ... 130 10.3. Alternative approach ... 131 10.4. Further research ... 131 References ... 133 Appendix I – Interview template Fredric Travaglia ... 141 Appendix II – Interview template Johan Olofsson ... 145 Appendix III – Interview template for IFS consultants ... 147 Appendix IV – IFS Enterprise Explorer and the traditional Windows client ... 151 Appendix V – Component view of IFS Applications ... 159 Appendix VI – Role definitions ... 161 Appendix VII – Roles in the different phases ... 163
List of Figures
FIGURE 1 – CONCEPTUAL VIEW ... 4
FIGURE 2 – THESIS STRUCTURE OVERVIEW ... 6
FIGURE 3 – IFS FIVE TEST AND DEVELOPMENT STAGES ... 28
FIGURE 4 – EAP TIME PLAN FROM IFS SLIDE SHOW MATERIAL ... 29
FIGURE 5 – IFS FEEDBACK PROCESS ... 31
FIGURE 6 – TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL ... 37
FIGURE 7 – RELATIONSHIP AMONG FACTORS FROM AMOAKO‐GYAMPAH'S RESEARCH. ... 38
FIGURE 8 – RELATIONSHIP AMONG FACTORS FROM CALISIR & CALISIR'S RESEARCH. ... 39
FIGURE 9 – WIXOM & TODD’S INTEGRATED MODEL ... 41
FIGURE 10 – A MODEL OVER THE FEEDBACK PROCESS ... 60
FIGURE 11 – EXAMPLE OF TOPIC ... 86
FIGURE 12 – EXAMPLE OF CONTRIBUTING FACTORS ... 87
FIGURE 13 – EXAMPLE OF FEEDBACK METHOD ... 87
FIGURE 14 – METHOD OVERVIEW ... 88
FIGURE 15 – IFS ENTERPRISE EXPLORER SHOWING ENTERPRISE APPLICATION SEARCH ... 151
FIGURE 16 – IFS ENTERPRISE EXPLORER SHOWING NAVIGATION FILTER ... 152
FIGURE 17 – IFS ENTERPRISE EXPLORER SHOWING NOTES ... 153
FIGURE 18 – IFS ENTERPRISE EXPLORER SHOWING BREADCRUMBS ... 154
FIGURE 19 – IFS ENTERPRISE EXPLORER SHOWING RECENT SCREENS ... 155
FIGURE 20 – IFS ENTERPRISE EXPLORER SHOWING A VOUCHER ENTRY ... 156
FIGURE 21 – IFS TRADITIONAL WINDOWS CLIENT SHOWING A VOUCHER ENTRY ... 157
FIGURE 22 – IFS APPLICATIONS COMPONENT CHART ... 159
FIGURE 23 – ROLES DURING PRE‐BETA ... 163
FIGURE 24 – ROLES DURING PHASE 1 ... 164
FIGURE 25 – ROLES DURING PHASE 2 ... 165
FIGURE 26 – ROLES DURING PHASE 3 ... 166
List of Tables
TABLE 1 – DIFFERENCES IN FOCUS BETWEEN QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH. ... 17
TABLE 2 – TOP FIVE TIME WASTERS ACCORDING TO IFS USABILITY SURVEY ... 25
TABLE 3 – LESSONS LEARNED FROM INTERVIEW WITH JOHAN OLOFSSON ... 33
TABLE 4 – FACTORS WITH DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ON ERP CSFS ... 45
TABLE 5 – ISSUES WITH USABILITY TESTING DURING A BETA TEST PROGRAM. ... 56
TABLE 6 – OVERVIEW OF MAYHEW’S FIVE FEEDBACK METHODS ... 62
TABLE 7 – COMPARISON BETWEEN ONLINE AND TRADITIONAL FOCUS GROUPS ... 68
TABLE 8 – REMOTE USABILITY TESTING AND EVALUATION METHODS ... 73
TABLE 9 – SEVERITY ESTIMATION OF USABILITY PROBLEMS ... 75
TABLE 10 – DIFFERENT TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS ... 77
TABLE 11 – MAYHEW'S USABILITY GOALS ... 79
TABLE 12 – ASSOCIATED ROLES ... 89 TABLE 13 – PLANNING OVERVIEW ... 93 TABLE 14 – INTRODUCTION OVERVIEW ... 95 TABLE 15 – TRAINING AND EDUCATION OVERVIEW ... 97 TABLE 16 – OBSERVATION OVERVIEW... 101 TABLE 17 – TRAINING EVALUATION OVERVIEW ... 103 TABLE 18 – USER SATISFACTION OVERVIEW ... 105
TABLE 19 – IT‐AGILITY OVERVIEW... 106
TABLE 20 – USABILITY TESTING OVERVIEW ... 108
TABLE 21– EVALUATION MEASURES FROM THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK IN CHAPTER 7.2 AND 7.3 ... 109
TABLE 22 – EASE OF LEARNING OVERVIEW ... 111 TABLE 23 – EASE OF USE OVERVIEW ... 113 TABLE 24 – USER COMMUNITY OVERVIEW ... 116 TABLE 25 – USER INITIATED FEEDBACK OVERVIEW ... 119 TABLE 26 – USER GROUPS OVERVIEW ... 121 TABLE 27 – PROJECT SUMMARY OVERVIEW ... 123 TABLE 28 – INPUT FOR NEW DESIGN OVERVIEW ... 123 TABLE 29 – ROLE DEFINITIONS ... 161
Abbreviations CTO Chief Technology Officer CSF Critical Success Factors EAP Early Adaptor Program EAS Enterprise Application Search ERP Enterprise Resource Planning IFS Industrial and Financial Systems IS Information System IT Information Technology LCS Life Cycle Support MRP Material Resource Planning R&D Research and Development PR Public Relations SOA Service Oriented Architecture SP Service Pack TAM Technology Acceptance Model
PART I
In this part we introduce the reader to the subject of our thesis. The reader will be informed of the problem description, contribution, and purpose of this thesis. We will describe which methods we have used during our research, giving the reader academic background and a possibility to estimate our method for approaching the subject. After reading this first part the reader should feel conversant with our research approach as well as the purpose and goal of this thesis.
