臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究旨在探討已導入企業資源規劃系統(ERP)的台灣紡織公司中，影響使用人員接納系統、使用態度的個人差異與認知信念因素的關係。ERP系統具有及時整合跨部門繁複資訊、提昇資訊正確性、簡化工作程序並提升企業快速反應外在環境的能力，因此堪稱企業在面對激烈競爭環境下最適合的輔助系統。但許多企業導入系統後，卻陷入效益不如預期的窘境，主因在於組織內人員抗拒，造成利用率偏低，而產生“生產力的矛盾(productivity paradox)”情況，因此本研究希望以使用者的角度，透過相關文獻歸納出影響使用者接納與使用系統態度的因素。
由國內外接受資訊科技行為理論模式中，以個人差異與認知信念角度共歸納出象徵性的接納(SA)、使用系統態度(A)、電腦自我效能(CSE)、認知易用性(EOU)、認知有用性(U)、相容性(C)以及內外控人格特質(LOC)等七個構面，以便利抽樣方式對台灣已導入SAP/R3的企業內員工進行調查，研究結果發現台灣紡織從業人員相對於認知相容性與象徵性的接納，在使用系統態度、認知有用性、易用性與電腦自我效能上抱持相當正面樂觀的態度。此外建構的研究模式中，使用系統的態度、認知相容性對使用者接納系統扮演著關鍵性角色，此外內外控人格特質亦對電腦自我效能與認知易用性的關係產生強化干擾效果，提昇使用者的易用認知，進而影響使用態度與象徵性的接納。故如何提昇對ERP系統認知相容性，建立良好正確使用態度，利用人格量表篩選適合的種子學員，為導入ERP系統企業首要面對的課題。

The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship of the symbolic adoption, usage attitude of the Taiwan textile enterprises using Enterprise Recourse Planning (ERP) system. The functions of ERP systems are including integrating the complicated cross-sectoral information immediately, improving the accuracy of information, simplifying the process of working, and enhancing the ability of response. ERP systems are the proper tools for enterprises in highly competitive environment. However, many enterprises lost efficiency after using ERP systems due to internal staff resistances, which caused decreased usage and productivity paradox. Therefore, this study through related references generalizes the reasons for the symbolic adoption and usage attitude in the perspectives of usage.

It generalizes the seven categories, SA, A, CSE, EOU, U, C, and LOC, of the perspectives of usage in the behavior theories of the technology acceptance model to investigate the enterprises using SAP/R3 ERP systems with reliance on available subjects. The results show that the employees in textile enterprises in Taiwan are more positive and optimal about System Usage Attitudes, Perceived Usefulness, Ease of Use, and Computer Self-Efficiency comparing with Perceives Compatibility and Symbolic Adoption. In an externally constructed research model, attitudes towards System Usage, Perceives Compatibility, and User System Adoption act as key factors. In addition, the factor, Internal-External Locus of Control, has strong impact on Computer Self-Efficiency and Perceived Ease of Use which are about the improvement of Perceived Ease of Use, and the effect of Usage Attitudes and Symbolic Adoption, furthermore. The significant subjects of enterprises using ERP systems is how to improve Perceives Compatibility, establish a appropriate Usage Attitude, and select the proper initial trainees with personality scale.

-目次-
論文摘要 i
英文摘要(ABSTRACT) iii
致謝 v
目次 vi
表目次 viii
圖目次 ix
第一章　緒論 1
第一節　研究背景 1
第二節　研究動機 3
第三節　研究目的 5
第四節　研究流程 6
第二章　文獻探討 7
第一節　三個重要的意圖模式 8
第二節　其他重要使用者接受資訊系統理論模式 18
第三節　人格特質 24
第三章　研究方法 30
第一節　研究架構 30
第二節　研究假說 31
第三節　研究變項之操作定義與衡量工具 37
第四節　研究範圍與對象 41
第五節　研究工具 42
第六節　資料分析方法 44
第七節　信度與效度分析 45
第四章　資料分析與結果 51
第一節　敘述性統計分析 51
第二節　假設路徑驗證結果 54
第三節　使用系統態度中介效果推論 60
第五章　結論與建議 64
第一節　研究結論 64
第二節　管理意涵 70
第三節　研究限制與未來研究方向 72
參考文獻 74
附錄一 正式問卷 81
附錄二 各變數構面題項之負荷量(λ)、T檢定值與複合信度(CR) 85


