Enhancing User Experience of Enterprise Systems for Improved Employee Productivity: A First Stage of Case Study

  • Honglei LiEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9191)


User experience has been regarded as the focus of technology design following the diffusion of information technology into the society level. There are many researches discussing user experience as a concept from the software testing and design perspective and seldom the specific dimensions of user experience are investigated. This research attempted to conduct a case study to explore the psychological dimensions of user experience from the interpersonal relationship theoretical perspective. Specifically, a case study on the usage of SAP ERP system has been conducted and 8 enterprise systems users have been interviewed to reflect on their interactions with the ERP system. The interpersonal relationship features is reported missing from the current enterprise systems design. Implications to both researchers and practitioners are provided.


User experience Interpersonal relationship Case study Enterprise systems 


  1. 1.
    Hassenzahl, M., Tractinsky, N.: User experience – a research agenda. Behav. Inf. Technol. 25(2), 91–97 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Suh, K.-S., Chang, S.: User interfaces and consumer perceptions of online stores: the role of telepresence. Behav. Inf. Technol. 25(2), 99–113 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amoako-Gyampah, K., Salam, A.F.: An extension of the technology acceptance model in an ERP implementation environment. Inf. Manag. 41(6), 731–745 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bereron, F., et al.: Determinants of EIS use: testing a behavioral model. Decis. Support Syst. 14(2), 131–146 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deng, L., et al.: User experience, satisfaction, and continual usage intention of IT. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 19(1), 60–75 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hirschheim, R.A.: User experience with and assessment of participative systems design. MIS Q. 9(4), 295–304 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Appelbaum, S.H.: Computerphobia: training managers to reduce the fears and love the machines. Ind. Commercial Train. 22(6), 9–16 (1990)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Taylor, S., Todd, P.: Assessing IT usage: the role of prior experience. MIS Q. 19(4), 561–570 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shneiderman, B.: Designing trust into online experiences. association for computing machinery. Commun. ACM 43(12), 57 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McCarthy, J., Wright, P.: Technology as experience. Interactions 11(5), 42–43 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Battarbee, K.: Co-experience: the social user experience. In: CHI 2003 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hsu, C.-L., Lu, H.-P.: Why do people play on-line games? an extended TAM with social influences and flow experience. Inf. Manag. 41(7), 853–868 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McNamara, N., Kirakowski, J.: Functionality, usability, and user experience: three areas of concern. Interactions 13(6), 26–28 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sánchez-Franco, M.J., Roldán, J.L.: Web acceptance and usage model: a comparison between goal-directed and experiential web users. Internet Res. 15(1), 21–48 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kohler, T., et al.: Co-creation in virtual worlds: the design of the user experience. MIS Q. 35(3), 773–788 (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Battarbee, K., Koskinen, I.: Co-experience: user experience as interaction. CoDesign 1(1), 5–18 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tolia, N., Andersen, D.G., Satyanarayanan, M.: Quantifying interactive user experience on thin clients. Computer 39(3), 46–52 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hackbarth, G., Grover, V., Yi, M.Y.: Computer playfulness and anxiety: positive and negative mediators of the system experience effect on perceived ease of use. Inf. Manag. 40(3), 221–232 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hassenzahl, M., Diefenbach, S., Göritz, A.: Needs, affect, and interactive products–Facets of user experience. Interact. Comput. 22(5), 353–362 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Maslow, A.H.: Toward a Psychology of Being. Start Publishing LLC, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kim, J., Jin, B., Swinney, J.L.: The role of e-tail quality, e-satisfaction and e-trust in online loyalty development process. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 16(4), 239–247 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schutz, W.C.: The Interpersonal Underworld, p. 242. Science & Behavior Books. xi, Palo Alto (1966)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schutz, W.C.: FIRO: A Three-Dimensional Theory of Interpersonal Behavior, p. 267. Rinehart, New York (1958)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hurley, J.R.: Does FIRO-B relate better to interpersonal or intrapersonal behavior? J. Clin. Psychol. 46(4), 454–460 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Furnham, A.: The fakeability of the 16 PF, Myers-Briggs and FIRO-B personality measures. Personality Individ. Differ. 11(7), 711–716 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Furnham, A.: The FIRO-B, the learning style questionnaire, and the five-factor model. J. Soc. Behav. Pers. 11(2), 285–299 (1996)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ilgen, D.R., O’Brien, G.: Leader-member relations in small groups. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 12(3), 335–350 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Di Marco, N.J.: Supervisor-subordinate life-style and interpersonal need compatibilities as determinants of subordinate’s attitudes toward the supervisor. Acad. Manag. J. 17(3), 575–578 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hill, R.E.: Managing Interpersonal Conflict in Project Teams. Sloan Manag. Rev. (pre-1986) 18(2), 45–61 (1977)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Smith, P.B., Linton, M.J.: Group composition and changes in self-actualization in t-groups. Hum. Relat. 28(9), 811–823 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fisher, S.G., Macrosson, W.D.K., Walker, C.A.: FIRO-B: the power of love and the love of power. Psychol. Rep. 76(1), 195–206 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hewett, T.T., O’Brien, G.E.: The effects of work organization, leadership style, and member compatibility upon the productivity of small groups working on a manipulative task. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 11(2), 283–301 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chen, W., Hirschheim, R.: A paradigmatic and methodological examination of information systems research from 1991 to 2001. Inf. Syst. J. 14(3), 197–235 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage publications, Thousand Oaks (2014)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Moneta, G.B., et al.: The effect of perceived challenges and skills on the quality of subjective experience. Journal of personality 64(2), 275–310 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Information Sciences, Faculty of Engineering and EnvironmentNorthumbria UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK

Personalised recommendations