1. Introduction
The goal with this chapter is to give the reader background information about IFS and an introduction to the subject of our thesis. After reading this chapter the reader should understand the purpose with this thesis and the structure of it.
1.1. Industrial and Financial Systems
IFS is an acronym and stands for Industrial and Financial Systems. IFS was founded in 1983 by five engineers from the Linköping University in Sweden. IFS’ first job required many man hours and working hours was not bound solely to daytime. Consequently the founders pitched up a tent right outside the customers head quarter so they could be accessed all the time. This is still one of IFS foundational customer approaches where IFS is: “close to the customer”. IFS is an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) vendor which in 1990 released their first complete ERP suite, IFS Applications and during the following ten years there was rapid growth of the company. This resulted in that IFS became represented on each continent in the world in 1999. In 2005 IFS got more than 500,000 users. In 2007 IFS reached 600,000 users on IFS Applications with 2,000 customers globally. (Söderström, Internet source, 2008 and Om IFS, Internet source, 2008) Accordingly to IFS global web page they phrase their business mission as following (Our business concept, Internet source, 2008): “With its own resources, and in collaboration with partners, IFS develops, sells, and implements the componentbased business software, IFS Applications” IFS as an ERP vendor focus their application suit on seven types of industries: Aerospace and Defence Automotive Constructing, Contracting and Service Management Manufacturing Process Industries Retail & Wholesale Utilities and Telecom (Söderström, Internet source, 2008) IFS Applications is a component based ERP suit built on SOA technology. From all IFS Applications components the customers can choose to implement a desired amount. This makes IFS Applications agile and flexible so that it can suit both large and small companies. Appendix V shows the components that make up IFS applications suit. The components are divided into different functional areas. Irrespective of which components that are selected the Foundation1 of IFS Applications has to be installed. The Foundation1 is the functional base of IFS
Applications that is needed in order for the rest of the components to operate and collaborate. This gives a short description of the software product that IFS develop, maintain, update, distribute, and implement.
1.1.1. Enterprise Resource Planning systems
This chapter gives the reader not familiar with ERP systems a brief introduction to the subject. Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems have its roots from the Material Requirements Planning (MRP) software that developed during the late 1970s. The MRP system planned requirements for parts or products according to the company’s master production schedule. Therefore facilitating the extensive planning included in the production. In the 1980s the MRP was extended by synchronising the materials with the requirements for productions and including project management, distribution management, and more. This was called Manufacturing Resource Planning (MRPII) systems. (Rashid et al., 2002)
Based on the MRP and MRPII the whole enterprise business process was integrated into one consistent system in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This new completely integrated solution relies on one central data base for the whole organisation and is called Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems. ERP systems include manufacturing, distribution, accounting, finance, human resource management, project management, inventory management, and service and maintenance management. Later ERP systems functionality increased and is to be called extended ERP. Extended ERP includes advanced planning and scheduling capabilities and is often referred to as simply; ERP. This is the definition that we will use throughout this thesis. (Rashid et al., 2002)
1.2. Thesis background
IFS is in progress of developing a new user interface for their ERP system: IFS Applications. IFS´ traditional user interface will be replaced by the new user interface called; IFS Enterprise Explorer, during 2009. The traditional interface is a Windows client while IFS Enterprise Explorer is based on rich web client. IFS Enterprise Explorer will have roughly the same functionality as the traditional interface but will provide a new look and an improved user interface. The new graphical user interface is one of the first deliverables from the IFS Aurora Program, which is the company’s focus program for increased user productivity. (See chapter 3.1 and 3.2 for more information about IFS Enterprise Explorer)
During late autumn in 2008 IFS will launch a beta testing program for IFS Enterprise Explorer called Early Adopter Program (EAP). Beta testing is the process where vendors externally test their product at customers’ real world and everyday environment (Patton, 2005 and Dolan & Matthews, 1993). A more detailed description of what a beta test is can be found in chapter 6.1.3. The EAP allows a few IFS customers to run IFS Enterprise Explorer in their production environment, performing daily activities. IFS´ aim during the EAP is to ensure the
quality and functionality of IFS Enterprise Explorer by involving and collecting feedback from customers and end‐users.