-表目次-
表2-1 TAM、TRA、TPB之比較表 16
表2-2電腦自我效能與電腦學習成就、使用相關研究 21
表2-3內外控人格特質的特徵及形容 27
表2-4內外控人格特質與學習相關研究 29
表3-1變項衡量問項彙總表 40
表3-2預測問卷各構面Cronbach’s α信度分析彙整表 43
表3-3 Cronbach’s α 係數彙整表 46
表3-4各變項之驗證性因素分析結果 47
表3-5各構面之收斂效度檢定 49
表3-6各構面間區別效度檢定 50
表4-1樣本結構分析表 52
表4-2各變項構面間相關矩陣表 54
表4-3假設路徑驗證結果彙整表 55
表4-4模式整體配適度 56
表4-5使用系統態度對電腦自我效能及象徵性接納的中介效果巢狀模式之比較分析 60
表4-6使用系統態度對認知易用性及象徵性接納的中介效果巢狀模式之比較分析 61
表4-7使用系統態度對認知有用性及象徵性接納的中介效果巢狀模式之比較分析 62
表4-8使用系統態度對相容性及象徵性接納的中介效果巢狀模式之比較分析 63
表5-1電腦自我效能對相關構面之驗證結果 64
表5-2認知易用性、認知有用性對相關構面之驗證結果 65
表5-3相容性對相關構面之驗證結果 67
表5-4使用系統態度對象徵性的接納之驗證結果 68
表5-5人格特質之干擾效果 69


-圖目次-
圖1-1本研究之流程 6
圖2-2理性行為理論架構圖 9
圖2-3計劃行為理論架構圖 12
圖2-4科技接受模式理論架構圖 14
圖2-5 Triadic Reciprocality or Reciprocal Determinism 19
圖3-1研究架構圖 31
圖4-1本研究模式SEM檢定圖 59

中文文獻
1.邢漢民(2003)，「ERP導入所面對產業客製化問題之探究─以膠帶製造業為例」，私立中原大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文。
2.何應欽、許秉瑜、申元洪(2004)，「企業資源規劃系統之執行效果-以台灣企業為研究對象」，商管科技季刊，第5卷、第四期、頁391-416。
3.林東清、許孟祥(1997)，「資訊管理研究方法調查探討」，資訊管理學報，四卷、第一期，頁21-40。
4.林錦清(2002)，「組織焦慮影響員工角色結構壓力與工作倦怠關係之研究」，國防管理學院資源管理研究所碩士論文。
5.吳秉恩(1993)，「組織行為學」。台北:華泰書局。
6.吳靜吉等(1994)，「心理學」。台北：國立空中大學。
7.房佳緯(1998)，「企業導入ERP系統之個案研究」，國立交通大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文。
8.張春興(1986)，「心理學」，台北：東華書局。
9.張進上(1990)，「新制師院生控制信念與生活適應之研究」，台南師範學院學報，第23期。
10.許佑菱(2005)，「企業導入國內外ERP套裝軟體之現況分析」，國立中央大學企業管理學系碩士在職專班碩士論文。
11.陳焜元(1995)，「行政管理資訊系統使用者參與效果之研究-技術接受性模式檢證」，國立政治大學公共行政研究所碩士論文。
12.黃郁雯(2003)，「電腦自我效能、電腦經驗及他人支持三者與電腦態度及電腦焦慮之關係」，國立政治大學心理學研究所碩士論文。
13.楊國樞(2001)，「社會及行為科學研究方法」，台北：東華書局。
14.萬鈞萍(2003)，「外銷導向之中小企業採用電子市集因素之探討-以手工具業為例」，私立中原大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文。
15.鄭臻妹(2001)，「內外控人格特質、工作特性及工作績效之分析研究-台灣高科技產業員工為例」，國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。
16.蕭怡祺(2003)，「使用者因素與成熟度層級對組織績效的影響：軟體能力成熟度為例」，國立清華大學科技管理研究所碩士論文。

