Small Business Economics

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 241–256 | Cite as

Adoption of Enterprise Application Software and Firm Performance



Due to the rapidly changing business and IT environments, firm-level adoption of IT shifted from in-house development to purchasing EA software. This paper analyzes the effects of EA (Enterprise Application) software – ERP, CRM, SCM, Groupware, KM, EAI – on SMEs’ productivity. The distinct feature of this paper is that I use a formal econometric approach with combined data of SMEs’ accounting and IT usage aspects, while case studies have been mostly used in the previous works. The empirical results show that Groupware and SCM significantly raise the SMEs’ productivity, and the manufacturing sector has stronger effects than the service sector. From these results, the following implications are derived. First, the adoption rate and the real benefits of EA software are not closely related domestically. Second, in SMEs, EA software facilitating the inter-firm relationship is more effective than EA software focusing on the internal efficiency. Third, easy-to-understand, and relatively long-experienced enterprise applications are more effective than hard-to-understand and brand-new applications. Finally, the government IT policy on SMEs should focus on the process coordination and standardization of the manufacturing sector with upstream and downstream firms.


SMEs Enterprise Application Software ERP CRM productivity 

Jel Classification

D21 D24 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Acs, Zoltan J., L. F. de Groot Henri and Peter Nijkamp, 2002, The Emergence of the Knowledge Economy: A Regional Perspective, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  2. Bank of Korea, 2000, ‘Recent Changes in Equipment Investment’, BOK Monthly Report, 1–22.Google Scholar
  3. Brynolfsson, E., Hitt, L. 1996‘Paradox lost?: Firm-level evidence on the returns to information systems’Management Science42541558Google Scholar
  4. Cotteleer, M., R. Austin and R. Nolan, 1998, ‘Cisco Systems, Inc.: Implementing ERP’, Harvard Business School Case, Report No. 9-699-022.Google Scholar
  5. Dedrick J., V. Gurbaxani and K. L. Kraemer, 2002, ‘Information Technology & Economic Performance: Firm and Country Evidence’, manuscript, Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
  6. Dolmetsch, R., Huber, T., Fleisch, E., österle, H. 1998‘Accelerated SAP: 4 case studies’Institute for Information Management, University of St. GallenSwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  7. Ernst and Young (2001), Eighth annual special report on technology in banking and Financial Services.Google Scholar
  8. Gibson, N., Holland, C., Light, B. 1999‘A case study of a fast track SAP R/3 implementation at Guilbert’International Journal of Electronic Markets9190193Google Scholar
  9. Hayn, C. 1995‘The information content of losses’Journal of Accounting and Economics20125153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Huff, P. L., Harper, R. M.,Jr., Eikner, A. E. 1999‘Are there differences in liquidity and solvency measures based on company size?’American Business Review1796106Google Scholar
  11. Koch, C. 1996, ‘The integration nightmare: Sounding the Alarm’, CIO Magazine 6–10.Google Scholar
  12. Lee, H. L., Padmanabhan, V., Whang, S. 1997‘The bullwhip effect in supply chains’Sloan Management Review3893102Google Scholar
  13. Lucchetti, Riccardo, Alessandro, Sterlacchini 2004‘The Adoption of ICT among SMEs: Evidence from an Italian Survey’Small Business Economics23151168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McAfee, A., 1999, ‘The impact of enterprise resource planning systems on company Performance’, Unpublished presentation at Wharton Electronic Supply Chain Conference.Google Scholar
  15. MIC, 2002, e-Korea: Vision 2006, Ministry of Information and Communication Republic of Korea.Google Scholar
  16. OECD, 2001, The Development of Broadband Access in OECD countries, Scholar
  17. O’Leary, D., 2000, Enterprise Resource Planning Systems: Systems, Life Cycle, Electronic Commerce, and Risk, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. österle, H., Feisch, E., Alt, R. 2000Business Networking: Shaping Enterprise Relationships on the InternetSpringerNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. PriceWaterhouseCoppers1999Technology ForecastPriceWaterhouseCoppersPalo Alto, CAGoogle Scholar
  20. Rigby, D. K., F. F. Reicheld and P. Schefter 2002, ‘Avoid the four perils of CRM’, Harvard Business Review.Google Scholar
  21. Shin, I. 2000‘Use of Information Network and Organizational Productivity: Firm-level Evidence in Korea’Economics of Innovation and New Technology9447463Google Scholar
  22. Soh, C., Kien, S. S., Tay-Yap,  2000‘Cultural fits and misfits: is ERP a Universal Solution?’Communications of ACM434751Google Scholar
  23. Swan, J., Newell, C., Robertson, M. 1999‘The Illusion of ‘best practice’ in Information System for Operations Management’European Journal of Information Systems8284293Google Scholar
  24. TIME Asia, 2000, ‘Wired for life overnight’, 12–11, 2000.Google Scholar
  25. Varian, H. 1990Microeconomic AnalysisMIT PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Wah, L. 2000, ‘Give ERP a Chance’, Management Review 20–24.Google Scholar
  27. Westerman, G., M. Cotteleer, R. Austin and R. Nolan 1999, ‘Tektronix: Implementing ERP’, Harvard Business School Case, Report No. 9-699-043.Google Scholar
  28. Zhou, , Xiaoge, , Hitt, , Lorin, M., Wu, D.J. 2002‘ERP investment: business impact, productivity measures’Journal of Management Information Systems197190Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EconomicsInha UniversityNam-GuKorea

Personalised recommendations