IFS wants to ensure that the introduction of IFS Enterprise Explorer on the market becomes a success by addressing end‐user problems before the production release. A system cannot be successful if it’s not used by end‐users (Amoako‐ Gyampah, 2007) neither can unused or misused systems improve organisational performance (Davis et al., 1989). Therefore it’s essential to ensure system usage of IFS’ product.
1.3. Problem discussion
In previous releases IFS have not worked with beta tests, with an exception for a beta test in Poland in 2007 (see chapter 3.6). Therefore IFS have no developed and well‐tried beta testing methodology. In this case the beta test concerns their new user interface IFS Enterprise Explorer, consequently it differs from the beta test held in Poland. Therefore IFS needs a method for testing their interface during the EAP. It’s important to find out how the interface can be tested during the beta test, without reliance from a complete and well tried usability development process. Therefore the beta test process needs to be self‐sustaining, without dependencies from previous usability and design objectives and test results.
The new user interface provides a completely new design and several new features and functions that do not exist in the traditional Windows interface. The business logic is not changed but this will still affect the end‐users and their everyday work. There is a need for IFS to test their interface and get feedback from the users and customers. Therefore feedback collecting activities should, if possible, be modified to increase the user satisfaction and decrease the resistance to change. However with limited resources it is important to find which activities that can be conducted and by whom. This gives incentives for a method that identifies roles and links them with feedback and testing activities.
1.4. Thesis purpose
The purpose of this final thesis is to develop a method that describes how to utilise a user interface beta test program with focus on user interface validation, user interface improvements, and improvements of the user interface roll‐out.
1.5. Problem formulation
In order to fulfil the thesis purpose we have concretised problems which need to be researched. Which activities are appropriate to perform? Who are involved in these activities? When in time should the activities be performed? How does this affect the end‐users?
1.6. Thesis perspectives
Figure 1 shows a conceptual picture over the parts that are included in our thesis. It visualise the different parts of the thesis and how they depend on each other. Figure 1 – Conceptual viewThe Topics of interest represent the topics that we have found interesting to evaluate during a beta test period. The Timeframe and roles layer represents the different roles we have identified and the timeframe when they need to be used during a beta test period. The Feedback methods layer represents the different feedback methods that should be used and how these should be planned during a beta test period. The Interface and roll‐out improvements layer represents the part where we try to explain what activities can lead to feedback about the user interface or the roll‐out of the system. The Increased usage layer represents the viewpoint of how different activities can increase the end‐users usage of the system.
We urge the reader to have the conceptual outline, from figure 1, in mind when reading further. This since we believe that the reader will get more out of this thesis by sharing our conceptual view.
When developing a method for the Early Adopter Program (EAP) many different viewpoints or perspectives can be taken in order to comprehensively cover the
Increased system usage Interface and roll out improvements Feedback methods Timeframe and roles Topics of interest
subject. To be able to succeed with our purpose of this thesis, we think it is vital to look on the research from different perspectives. This was not obvious at first but it became clearer with time that this was necessary for our report. During the early stages of our thesis work we had an interview with Fredric Travaglia at IFS. He has worked a lot with the IFS implementation method and briefed us about it. The interview will not be presented further in this thesis but we want to mention it as it has influenced us in our choice of perspectives.
Our intent is to cover our purpose broadly and try to get information from different sources to be able to see how it’s possible to utilise the EAP in a good way. The reader should be aware of that a broad picture of the subject is our goal and therefore only few interesting parts are investigated deeply. We have thus selected four different perspectives, presented in the bullet list below, for our future research. ERP implementation and roll‐out Customer product testing Interface and usability perspective The IFS perspective ERP implementation and rollout
IFS Enterprise Explorer is, as mentioned before, the new interface for IFS Applications 7.5 and further releases. Thus the interface is a part of the ERP suite and will affect future implementations and roll‐outs of IFS ERP Suite. Therefore we have chosen to investigate which factors that could be of interest to examine from an ERP implementation and roll‐out perspective. Customer product testing The EAP is a beta testing period for IFS Enterprise Explorer, or in other words; a customer product testing period. Therefore it’s important to include the customer product testing perspective into our research. Interface and usability perspective IFS Enterprise Explorer is the new user interface that the Early Adopter Program focus is on, therefore we have chosen to use interface and usability as one of our perspectives from which we perform our research. We have chosen this perspective to be able to investigate different feedback methods, i.e. what kind of information can be gained from them and when is it appropriate to use them. The IFS perspective
In order to make suggestions for IFS we have to investigate and understand the activities that they have planned. We also have to get insights in how their normal implementing activities are carried out, since it might affect the progress of this thesis. This is due to the possibility for us to provide suggestions for future roll‐
outs. We believe that IFS employees has vast amount of useful knowledge. This knowledge may be used to find out how the EAP can be utilised. Further has McLure Wasko & Faraj (2000) found from their literature study that knowledge is the one of the company’s most important resources, since it represents intangible assets and routines. Thus we have chosen to include this in one of our four perspectives.