英文文獻
1.Adamson, I. & Shine, J. (2003), “Extending the new technology acceptance model to measure the end user information systems satisfaction in a mandatory environment: A banks treasury”, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 15(4), pp.441-455.
2.Agarwal, R. and J. Prasad. (1999), “Are Individual Difference Germane to the Acceptance of New Information Technology?” Decision, Sciences, 30(3), pp.361-391.
3.Allport, G. W. and Odbert H. S. (1936), Trait Names, A Psycholexical Study, Psychological Monographs, 47.
4.Appleton, Elaine L. (1997), “How to survive ERP”, 43(3), pp.50.
5.Ajzen, I. and Fishbein M. (1980), “Understanding Attitude and Predicting Social Behavior”, Englewood Cliffs, NJ; Prentice Hall.
6.Ajzen, I. (1985), “From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behaveior”, In Kuhl J. & Beckmann J. (EDS), Actional-control: From cognition to behaveior, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp.11-39.
7.Ajzen, I. (1991), “The Theory of Planned Behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), pp.179-211.
8.Bagchi, S., Kanungo, S. & Dasgupta, S. (2003), “Modeling use of enterprise resource planning system: A path analytic study”, European Journal of Information Systems, 12(2), pp.142-158.
9.Baggozzi, p. & Yi, Y. (1998), “On the evaluation of structural equation model.” Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), pp.74-94.
10.Bagozzi, R. P., Davis, F. and Warshaw, P. R. (1992), “Development and test of a theory of technological learning and usage”, Human Relations, 45(7), New York, pp.16.
11.Bandura, A. (1977), “self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change”, Psychological Review, 18(2), pp.191-215.
12.Bandura, A. (1982), “self-efficacy mechanism in human agency”, American Psychologist, 37, pp.122-147.
13.Bandura, A. (1986), “Social Foundations of Thought and Action”, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Boone, Christphe, Brabander, Bert De., Carree, Martin., de Jong, Gjalt., van Olffen,
14.Boone, Christphe, Brabander, Bert De., Carree, Martin, de Jong, Gjalt, van Olffen, Woody, & van Witteloostuijr, Arjen. (2002), “Locus of control and learning to cooperate in a prisoner’s dilemma game”, Personality and Individual Differences, 32(5), pp. 929-946.
15.Chau, P. Y. K, and Hu, P. J. (2002), “Examining a model of information technology acceptance by individual professional: AN exploratory study”, Journal of Management System, 18(4), pp.191-229.
16.Compeau, D. R. and Higgins, C. A. (1995), “Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test”, MIS Quarterly, June, pp.189-211.
17.Davis, F. D. (1989), “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology”, MIS Quarterly, 13(3), pp.319-340.
18.Davenport, T. H. (1998), “Putting the Enterprise into the Enterprise System”, Harvard Business Review, 76(4), pp.121-131.
19.Day, David, V. (1989), “spring 1989 Personality and Job Performance：Evidence of Incremental Va.”, Personality Psychology, Durham.
20.Garver, M. S. and Mentzer, J. T. (1999), “Logistics Research Methods: Employing Structural Equation Modeling to test for Construct Vailidity”, Journal of Business Logistics, 20(1), pp.33-57.
21.Guilford, J. P. (1959), Personality, New York Phares.
22.Hill, T., Smith, N. D. & Mann, M. F. (1987), “Role of efficacy expectations in predicting the decision to use advanced technologies: The case of computers”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, pp.307-313.
23.Harrison, A. W., Rainer, R. K. Jr., Hochwarter, W. A. & Thompson, K. R. (1997). “Testing the self-efficacy-performance linkage of social-cognitive theory.” The Journal of Social Psychology, 137(1), pp.79-87.
24.Hu, P. J., P. Y. K. Chau, O. R. Liu Sheng, and K. Y. Tam (1999), “Examining the Technology Acceptance Model Using Physician Acceptance of Telemedicine Technology”, Journal of Management Information System, 16(2), pp.91-112.
25.Igbaria, M. and Ivari, J. (1995), “The Effect of Self-Efficacy on Computer Usage”, Elsevier Science, 23(6), pp.587-605.
26.Joe, V.C. (1971), “Review of the internal–external control construct as a personality variable”, Psychology Reports, April, pp.619-40.
