ERP Acceptance: The Role of Affective Commitment

  • Rocco Agrifoglio
  • Concetta Metallo
Conference paper


This study investigates the process of acceptance and use of ERP system by its users. The TAM is used as a starting point for this work. We assume that affective commitment directly also affects both the behavioral intention to ERP system use and it moderates the relationships between perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and behavioral intention. A survey methodology was used to gather data from an Italian public transport firm. Findings show the importance of affective commitment in determining acceptance and use behavior by users.


Partial Little Square Behavioral Intention Organizational Commitment Technology Acceptance Model Affective Commitment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Davenport TH, Stoddard DB (1994) Reengineering: business change of mythic proportions?. MIS Quarterly, 48(2):121–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Markus ML, Axline S, Petrie D, Tanis SC (2000) Learning from adopters’ experiences with ERP: problems encountered and success achieved. Journal of Information Technology, 15(4):245–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davis FD (1986) Technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: theory and results. MIT: Doctoral dissertation. CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3):319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3):425–478Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    King WR, He J (2006) A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 43(6):740–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Malhotra Y, Galletta DF (1999) Extending the technology acceptance model to account for social influence: theoretical bases and empirical validation. In: Proceedings of the Hawaii international conference on system sciences. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los AlamitosGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Malhotra Y, Galletta DF (2005) A multidimensional commitment model of volitional systems adoption and usage behavior. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(1):117–152.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Li D, Browne GJ, Chau PYK (2006) An empirical investigation of web site use using a commitment-based model. Decision Sciences, 37(3):427–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Magni M, Pennarola F (2008) Intra-organizational relationships and technology acceptance. International Journal of Information Management, 28(6):517–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kwahk KY, Lee JN (2008) The role of readiness for change in ERP implementation: theoretical bases and empirical validation. Information & Management, 45(7):474-–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    O’Reilly C, Chatman J (1986) Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: the effects of compliance, identification and internalisation on prosocial behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3):492–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Allen NJ, Meyer JP (1990) The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1): 1–18Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thatcher JB, McKnight DH, Ahuja MK (2002) Thework environment and technology acceptance: the influence of affective commitment, autonomy and trust. Information systems technical reports and working papers.Kellyschool of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Venkatesh V, Davis FD (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2):186–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Sciences, 35(8):982–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Abdi H (2003) Partial least squares (PLS) regression. In: M Lewis-Beck M, A Bryman A, T Futing T (eds.), Encyclopedia of social sciences research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gefen D, Straub T (2000) The relative importance of perceived ease-of-use in IS adoption: a study of e-commerce adoption. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 1(8):1–30Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ma Q, Liu L (2004) The technology acceptance model: a meta-analysis of empirical findings. Journal of Organ and End User Computing, 16(1):59–72.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Management DepartmentParthenope UniversityNaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations