The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What Makes an ERP Implementation Relationship Worthwhile: Linking Trust Mechanisms and ERP Usefulness
Abstract
To a large extent, trust determines expected utility derived from business transactions where the trusting party is dependent upon others, but lacks control over them. In many instances, this typifies the relationship between clients and an enterprise resource planning (ERP) customization vendor. This exploratory study examines how trust is built during an ERP implementation, and the relative weight of this trust compared with the perceived qualities of the implemented ERP itself in determining clients' assessment that the business relationship with the vendor is worthwhile. The data, collected from companies that were involved in the process of implementing a new ERP with the on-site assistance of a certain customization vendor, show that all three trust antecedents suggested by Zucker's seminal study of trust-- process-based, characteristic-based, and institution-based mechanisms--contribute significantly to client trust. The data also show that client trust in this customization vendor and the perceived usefulness of the ERP both contribute to client assessment that their business relationship with the vendor is worthwhile, showing that both getting the job done and creating a trust-based relationship contribute to this assessment. The implications of the importance of creating trust in ERP implementation and the means of doing how to do so are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224299405800302 · Cited by 22,355
The Behavioral Consequences of Service Quality
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.2307/1251929 · Cited by 12,003
Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.3.1.60 · Cited by 10,697
Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model1
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036519 · Cited by 8,635
Self-citationAn Examination of the Nature of Trust in Buyer-Seller Relationships
Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.2307/1251829 · Cited by 6,822
Determinants of Long-Term Orientation in Buyer-Seller Relationships
Ganesan, S. (1994) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224299405800201 · Cited by 6,741
Modern Methods for Business Research
(1998) · doi:10.4324/9781410604385 · Cited by 6,534
(2003) · International Journal of Electronic Commerce · doi:10.1080/10864415.2003.11044275 · Cited by 5,715
Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: an integrative typology
McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.13.3.334.81 · Cited by 5,550
Relationship Quality in Services Selling: An Interpersonal Influence Perspective
Crosby, L. A., Evans, K. R., & Cowles, D. (1990) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224299005400306 · Cited by 4,763
Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2578601 · Cited by 4,163
Deutsch, M. (1958) · Journal of Conflict Resolution · doi:10.1177/002200275800200401 · Cited by 2,077
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpande, R. (1992) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224379202900303 · Cited by 1,901
Consumer trust in an internet store: a cross-cultural validation
Jarvenpaa, S. L., Tractinsky, N., & Saarinen, L. (2006) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.1999.tb00337.x · Cited by 1,882 · cited 2×
“Some researchers take a third stand, labeling the specific beliefs as trustworthiness and regarding them as antecedents of the general belief in trust (e.g., [6, 47, 61]).”
BackgroundUnderstanding the influence of national culture on the development of trust
Doney, P. M., Cannon, J. P., & Mullen, M. R. (1998) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259297 · Cited by 1,844
Technological frames: making sense of information technology in organizations
Orlikowski, W. J., & Gash, D. C. (1994) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/196734.196745 · Cited by 1,736
The social control of impersonal trust
Shapiro, S. P. (1987) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/228791 · Cited by 1,725
Some antecedents and effects of trust in virtual communities
Ridings, C. M., Gefen, D., & Arinze, B. (2002) · The Journal of Strategic Information Systems · doi:10.1016/s0963-8687(02)00021-5 · Cited by 1,423 · cited 1×
“In virtual communities, integrity and benevolence are reported to form one dimension and ability another [79], and in some cases of online shopping, the three beliefs are united [38].”
BackgroundSelf-citationInexperience and experience with online stores: the importance of TAM and trust
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003) · IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management · doi:10.1109/tem.2003.817277 · Cited by 965
Self-citationConceptual and methodological considerations in the study of trust and suspicion
Kee, H. W., & Knox, R. E. (1970) · Journal of Conflict Resolution · doi:10.1177/002200277001400307 · Cited by 523 · cited 1×
“Other researchers define trust as a willingness to be vulnerable [61, 65, 96] or as a willingness to depend based on specific beliefs [5, 50].”
Background
Cited by
A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model
King, W. R., & He, J. (2006) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2006.05.003 · Cited by 2,906
Technology acceptance model: a literature review from 1986 to 2013
Marangunić, N., & Granić, A. (2015) · Universal Access in the Information Society · doi:10.1007/s10209-014-0348-1 · Cited by 2,458
Gefen, D., & Straub, D. W. (2004) · Omega · doi:10.1016/j.omega.2004.01.006 · Cited by 2,025
Self-citationConsumer e-shopping acceptance: Antecedents in a technology acceptance model
Ha, S., & Stoel, L. (2009) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.06.016 · Cited by 1,353
Wu, I.-L., & Chen, J.-L. (2005) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.03.003 · Cited by 879
Metadata
- Authors
- GEFEN, D.
- Venue
- Journal of Management Information Systems
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2004-07-01
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 263-288
- ISSN
- 0742-1222 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-928X
- OpenAlex
- W1750852111
- Cited by
- 365
- References
- 21
- FWCI
- 25.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