Increased system usage
As mentioned before (See 1.2) system usage is vital. If the system is not used enough it can never reach its full potential. While studying the subject of increased usage we found that it’s not suited to be a perspective. Several perspectives give us incentives and ways for how to render and sort our findings from a broad literature study. Therefore we have chosen to use the topic of increased system usage as the common denominator to analyse the collected data from.
1.7. Thesis structure
Our thesis is structured after four perspectives and a point of view which is a way of looking upon the literature we have studied. What we learn from our different perspectives is to be systemised into a suggested method for the EAP. We have chosen to structure our thesis by three advance organisers formatted as parts. Each part is a short statement that introduces and summarise the following material. Together this is visualised in figure 2 and results in the following structure: Figure 2 – Thesis structure overview •Four perspectives The IFS perspective, ERP system perspective, Customer product testing perspective, and Interface and usability perspective •Common denominator Increased system usage •Systemised into a method Method
PART I Introduction
Introduces the reader to the subject of this thesis and gives background on our client IFS.
Methodology
Describes how our research is done and also declares how we have handled empiric findings. This chapter is mostly aimed at readers with an academic interest of our thesis.
PART II
The IFS perspective
This chapter goes through the EAP from an IFS perspective. This is the base for one of our perspectives, the IFS perspective. Here the reader can find information concerning IFS activities and knowledge.
Increased system usage
Here we go through the different aspects that lead to a concluding statement that many factors concerning end‐users beliefs, acceptance, and satisfaction finally imply on increased usage.
Enterprise Resource Planning system perspective
We aim at looking upon factors that can influence the likelihood for IFS to succeed with their roll‐out of IFS Enterprise Explorer from an ERP perspective. We made a cross‐examination of important key factors based on literature. This research has preliminarily worked as a catalyst which has influenced our continuous work progress.
Customer product testing perspective
We investigate the subject from a perspective of the EAP being a customer product testing period. Interface and usability perspective The last of our perspectives origin from the fact that IFS Enterprise Explorer is a new user interface; this gives us a new angle of approach. PART III Method description for beta testing period Here we combine our result with no regard to which perspective the information descend from, but with a mindset on increased usage. This chapter is a result after the systematisation of data from the research on perspectives and the common denominator of increased system usage. As a whole, this chapter should been seen as the method that we propose.
Conclusion
In this chapter we present the conclusions of this thesis. Discussion
Here we discuss our proposed method and go through important discussion subjects such as feasibility, generalisation, and further research on the subject.
1.8. Thesis contribution
In this chapter we will present the contribution of this final thesis from two perspectives. One perspective is the academic contribution, which entails a description of why this thesis is of interest from an academic point of view. We also make an explanation of why this thesis is of interest for IFS.
1.8.1. Academic contribution
The contribution to the academic world with this thesis is in the systematisation of factors from different areas of literature. Our systematisation has resulted in a method that is linked to the dependencies of time, role, and activity during a specific timeframe in the development of a software interface. Thus the method can support and bring forward further research in the subject that intersects software engineering, usability engineering and a mindset on increased system usage. As far as our knowledge reaches we do not know of any method that is structured in the way ours is. Therefore this method might give incentives for future research and empiric tests in this area.
1.8.2. Contribution for IFS
The contribution for IFS of this final thesis is a proposed method for how the customer testing product program, the EAP, can be utilised. Further the utilisation of the EAP will give IFS insight of what they can expect of the different activities we propose. It gives IFS an overview of the necessary roles and when in time they are active in connection to the different activities. As a result IFS gets knowledge of what can be done during the EAP, why it should be done and the human resources needed for it. However IFS has to recognise the value of each activity and see the potential benefits and sort out which activities they are willing to conduct. Because of the limited timeframe it might not be advisable to attempt to conduct every step in our method.
1.9. Directives and delimitations
Here we introduce directives that are determined by IFS and the delimitations we have issued. We have chosen to present them separated from each other to make the difference between them more distinct (Björklund & Paulsson, 2003).
According to Björklund and Paulsson (2003) it’s important to explain why and what implications each delimitation entail.
1.9.1. Directives
These directives are given to us by our IFS supervisor.