27.Judge, Timothy, A., Joyce, E. & Bono (2001), “Relationship of Core Self-Evaluation-self-Esteem, Generalized Self-Efficacy, Locus of Control, and Emotional Stability--with Job Satisfaction and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), pp.80-92.
28.Karsten, K. & Roth, R. M. (1998), “The relationship of computer experience and computer self-efficacy to performance in introductory computer literacy courses”, Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(1), pp.14-24.
29.Karahanna, E. (1999), “Symbolic Adoption of Information Technology”, Paper presented at the International Decision Sciences.
30.Klongau, G. E., & Coward, E. W. J., “The Concept of Symbolic Adoption：A Suggested Interpretation”, Rural Sociology, 35(1), pp.77-83.
31.Landauer, T. K. (1995), “The Trouble with Computer：Usefulness, Usability, and Productiviey, MIT Press”, Caubridge, MA.
32.Mathieson, K. (1991), “Predicting User Intentions: Comparing the Technology Acceptance Model with the Theory of Planned Behavior”, Information Systems Research, 2(3), pp.173-191.
33.Mitchell, T. R. (1979), “Organizational Behavior’’, Annual Review of Psychology, 22, pp.426-435.
34.Moore, G. C. & Benbasat, I. (1991), “Development of an instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation”, Information System Research, 2(3), pp.192-22.
35.Morris, Michael G. and Viswanath Venkatesh (2000), “Age Differences in Technology Adoption Decision：Implication for a Changing Work Force”, Personnel Psychology, 53, pp.375-403.
36.Nunnally, J. C. (1978), “Psychometric Theory”, 2th ed., N.Y.Mcgraw-Hill.
37.Phares, E. J. (1973), “Locus of control: Apersonality determinant of behaveior”, Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
38.Phares, E. J. (1976), “Locus of control in personality. Morristown”, NJ: General Learning Press.
39.“Performance: A Meta-Analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), pp.80-92.
40.Rawstorne, P., Jayasuriya, R. & Caputi, P. (1998), “An Integrative Model of Information Systems Use in Mandatory Environment”, Paper Presented at the Ineernational Conference on Information Systems, Helsinki Finland.
41.Rotter, J (1954), “Social learning and clinical psychology”, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
42.Rotter, J. B. (1966), “Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement”, Psychological Monographs, 33, pp.300-303.
43.Robbins, S.P. (1998), Organizational Behavior (8th Ed.), Upper Saddle River, NJ. Prentice Hall International.
44.Roger, E. M. (1995), Diffusion of Innovations (4th Ed.), New York：The Free Press.
45.Spector, P. E. (1982), “Behavior in organizations as a function of employee’s locus of control”, Psychological Bulletin, 91, pp.482-497.
46.Spector, P. E. (1986), “Interaction effects of perceived control and job stressors on affective reactions and health outcomes for clerical workers”, Work & Stress, 1, pp.155.
47.Taylor, S. and Todd, P. A. (1995), “Assessing IT Usage：The Role of Prior Experience”, MIS Quarterly, 19(4), pp.561-570.
48.Tam, S. F. (1996), “Self-efficacy as a predictor of computer skills learning outcomes of individuals with physical disabilities”, The Journal of Psychology, 130(1), pp.51-58.
49.Venketesh, V. and Davis, F. D. (2000), “A Theoretical Extension of Technology Acceptance Model：Four Longitudinal Field Studies”, Management Science, 45(2), pp.186-204.
50.Venketesh, V. and Davis, F. D. (1996), “A Model of the Antecedents of Perceived Ease of Use：Develop and Test”, Decision Science, 27(3), pp.451-480.
51.Venkatesh, V. and Speier, C. (1999), “Computer technology training in the workplace: A longitudinal investigation of the effect of mood”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79(1), pp.1-28.
52.Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B. and Davis, F. D. (2003), “User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View”, MIS Quarterly, 27, pp.425-478.
53.Wigen, Kristin, Holen, Are, & Ellingsen, Evind. (2003), “Predicting academic success by group behavior in PBL”, Medical Teacher, 25(1), pp.32-37.
54.Woody & van Witteloostuijr, Arjen. (2002), “Locus of control and learning to cooperate in a prisoner’s dilemma game”, Personality and Individual Differences, 32(5), pp. 929-946.