This only considers IFS Enterprise Explorer as a core/standard package.
The outcome should be simple and straightforward.
This only relates to customers moving from the traditional IFS Applications Windows client user interface to IFS Applications with the IFS Enterprise Explorer user interface.
1.9.2. Delimitations
Due to the nature of this final thesis the process of setting delimitations will be ongoing. Whenever new information is brought up some delimitation might be required to be set. Therefore this is an evolving phase of our thesis and is not able to be complete from the beginning. The delimitations will help us to get a congregated thesis that will demand commitment and engagement.
We address the thesis problem from four major perspectives and in connection to a beta test program. These are to delimit the scope and vastness of the thesis. Other perspectives will not be addressed. We will not consider business process reengineering factors of IFS
Enterprise Explorer implementation or any other organisational impacts unless they are connected to end‐user impact.
This thesis will only concern the scope of a beta test, limited by the EAP. This delimitation is necessary so that the thesis framework have a delimitation that limits its scope in a suitable manner.
Since the EAP only gives opportunities to study customers moving from IFS Applications Windows client to IFS Enterprise Explorer, it’s logical for us to focus only on customers that already have IFS Applications installed.
1.10. Target audience
We have identified two separate audience groups that will find interest in reading our thesis. Therefore we will have these two different groups in mind when writing.
The first group is IFS employees who will take interest in this thesis. There might also exist interest from other employees in the same branch but from another ERP vendor than IFS. The second target audience group is students and teachers, or researchers that will find an interest in this thesis from an academic point of view.
Both groups consist of educated persons, therefore this thesis will be written to fit these types of readers.
2. Methodology
In this chapter we present some choices that can be made about methodology, methods and the practical procedure when researching a topic. We present some of the different views on knowledge and how to perform research. In the end of every sub‐chapter our views and our way of working during this thesis are presented. After reading this chapter the reader knows which methods we used for this thesis.
2.1. Research approach
The amount of available knowledge in the research field can be important when selecting what kind of a study that is going to be performed (Björklund & Paulsson, 2003). Below are four different approaches presented together with our approach.
2.1.1. Exploratory
Exploratory research is especially useful when trying to clarify the understanding of a problem. These forms of studies are also useful when trying to seek new insights, to ask questions and when trying to shed new light on a phenomena (Saunders et al., 2003). Exploratory studies are mainly used when there are little knowledge in the current field of research thus making thoughtfulness and creativity a vital part of the research (Patel & Davidson, 2003). According to Saunders et al. (2003) there are three principal ways of conducting exploratory research: A search of the literature Talking to experts in the subject Conducting focus group interviews According to Gustavsson (2004) for exploratory purposes qualitative methods are the best choice.
2.1.2. Descriptive
Descriptive studies are used when there is basic understanding of the subject and the goal of the research is primarily to describe the subject in question (Björklund & Paulsson, 2003). According to Patel & Davidson (2003) descriptive research is focused on only some aspects of the phenomena that are of interest but these aspects are described thoroughly and the level of detail is high.2.1.3. Explanatory
Explanatory studies can be used when the aim is to both describe and explain the phenomena of interest (Björklund & Paulsson, 2003). According to Saunders et al. (2003) explanatory studies are characterised by establishing casual relationships
between variables. The same authors state that the emphasis in explanatory studies is to investigate a situation or a problem in order to explain the relationship between different variables. Quantitative methods are often the best choice for explanatory studies (Gustavsson, 2004).
2.1.4. Normative
Normative studies are used when there already exists some knowledge and understanding in the field of research and the aim is to give guidance and propose measures to take. (Björklund & Paulsson, 2003)
2.1.5. Our view
We believe that we have both a normative and an exploratory research approach. With existing knowledge and understanding in the research area we try to propose measures to take during a beta test period. This part of the study could be seen as to have a normative research approach.
The part where we try to make use of a beta test in new ways could be seen as to have an exploratory research approach. We try to get insights about how to use a beta test in new ways and clarify how to use this information during roll‐out of the system and for interface improvements. We regard this to be an exploratory research approach.
2.2. Epistemology
Two different epistemologies, perspectives of knowledge, dominate the literature: positivism and interpretivism. Interpretivism is also referred to as hermeneutic (Saunders et al., 2003). Epistemology is how the researcher views knowledge and the creation of knowledge (Björklund & Paulsson, 2003).
2.2.1. Positivism
A researcher adopting the principles of positivism tries to be an objective analyst, making interpretations about gathered data and tries to gather data in a value‐ free manner (Saunders et al., 2003). Even though researchers have different views of positivism they share some fundamental aspects of what positivism means (Bryman, 2002). One of the things they have in common is that science should be objective. Another principle most positivist researchers share is the fact that one should use theory to generate hypothesis that could later be verified empirically through scientific methods. The researchers’ views and ideals should not influence the research, making it possible to replace the researcher without affecting the outcome of the research. (Patel & Davidson, 2003)
2.2.2. Hermeneutic
Hermeneutic could be seen as the opposite of positivism (Patel & Davidson, 2003). A bit simplified, this is due to the fact that a researcher adopting a hermeneutic view tries to understand reality and positivist researchers’ tries to explain reality (Arbnor & Bjerke, 1994).
Hermeneutic researchers believe that reality is a social construction. People place different interpretations on the situations they find themselves in and that these interpretations are likely to affect their actions and their social interactions with others. Thus in this sense people not only interact with their environment, they also tries to make sense of it through their own interpretations of different events and the meanings they draw from these. (Saunders et al., 2003) The hermeneutic researcher tries to interpret the research object in a subjective manner, thus the researcher own comprehension, thoughts, feelings and knowledge is a vital part of hermeneutic research (Patel & Davidson, 2003). According to Saunders et al. (2003) the role of the researcher is “to understand the subjective reality of those they study in order to able to make sense of and understand their motives, actions and intentions in a way that is meaningful for these research participants”.
2.2.3. Our view
We believe that reality is a social construction; different people can interpret a situation differently. We also believe that it’s hard to perform research that is truly objective and we believe that our own thoughts and pre‐comprehension about the subject will influence the research, as a result making our interpretations subjective. Our belief is also that other researchers that have a different backgrounds, knowledge and thoughts would not necessarily come to the same conclusions that we have. With all this in mind we conclude that we have a hermeneutic epistemology.
2.3. Credibility
Validity, reliability and objectivity can be seen as a measurement of the credibility of scientific research. A researcher should always have these aspects in mind to improve the credibility of the research. (Björklund & Paulsson, 2003) Below are the three aspects and our view of them presented.
2.3.1. Validity
Björklund & Paulsson (2003) define validity as in what extent the researcher really measure what is intended to be measured. According to Patel & Davidson (2003) the concern about validity is especially important when measuring abstract phenomena’s. The same authors emphasise that one way of ensuring validity is to measure the same phenomena with different instruments and see if the result is the same. Björklund & Paulson (2003) agree and suggests that different perspectives should be used.
2.3.2. Reliability
According to Saunders et al. (2003) reliability can be assessed by posing the three questions below. Will the measures yield the same results on other occasions? Will similar observations be reached by other observers? Is there transparency in how sense was made from the raw data?
Björklund & Paulsson (2003) suggest using several questions about the same thing when investigating a specific matter. This makes it possible to compare the answers and thus increase the reliability. The authors also suggest triangulation as a way to increase the reliability.
2.3.3. Objectivity
Björklund & Paulsson (2003) define objectivity as to what extent the research is influenced by values. The same authors propose that the objectivity can be increased by clearly explaining the different choices done during the study and thus making it possible for the reader to assess the outcome of the research.
2.3.4. Our view
A hermeneutic approach has some impact on the reliability of the research because a researcher trying to duplicate the research may not come to the same conclusions. We however try to explain the choices we have made for collecting data and how we have interpreted it, thus increasing the reliability. We believe that our research has been somewhat affected by our values, that comes with the hermeneutic approach. We have however tried to explain the different choices we have made, e.g. the perspectives chosen, and we believe that this makes it possible for the reader to assess our research. The objectivity is also increased by the fact that the research has its foundation in different academic theories. We believe that the validity of this kind of research is hard to define as it is not actually measuring something; it’s more about systemising different sources and making sense out of these. With this said and the fact that one of the outcomes is a process method for a beta test period we believe that the feasibility of the method is more important.
To ensure the validity we have only used academic literature and we have been supervised by senior and experienced people. We have been supervised from the university, thus it gives us a reassurance against the academic world. We have also been supervised from IFS, thus getting the view from the non‐academic world. Together we have worked as a team, discussed issues and therefore always get two views in each discussion. As a result we think that this improve the validity of this thesis.
In order to ensure the reliability of this thesis we have used several academic sources to support our research. This gives us the chance to compare findings from these researchers findings, thus accordingly to Björklund & Paulsson (2003) increasing the reliability.
2.4. Generalisation
In chapter 2.6 we discussed the importance of a representative selection in quantitative research to be able to generalise the results to a broader population or a similar situation. According to Bryman (2002) it’s possible to generalise the results to the population that the selection was taken from. He also states that, strictly speaking, it’s not possible to generalise the results to any other population than the selection was taken from.
Generalisation is often a difficult subject when it comes to qualitative research (Patel & Davidson, 2003). Qualitative researchers should try to make their descriptions about their research as thick as possible. These descriptions make it possible for others to understand how the research was performed and thus it’s possible to determine how and if the results can be generalised to other situations. (Bryman, 2002) According to Patel & Davidson (2003) a qualitative analysis can lead to an understanding of a phenomena and its relation to a specific context. A generalisation can then possibly be made to similar phenomena or similar contexts (Patel & Davidson, 2003).
2.4.1. Our view
During this whole chapter we try to explain and describe how our research has been done and what choices we have made, thus making it possible for others to evaluate how our research has been performed. Together with this and with Patel & Davidson (2003) thoughts about generalisation in mind, we believe that some of our results can be generalised to similar contexts. To what extent and how generalisations can be made will be further discussed in chapter 10.
2.5. Values and assumptions
Values are the researchers own personal opinions and feelings. Values can also include a person’s assumption about a particular subject. The researcher’s values and assumptions influence the scientific process in several of its stages, e.g. choice of method, interpreting and analysing data and the conclusions drawn from the data. Knowing that values and assumptions can influence the research, it is important for the researcher to think about how these will affect the research, thus making it more unlikely that the values and assumptions will affect the research negatively. (Bryman, 2002)
2.5.1. Our view
We believe that our research is influenced by our own values and assumptions; this is also a part of the hermeneutic perspective of knowledge. We have however, during the whole work with this thesis, tried to be aware of this and minimise the negative consequences of our values and assumptions.
2.6. Relation between theory and reality
The level of abstraction when performing research varies. The outer points in a scale of abstraction are theory and empirics (Björklund & Paulsson, 2003). Below are two different approaches presented with varying levels of abstraction.
2.6.1. Inductive
A researcher working in an inductive manner begins with gathering empiric data about the research object. This is done without first studying existing theory in the field of research. With the help of the gathered empiric data the researcher creates a theory. The fact that the theory is formulated with the help of empiric data from a specific situation makes it hard to say anything about if the theory is general. (Patel & Davidson, 2003)
2.6.2. Deductive
A deductive way of working is characterised by using general principles and existing theories to draw conclusions about specific cases (Patel & Davidson, 2003). The researcher creates hypothesis by using existing theories and then test them using empiric data (Arbnor & Bjerke, 1994). The objectivity of the research is assumed to be high due to the fact that the research has its foundation in an existing theory. One problem with this approach is that the research is influenced by the existing theory and therefore some interesting new discoveries could be missed. (Patel & Davidson, 2003)
2.6.3. Our view
During our initial work with this thesis we tried to get as broad picture of the research area as possible. This was done by doing an extensive literature review to investigate factors that could be interesting to further investigate. The literature review resulted in a better understanding of the subject and ultimately in the perspectives that we have worked after. As we have created a model that has its foundation in different theories we have had a deductive way of working. We believe that by using different perspectives, to approach the purpose from, we have lessened the effect of a too strong influence by one theory which can be a risk when using a deductive way of working.
2.7. Qualitative and quantitative
Research that can be measured or in some sense can be valued numerically is called quantitative research. Qualitative research is used when a deeper understanding of a subject, a situation or a specific event is the aim of the research. (Björklund & Paulsson, 2003) The table below tries to describe the differences on focus between qualitative and quantitative research (Bryman, 2002).
Table 1 – Differences in focus between qualitative and quantitative research. Quantitative Qualitative Numbers Words The researchers view The participants view Distance Nearness Testing theory Creating theory Structured Unstructured Generalization Contextual meaning Macro Micro Behaviour Meaning In quantitative research the researcher is often interested in how the study can be generalized to include situations or events that are not included in the actual study. To be able to generalize the results it is important that the quantitative researcher makes a representative selection of people that is of interest in the study. With a representative selection it is easier for the quantitative researcher to claim that the result is also valid for the group of people in the population that the selection was taken from. (Bryman, 2002)
Qualitative research is used, as stated above, when a deeper understanding of a subject is wanted. According to Björklund & Paulsson (2003) the qualitative research can be generalized, but to a lesser extent than quantitative research.
Björklund & Paulsson (2003) states that it is the purpose of the study that determines if the study should be quantitative or qualitative. Observations and interviews are most suited for qualitative research and surveys and statistical models are most suited for quantitative research (Björklund & Paulsson, 2003).
Both qualitative and quantitative research has it flaws. Qualitative research is by some seen as too subjective; the results are in a too large extent influenced by the view of the researcher of what is important and meaningful thus making the research less credible. Qualitative research is often impossible to redo thus making it hard to verify the findings. Quantitative research relies on different ways of measuring and procedures for measuring which makes it harder to relate the research with actual reality. The procedural manner of quantitative research can give it a false sense of reliability, it is not sure that the measurements really measure what they are intended to measure. (Bryman, 2002)
2.7.1. Our approach
During this thesis we have had a qualitative approach as a deeper understanding of the subject was wanted. The empiric data has been collected via interviews and have been semi‐structured to unstructured in its nature as this was deemed mostappropriate. More information about our interviews can be found in chapter 2.8.1.
2.8. Data collecting
There are several methods of collecting data when doing research. These include but are not limited to: (Björklund & Paulsson, 2003) Literature review Interviews Questionnaires Observations ExperimentDue to the fact that we have chosen a qualitative approach (See 2.7.1) and the nature of our research, only interviews and literature review is discussed in this chapter.
2.8.1. Interviews
Interview is a technique for collecting information where asking questions is a vital part. An interview is often a face to face meeting between the interviewer and the interviewee, but interviews can also be made over the phone. (Patel & Davidson, 2003)
According to Björklund & Paulsson (2003) interviews are a good way to collect information because they provide information that is directly relevant to the purpose of the study. Interviews can give a deeper understanding about the research subject because the interviewer get the opportunity to adopt, add and remove questions in response to what the interviewee has answered on previous questions. Doing the interviews and analysing them can be time consuming, a factor that should be regarded before selecting it as a mean for gathering information. (Bryman, 2002) Interviews can have different levels of formality and structure where one side of the scale is highly formalised and structured and the other side is an informal and unstructured conversation. There are several ways of categorising interviews but one of the most frequently used are: (Saunders et al., 2003) Structured interviews Semi‐structured interviews Unstructured interviews
Structured interviews use a standardised set of questions and the answers is recorded on a standardised schedule (Bryman, 2002). Semi‐structured and unstructured interviews differ from the structured interviews in the fact that they
are not standardised (Saunders et al., 2003). Structured interviews are used in quantitative research and semi‐structured and unstructured interviews are used in qualitative research (Bryman, 2002).
In a semi‐structured interview the interviewer has some predetermined questions and topics that should be covered during the interview. Some questions could be omitted when not found interesting and additional questions regarding interesting topics could be formulated during the course of the interview. Unstructured interviews are similar to semi‐structured but the interviewer often does not have a predetermined list of questions but rather have a clear understanding in the topics and aspects that will be explored during the interview. (Saunders et al., 2003) These kinds of interviews are more flexible and the answers from the interviewees are more detailed than structured interviews thus making them appropriate in qualitative research (Bryman, 2002).
Preparations are a vital part when conducting interviews. Do the questions cover the whole part that is to be investigated? Are the questions formulated so they can’t be misunderstood? Are the questions formulated so they suit the interviewee’s? According to Patel & Davidson (2003) these questions are good to ask yourself when conducting interviews.
The same authors state that several aspects need to be considered when formulating the questions. It is important to avoid: Long questions Leading questions Negations Questions that have presumptions about the interviewee Difficult words Ambiguous words Jargon Our interviews
During the course of our thesis work we have conducted several interviews. All but one of them has been semi‐structured interviews. The one that stands out from the rest is the continuous interviews and discussions that we have had with our supervisor at IFS, Sthengel‐Lund. These interviews and discussions can be seen as unstructured. The semi‐structured approach to the other interviews was chosen as we deemed this approach to be the most appropriate. It gave us the opportunity to formulate topics and questions that we wanted to investigate, but also gave us the chance to formulate new questions during the interview as interesting topics came up.
During the preparations for all the semi‐structured interviews we have gone through the guidelines for conducting interviews that can be seen in the chapter above. The interview templates used can be found in the appendix.
During the course of the thesis we have had weekly meetings with our supervisor at IFS. These have varied in time from about 30 minutes to several hours depending on the topics discussed. The level of structure have varied where some meetings can be seen as semi‐structured interviews but for the most part it has been more of an discussion. The two interviews with Travaglia and Olofsson were conducted via IFS’ internal video conference system since they were at another IFS office at that time. This gave us the opportunity to conduct the interviews over a distance, without losing the face to face contact that are lost when doing interviews over the phone. The interview with Travaglia gave us an insight in how IFS conduct their implementations and has influenced us in our choice of perspectives. The interview with Olofsson gave us insights into the beta test that was conducted for IFS Applications 7.5. This interview gave us the lessons learned from the previous beta test and also factors that we needed to investigate further.
During week 39 we also interviewed three IFS consultants that are going to be responsible for different customers during the EAP. The interviewees were Noble and Calendo from IFS North America and Graarud from IFS Norway. The purpose of the interviews was to hear their thoughts and their beliefs about the feasibility of our proposed model. These interviews were conducted at IFS´ Linköping office. The interview template can be found in Appendix III.
2.8.2. Literature study
Our definition of literature in this thesis is all written material, e.g. books, articles from academic journals or other printed media. Information gathered from a literature study is regarded as secondary data, e.g. the information gathered in those studies was intended to be used for another purpose than the current study. This makes it important to be aware of that the information found during the literature study can be biased or not a complete picture of the subject. (Björklund & Paulsson, 2003)
According to Saunders et al. (2003) the literature review forms the foundation which the research later is built upon. The literature review gives the researcher a good understanding about the subject and insights into previous research in the same subject (Saunders et al., 2003).
Saunders et al. (2003) also provide some guidelines for writing the literature review. Some of the guidelines are:
To include key academic theories within the chosen area
